What are some of your favorite books with some sort of gimmick, in the realms of Tree of Codes, JJ Abrams' and Doug Dorst's S, and the works of Mark Z. Danielewski?
I thoroughly enjoy the books-within-books idea as well that many of these gimmick-y books implement (but the thread is not limited to just that).
I've been reading this on and off this semester, keep getting distracted by school but I've really enjoyed it so far.
I've had a copy sitting on my shelf since 2014 but I've yet to open it.
HoL is not gimmicky. Its presentation is essential to its structure, theme, and plot. It's not just a quirky, whimsical element.
The fundamental idea, Pale Fire re-fitted for the horror genre, is fucking solid, A+ foundation. Danielewski just fucks it up so royally with his cringeworthy writing and storytelling. Zampano is just implausible, I read his narration and don't believe for a second that this is a blind, pseudo-academic. Nor do I get the sense that Danielewski did this on purpose. Johnny Truant is like a 15 year old's dream of being a cool alpha male. His little "episodes" are not scary either, they just read like bad poetry.
But that is a problem of characterization, no? I was talking about the format, what makes it, according to OP, "gimmicky".
I mean it is pretty gimmicky... but it's still good.
I'd say a Céline novel would have been considered very gimmicky when it first came out - check that shit out.
But it is not gimmicky at all, since it is not meant to be a mere literary device to attract attention by being flashy without having any substance or purpose to the work.
That is to say, if you were to take out its format and structural aspects, it would be a completely different work. Whereas, if it were a gimmick, it wouldn't change at all, since it would be dispensable and useless.
Let's all be honest here: we bought the book because of the formatting.
Whether or not Danielewski's writing is "good" is subjective. I personally loved the plot, characters, pacing, and environment, but if it wasn't for the formatting I probably would've never picked it up.
Cyclonopedia
If On A Winter's Night A Traveller.
Rayuela
Ulysses
Speak for yourself faglord
[OP] This is what I was referring to: A design element that, either by looking at the cover or flipping through the pages, encourages you to buy it without any knowledge of the plot.
>Pale Fire
>Cyclonopedia
>If On A Winter's Night A Traveller
>Rayuela
Thanks. Already read Ulysses. Wasn't too big on it though.
Have you also read Hopscotch per chance? While reading some reviews of Rayuela I saw several references to one of the author's other books, Hopscotch, and one such review described it as "labyrinthian", which is basically a word fetish for me.
>translate.google.com
>Rayuela
>English: Hopscotch.
Wow I feel like an idiot
Dictionary of the Khazars is a novel in the form of a dictionary.
I hated this book. I quit because they wouldn't get to the good parts and whatever that faggots name is Johnny or some shit kept talking about his life.
but.. how
Cloud Atlas
From what I gather Hopscotch has two potential reading orders offered up in the preface so you have to read it twice to really get the most out of it. That's why it's 'labyrinthine'.
You can actually read it any way you prefer. You can follow Cortazar's suggestions, but you can also read it in any other possible chapter order.
...
>this is not for you