I've been reading (and enjoying) House of Leaves, the debut novel by writer Mark Z. Danielewski. The novel is quite unconventional. It is full of footnotes, and while many of them are academic-style footnotes there is actually a story going on in the footnotes that runs in parallel to the main narrative. In some places, an entry in the footnotes will extend over a few pages, and then the main narrative picks up again at the top of the page. The story in the footnotes employs unusual fonts at times, as well as words spaced in such a manner as to create a visual effect, words turned in their oritentation the pages, pages with a lot of white space and only a few words, and so on. Earlier this evening I reached a point where two pages of text were in red font with a strikethrough running through all of it (supposed to be material redacted from the original work that Danielewski put back in; but there is no "original" work, it is just part of how the novel is written). The word "house" appears in a blue font in many places throughout the text.
I have found the book to be quite good, and 120 pages in it has never failed to hold my interest. It was a bestseller and the NY Book Review said of it: "Funny, moving, sexy, beautifully told, an elaborate engagement with the shape and meaning of narrative."
And again, this is a debut novel, not something done by an established author who can play on his name.
Makes one wonder whether one can ever legitimately use the words "you can't" when advising another person on how to write fiction.
I have found the book to be quite good, and 120 pages in it has never failed to hold my interest. It was a bestseller and the NY Book Review said of it: "Funny, moving, sexy, beautifully told, an elaborate engagement with the shape and meaning of narrative."
And again, this is a debut novel, not something done by an established author who can play on his name.
Makes one wonder whether one can ever legitimately use the words "you can't" when advising another person on how to write fiction.