It's fine.
It’s lowbro genre slop that predditors love
My impression of this book from what other people told me was that it was really high class and innovative. Then I read it and it was just a blatant gimmick that didn't even amount to anything.
It has fake quotes from famous people.
>>25289691>filtered by postmodernityNever stop chudding
>>25289684I'm reading it. It's alright. I'm just eager to watch the backrooms.
stemtards with no penchant for liberal arts love this glorified gimmicky diary for some reason
>>25289700only fans of genre fiction are impressed by this book it seems, which makes sense, i'd think this book was a masterpiece too if all i read was adjacent to manchildcore
>>25291013two of the letters in STEM are liberal arts.
>>25289684sell me on it, as if I was a sleazy american editor dripping fat
>>25291033Pale Fire for midwits
>>25291027three, retard. this doesn't change the fact that stemtards never understand liberal arts/humanities as well as history or english majors
>>25291033there's a cumshot on latina tits scene
>>25291035pale fire? never heard'ov'it>>25291040how old?
>>25289684You the guy who posted in the other thread with the unfinished rubix cube and the hundreds of dollars worth of Wamhammy Forty Pickup Sticks omnibuses in the background?
>>25289691>lowbro
>>25289684People take it way too seriously. Either they dismiss the book wholesale for being riddled with gimmicks, or it gets praised as a daring metatextual masterpiece. The reality is that it’s a bit of both. You can’t commit to this spliced and contorted approach to text and formatting without some parts of it being inevitably shit. Much fat could have been trimmed, but that goes against the logic of the house/book which is always in excess of anything that could contain it.
>>25291118thank you for the write-upi've noticed that House of Leaves threads (even on /v//) get many decent replies, without getting political or religiousI never read the book, although discussions about it remind me of 1800s Catholic literature (which I don't like, way to irreverent and crass: makes one want to slice off his foreskin and become a Jew... I ain't jokin')
>>25291027there are plenty of stemtards that are bad at science (despite their I HECKIN LOVE attitude), so obviously there are also stemtards that are bad at liberal arts. you couldn't figure this out on your own?
>>25291094>2.5% are we back to drinking smallbeer for breakfast before working the fields?
>>25291118It is gimmicky though. There's no diegetic reason for the gimmicks, they're just there for the sake of being there.
>>25291374>There's no diegetic reason for the gimmicksHard disagree, I addressed that in my post already. The text forces the reader to follow all these different detours, recursions or dead ends, just as the house does to the Navidson family. The wild formatting makes the book feel like the architecture of a labyrinth, since your eyes actually have to “explore” the text in a non-linear way (ie, not simply scrolling left to right). It makes total diegetic sense. That isn’t the issue. The problem is that when a book throws so much random shit at you, it’s inevitable that some of those gimmicks ultimately don’t stick. It’s the price you pay for experimentation. I would say about a 1/3rd of the book is ass (mostly the Johnny sections). The Navidson Record is mostly top tier tho
