Imatge de l'autor

Mark Z. Danielewski

Autor/a de La casa de hojas

15 obres 20,619 Membres 486 Ressenyes 102 preferits

Sobre l'autor

Mark Z. Danielewski is the author of House of Leaves, The Whalestoe Letters, Only Revolutions, The Fifty Year Sword, and The Familiar. (Bowker Author Biography)
Crèdit de la imatge: Photo (c) Marion Ettlinger

Sèrie

Obres de Mark Z. Danielewski

La casa de hojas (2000) 15,778 exemplars, 375 ressenyes
Only Revolutions: A Novel (2006) 2,106 exemplars, 34 ressenyes
The Familiar, Volume 1: One Rainy Day in May (2015) 753 exemplars, 19 ressenyes
The Fifty Year Sword (2005) 653 exemplars, 28 ressenyes
The Whalestoe Letters (2000) — Autor — 490 exemplars, 9 ressenyes
The Familiar, Volume 2: Into the Forest (2015) 305 exemplars, 5 ressenyes
The Familiar, Volume 3: Honeysuckle & Pain (2016) 210 exemplars, 5 ressenyes
The Familiar, Volume 4: Hades (2017) 154 exemplars, 3 ressenyes
The Familiar, Volume 5: Redwood (2017) 115 exemplars, 5 ressenyes
The Little Blue Kite (2019) 47 exemplars, 3 ressenyes
House of Leaves Pilot — Autor — 1 exemplars
Clip 4 1 exemplars
Yapraklar Evi (2018) 1 exemplars

Etiquetat

Coneixement comú

Nom normalitzat
Danielewski, Mark Z.
Data de naixement
1966-03-05
Gènere
male
Nacionalitat
USA
Lloc de naixement
New York, New York, USA
Llocs de residència
New York, New York, VS
Los Angeles, Californië, VS
Educació
Yale University (English Literature)
University of South Carolina (School of Cinema-Television)
Professions
author
Relacions
Danielewski, Tad (father)
Poe (sister)
Biografia breu
Mark Z. Danielewski werd geboren in 1966. Het kaartenhuis is zijn debuut.

Membres

Converses

House of leaves Mark Z. Danielewski a Thing(amabrarian)s That Go Bump in the Night (gener 2009)
House of Leaves a Someone explain it to me... (març 2008)

Ressenyes

The fact that this bullshit attempt at originality was ever published is the reason our world is fucked.
 
Marcat
capincus | Hi ha 374 ressenyes més | Jul 13, 2024 |
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/6518634670

What to say...

Friends in my spec-fic book club have been talking about House of Leaves off and on for a while. I took one look and said, "not for me, babe." A few weeks later I was having drinks with some folks and one asked something to the effect of, "do you like ergodic literature?" After ensuring they hadn't said, "erotic literature," I replied, what the hell is ergodic literature?"

A while after that, I was in my neighborhood bookshop looking for a copy of something I can't remember. I was in a money-spending mood and saw House of Leaves poking out of the shelf, one copy, already a little removed. Is this for me?

I opened it up and thumbed through. One of the first pages proclaims, "This is not for you." Well, we can't have that, can we? But $30 for an odd book that I might hate? I was in the right mood for it.

I did a lot of chuckling as I read, because it started to teach me a lot about how I read and interact with books. A bit in, I caught myself writing a note, asking a question in the margin. I thought about that. Here I am, asking a question in the margin (asking who?) of a fiction novel that is essentially about an academic write-up of a movie that may or may not exist, about a house that may or may not exist, that may or may not (but definitely isn't) be cousin to The Doctor's TARDIS. Oh, and there are footnotes by not one, not two, but three different sources and connections to not one but two appendices.

It's just clever! I enjoyed engaging with the story. Decoding messages in an appendix after reading 50 pages of someone's descent into mania and psychosis - why not? But decoding a second message in the same place? That practice making everything else suspect (do the dropcaps mean anything? Does the translation say what the editors, what JT, says???).

All very, very, fun for me. I loved the constant in and out of the multiple stories, the intentional immersion breaking, the mystery. Nothing is true, but everything is true. Who can you trust? It's a work of fiction, what's it matter? Why are you flipping back to a piece of paper that's in a collage to identify a symbol, what are you some kinda nerd?

I had a really, really, good time reading this. I may have looked a nut rotating it and taking pictures and flipping them so I could read other parts, but it just tickled my fancy. I'll let other, smarter, folks talk about what it all means. I just had a good time.
… (més)
 
Marcat
ThomasEB | Hi ha 374 ressenyes més | Jul 4, 2024 |
First, I've given this a cautious 3 even though I dithered over giving it 2 because of the work the author clearly put in, and because it stays in the mind, has a polarising effect on its readers, elicits conversations, and I enjoyed one part of it.

This is a tough book to review without breaking it into parts. Johnny Truant tells us his story of reading the Navidson report as written by an old man called Zampano. I found Truant’s sections irritating, constantly going off on tangents and telling a story seemingly unrelated to the notebook he’s reading, especially his gratuitous sexual encounters; although at one point I wondered if these were as imaginary as some of his hallucinations of personal peril. However, Navidson’s story as ‘written’ by the character of Zampano grabbed my attention but alas, made me want to read those sections without the interference of the rest.

Then there are the annotations, again many of which seem to tell the reader nothing. At best, they lend a kind of authenticity to Zampano’s note taking, but are almost entirely unnecessary. The experimental style of the book is mildly interesting, but all this extraneous information is taxing and makes the book drag. Early in the ‘report’, Zampano includes almost two pages of names, which turn out to be (according to a footnote) names of photographers. I didn’t bother reading through an entire list of names, which were there for no apparent reason I could see. The references to echoes and labyrinths seem somehow to refer to the novel itself. As does the sentence ‘All solutions are necessarily personal’ (page 115) appearing to suggest the outcome of the story (good or bad) will be unique to the individual.

In another, the author notes a real or fictional article (I don’t know which) remarking ‘In the future, readers of newspapers and magazines will probably view news pictures more as illustrations than as reportage…’ referring to the inability eventually to distinguish between genuine images and those manipulated. But in this, and references to other technology, once again the writer seems to manipulate the reader, telling us we can trust nothing.

And what is the point of the boxes of text or blank pages, other than to suggest the maze of corridors and wide open spaces within the supernatural realms of the ‘house’ investigated in the Navidson report? Likewise, later, lines the reader needs to read in the opposite direction, or from a corner, etc., appear to be representations of Navidson’s exploration.

Whilst reading I couldn’t help thinking that so many reviewers told others not to bother, and yet, the book remains acclaimed. On the one hand, the author has written something incredible when one considers the work of putting all the content together — that of Zampano’s notebook and Truant’s experiences while reading said book — with all the annotations. It must have been a pain to organise and to print, especially when first published. But has the author, in actuality, written something ultimately pretentious with little substance, leaving readers floundering around trying to find personal meaning in a literary labyrinth? In that regard, the book almost reads like a joke played on everyone who gets lost in its pages.

Or does the book attempt to work like the maze Navidson explores? Psychological references try to explain the true meaning of Navidson’s claims, treating these details as the maze of Navidson’s mind. I enjoyed reading the Navidson house storyline, and there was a touch of creepiness in the odd place, but anyone looking for a horror story may be hard-pressed to find it here. Truant’s descent into madness seems insubstantial, although the conclusion of the book, when we learn more about his mother from her own written word, left me questioning if he was always so inclined to a breakdown. Ultimately, I understand the love/loathe reactions. This book will mean different things to different people — lots to some, nothing to others. This has to be one of the most peculiar books I’ve read.
… (més)
 
Marcat
SharonMariaBidwell | Hi ha 374 ressenyes més | Jun 14, 2024 |
Cool concept. Cringe writing.
 
Marcat
trrpatton | Hi ha 374 ressenyes més | Mar 20, 2024 |

Llistes

Romans (1)
2010s (4)

Premis

Potser també t'agrada

Autors associats

Christa Schuenke Translator
Martine Vosmaer Translator
Eric Fuentecilla Cover designer

Estadístiques

Obres
15
Membres
20,619
Popularitat
#1,049
Valoració
4.0
Ressenyes
486
ISBN
72
Llengües
11
Preferit
102

Gràfics i taules