Reviews

House of Holes by Nicholson Baker

stewreads's review against another edition

funny lighthearted

3.5

solaana's review against another edition

4.0

Weird; I was expecting it to be more disturbing. It's like if someone wrote a story based on a dream they had after reading a Murakami novel and replaced all the sheep and moping with penises and vaginas.

bbboeken's review against another edition

4.0

Wie zich niet bewust is van het soort literatuur dat Nicholson Baker schrijft, en afgaat op de eerder neutrale aanprijzingen van Wired of van de New York Times, staat een heuse verrassing te wachten. Baker schrijft over seks, op een geheel onomwonden maar erg creatieve wijze. Verwar dit vooral niet met de mommy porn van Fifty Shades; dit boek is bijzonder goed geschreven, ook al mag de inhoud u misschien niet liggen. House of Holes is niet zo goed als The Fermata (ook van Baker dus), maar het komt behoorlijk dicht in de buurt.

"Imagine a cross between a hardcore porno and Alice in Wonderland", omschrijft een andere lezer in de commentaren en mogelijks is dat een adequate omschrijving (misschien dacht hij aan Alice in Wonderland: An X-Rated Musical Comedy van Bud Townsend). Het ergste wat dit boek evenwel kan overkomen is een verfilming.

pati_c's review against another edition

5.0

Fantastic, witty, silly, funny, dirty and sexy, everything erotica should be but often fails. This book was an absolute pleasure to read, and the only issue I had is that it ended too soon.

kilcannon's review against another edition

4.0

That was a hell of a thing. It's like dirty Rushdie cranked up to 11.

The language is terrific, and the novel makes all sorts of scenes in books future and past redundant and irrelevant.

mark_lm's review against another edition

2.0

It doesn't strike me as very funny - some reviewers describe it as hilarious. If it isn't funny then it is soft porn, although perhaps clever.

amberlou105's review against another edition

funny lighthearted fast-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? Plot
• Strong character development? No
• Loveable characters? No
• Diverse cast of characters? No
• Flaws of characters a main focus? No

2.0

It was stupid but I giggled

sisteray's review against another edition

4.0

In many ways, I believe that this is the book that Alan Moore was hoping to deliver with Lost Girls. Sure, it is filthy as a come spattered fuck-fest could possibly be, but I never felt that this book was intended for one handed reading. Rather, this seems like Baker set up a safe and justified environment for his whacked out surreal fantasies. It presents itself as a vehicle for bizarro encounters more along the lines of Fellini rather than anything intentionally erotic. Mostly, it plays for laughs than for any kind of excitement. It is closer to Southern's Candy or Polanski/Brach's Quoi? than it is to Nin's erotica and that suits me just fine. While not a masterpiece, I found the book to be giggle inducing and as entertaining as a book of this sort can be.

In general, Baker tends to write as the observer and his style comes across as warm and earnest. This books steps away from the personal and is caught up strictly with the concepts. If you are looking for the ol' Baker sentimentalism, there isn't any here.

rubyseemorebooks's review against another edition

adventurous hopeful lighthearted medium-paced

• Plot- or character-driven? Plot
• Strong character development? It's complicated
• Loveable characters? It's complicated

3.25

Whimsical, convoluted, imaginative  

kaklein's review against another edition

4.0

So fucking weird.