I finally finished reading Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves today. I’d been hearing about this book for years. I picked it up a while ago but only cracked it open recently. It took me a long time to get through. I’ve never been able to sit down and tear through a book in one sitting, much less something like this that ties your eyeballs up in knots.

But, anyway… Wow, this book is incredible. I cannot recommend it highly enough. I’d read a couple chapters and then be - it sounds silly - but I’d be scared to walk down the hallways of my own house in the dark. The premise is unlike anything I’ve ever read, and it’s just so damned creepy.

From critic Ted Gioia,

For someone like me, who doesn’t skim or speed read fiction, the only thing scarier than reading House of Leaves is the idea of re-reading it. Yet I am tempted to do so, if only to consider some of the alternative angles to this text. You could read this book as a savage commentary on literary and artistic criticism. You could read it as a verbal equivalent of a labyrinth, or as some sort of a Borgesian nightmare brought to life. You might look at the genre-oriented aspects of the story, and classify it as a horror tale or a romance or a Philip-K-Dick-sian exploration of a universe gone crazy. There are many doors into House of Leaves, although I am still unsure about the exits. Put simply, in an age that has a fetish over deconstructing the text, this is one text that will keep you busy for a long, long time.

Connoisseurs of “serious fiction” have mostly given this book the cold shoulder, but I think they might just be afraid. Who can blame them? House of Leaves runs counter to almost everything praised or promoted in the current literary environment, where even the most daring writers seem happy to follow the rules, stick to the established norms of narrative fiction. Danielewski has brought a unicorn to the dog show, and all the other pet owners are scowling.

From the wiki page,

Danielewski expands on this point in an interview: “I had one woman come up to me in a bookstore and say, ‘You know, everyone told me it was a horror book, but when I finished it, I realized that it was a love story.’ And she’s absolutely right. In some ways, genre is a marketing tool.”

Mat was challenging us on notions of “genre” in a conversation the other day. You want to see a real genre-bender? Try House of Leaves. It’s in a league of its own.

Filed under: Books, Shit I Missed | 5 Comments »

I had yesterday off for Columbus Day (way to go, Chris!) and I chose to watch, of all things, Resident Evil: Extinction. I’ve always thought the first RE movie was above average, and I didn’t hate RE2 (maybe a faulty memory? I only watched it once, at the theater).

This third entry, though… woof. It should have been titled Resident Evil: Nothing Happens. Not even Ms. Jovovich’s considerable sauce levels can save this train wreck. Her character somehow has telekinetic powers which she uses… to fight birds.

Ali Larter does less than nothing, and Ashanti does even less than that. There are no interesting or likable characters, there’s no action, no real gore. There’s just no fun at all.

Man, this is like my second bitchy post today… what’s going on with me?

Filed under: Movies, Shit I Missed | 7 Comments »

I finally watched Feast tonight, a movie that I’ve had sitting around for a long time. Steve reviewed it back in 2006, and Mat also posted some positive comments on Steve’s review. I liked it a lot, maybe a bit less than Steve but probably more than Mat.

If Feast passed you by, like it did me, you may want to go back and give it a look. I think it’s a very cool modern horror flick.

Filed under: Movies, Shit I Missed | 4 Comments »