Da li je neko cuo za ovu kontraverznu knjigu?
Nacuh da je otkupljena za nase trziste...u pitanju je zesci kult napolju.
Ako se jos ispostavi da je knjigu otkupila "Laguna" ne znam kako ces da se odbranis od tvrdjenja da si njihov potparol.
detalje u vezi sa radnjom u knjizi drugovi molim
Evo, i ja se pridruzujem Komunjari u molbi za otkrivanjem o cemu se radi u navedenoj knjizi, bar u dve-tri recenice.
Mali teaser-trailer, moze? :wink:
koliko znam engleski jezik u knjizi se radi o nekom
lišću ili je riječ o kući koju svi napuštaju
:evil: :evil: :twisted: 8)
Sa Amazona...i jeste, u pitanju je lisce 8)
Had The Blair Witch Project been a book instead of a film, and had it been written by, say, Nabokov at his most playful, revised by Stephen King at his most cerebral, and typeset by the futurist editors of Blast at their most avant-garde, the result might have been something like House of Leaves. Mark Z. Danielewski's first novel has a lot going on: notably the discovery of a pseudoacademic monograph called The Navidson Record, written by a blind man named Zampanò, about a nonexistent documentary film--which itself is about a photojournalist who finds a house that has supernatural, surreal qualities. (The inner dimensions, for example, are measurably larger than the outer ones.) In addition to this Russian-doll layering of narrators, Danielewski packs in poems, scientific lists, collages, Polaroids, appendices of fake correspondence and "various quotes," single lines of prose placed any which way on the page, crossed-out passages, and so on.
Now that we've reached the post-postmodern era, presumably there's nobody left who needs liberating from the strictures of conventional fiction. So apart from its narrative high jinks, what does House of Leaves have to offer? According to Johnny Truant, the tattoo-shop apprentice who discovers Zampanò's work, once you read The Navidson Record,
For some reason, you will no longer be the person you believed you once were. You'll detect slow and subtle shifts going on all around you, more importantly shifts in you. Worse, you'll realize it's always been shifting, like a shimmer of sorts, a vast shimmer, only dark like a room. But you won't understand why or how.
We'll have to take his word for it, however. As it's presented here, the description of the spooky film isn't continuous enough to have much scare power. Instead, we're pulled back into Johnny Truant's world through his footnotes, which he uses to discharge everything in his head, including the discovery of the manuscript, his encounters with people who knew Zampanò, and his own battles with drugs, sex, ennui, and a vague evil force. If The Navidson Record is a mad professor lecturing on the supernatural with rational-seeming conviction, Truant's footnotes are the manic student in the back of the auditorium, wigged out and furiously scribbling whoa-dude notes about life.
Despite his flaws, Truant is an appealingly earnest amateur editor--finding translators, tracking down sources, pointing out incongruities. Danielewski takes an academic's--or ex-academic's--glee in footnotes (the similarity to David Foster Wallace is almost too obvious to mention), as well as other bogus ivory-tower trappings such as interviews with celebrity scholars like Camille Paglia and Harold Bloom. And he stuffs highbrow and pop-culture references (and parodies) into the novel with the enthusiasm of an anarchist filling a pipe bomb with bits of junk metal. House of Leaves may not be the prettiest or most coherent collection, but if you're trying to blow stuff up, who cares?
Imam taj HOUSE OF LEAVES već nekih godinu dana.
Naravno, jedva sam dočekao da pročitam, 'kupljen' hvalospevima poput tog citiranog i brojnim drugim.
Avaj.
Knjiga nipošto nije loša, štaviše ima genijalnu premisu i gomilu odličnih detalja, taj Danielevski je odličan pisac - samo, experiment je pojeo žanr u toj meri da je to frustrirajuće (a to vam kaže neko ko, iako nominalno horor frik, preferira Les Belles Lettres :wink: ).
Prosto rečeno, ovo je roman koji će ubiti i smoriti i na treskanje o zid naterati bar 90% ovog foruma, ako ne i više, pa mi je i zato neverovatna mogućnost da je neko rešio to da objavi, jer knjiga uopšte nije user friendly, pre svega zbog svojih formalnih odlika, zbog epizodične strukture, zbog naglašenog postmodernizma, zbog dominacije fusnota i appendixa i raznih drugih, intertextualnih i intermedijalnih aluzija i postupaka...
Meni je to bilo zanimljivo i podsticajno tokom većeg dela knjige (koja ima preko 700 A4 strana), ali sam u suštini razočaran time što je pisac upropastio MOOOOĆNU premisu za realizovanje romana čije ambicije uopšte nisu ležale u hororu, već na planu u kome su slični experimenti ranije, i uspešnije odrađeni.
Ukratko, preporučujem onima sklonim experimentisanju i onima koji su dovoljno upućenu u (post)moderne književne postupke i uopšte u modernu nežanrovsku literaturu, dok svima ostalima preporučujem da se klone ovoga.
hmmm, sounds interesting... :?:
U pravu je Ghulashin. Osim onog vica sa likom koji prelazi kanjon i drugog koji uziva u blowjobu, i malo "iskliznuca" sa kucom, sve ostalo zasluzuje treskanje o zid.