Scan barcode
superdilettante's review against another edition
2.0
Although Baker's inventive raunchy vocabulary made me laugh a few times, I found this pretty one-note.
mwx1010's review against another edition
3.0
It’s difficult to know where to start with this one. Baker’s acid trip of a satire on contemporary (hetero)sexuality and the pornification of culture is a completely overwritten magical realist porn novel.
We’re definitely in Alice in Wonderland territory here (people getting sucked into holes to enter an exclusive and very weird kind of brothel) and this is mostly as mad a a box of frogs whilst remaining studiedly un-erotic. Overall it works - just, and you can tell that Baker was having a great time writing it.
There’s not much I can add to perhaps my favorite review of this book (and one of my favourite reviews of all time):
“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.”
We’re definitely in Alice in Wonderland territory here (people getting sucked into holes to enter an exclusive and very weird kind of brothel) and this is mostly as mad a a box of frogs whilst remaining studiedly un-erotic. Overall it works - just, and you can tell that Baker was having a great time writing it.
There’s not much I can add to perhaps my favorite review of this book (and one of my favourite reviews of all time):
“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.”
art_cart_ron's review against another edition
4.0
I'm happy to be in a place where I see this book as an appreciable fun piece of fantasy that makes a light (and somehow purely wholesome) cartoon of sex, gender, and the things that turn people on whether they want them to or not. Others may argue the point - but I feel exceptionally mature and grounded in that appreciation, recognizing that play is life - and sex is a game imposed by nature.
The best comparison I can think of is Charlie & the Chocolate Factory. I'm pretty sure Roald Dahl would have gotten a kick out of it. The characters are caring, considerate, tender, friendly, and well-mannered - they are a reversal of the seedy abuse of power that features in a lot of sexual fantasy. But don't let that description fool you into thinking it isn't outrageous and over-the-top. I find it to be an uplifting (heh) healthy psychedelic journey. A massively sexual episode of The Love Boat. The character arcs aren't deep, but they are endearing and revelatory. They make valuable caricature of (purely, for better or worse) heteronormative ideals. A much appreciated experiment.
The best comparison I can think of is Charlie & the Chocolate Factory. I'm pretty sure Roald Dahl would have gotten a kick out of it. The characters are caring, considerate, tender, friendly, and well-mannered - they are a reversal of the seedy abuse of power that features in a lot of sexual fantasy. But don't let that description fool you into thinking it isn't outrageous and over-the-top. I find it to be an uplifting (heh) healthy psychedelic journey. A massively sexual episode of The Love Boat. The character arcs aren't deep, but they are endearing and revelatory. They make valuable caricature of (purely, for better or worse) heteronormative ideals. A much appreciated experiment.
rvamburgh's review against another edition
3.0
Hilarious, foul, wildly imaginative, and just utterly ridiculous. Can’t say I’d recommend, but entertaining and involves a four-some with famous Russian composers, if you’re into that sort of thing.
an_enthusiastic_reader's review against another edition
3.0
This novel is a celebration of sexuality and the language we use to heighten physical pleasure. While it's mostly all in good fun, it's also missing much of what to me constitutes a fully realized literary work. It's funny, but in the end, empties into numbness. In that way, it is most like pornography itself, good for a few moments and then quickly abandoned for sleep.
maedo's review against another edition
2.0
You know how there are certain writers -- Ian McEwan, Julian Barnes, Peter Carey-types -- who are such darlings of the literary world that we joke that they could probably write anything and be lauded by The New York Times?
This is Nicholson Baker writing that "anything" book, trying that experiment.
There is a blurb on the back of House of Holes from Charles McGrath, of The New York Times Magazine, that reads: "When he is not writing about sex (and also when he is), Baker is one of the most beautiful, original, ingenious prose stylists to have come along in decades."
And here is an excerpt of beautiful writing from this book: "He breathed little panting breaths, his hips rocking as he flummoxed his beatstick."
OK. I get that this is satire of our oversexed culture. I get that it is super nasty and lewd and full of crazy kinks, because that's how people are under our polite societal veneer, and that is OK. But..."beautiful"?
This is a book that has multiple instances of Bad Sex Award quality writing. In fact, there is probably one passage every fifteen pages that is deserving of such nomination. I respect Baker really shooting for the stars of ludicrousness (pun totally intended). But I don't have much love for seeing it called "beautiful." A writer with no reputation producing the same sort of material would almost certainly get laughed off the page. I think next year Gary Shteyngart should write an entire book about scat fetish and see what happens; it'll probably be nominated for the National Book Award.
Two stars because even though I sort of like what Baker was trying to do here, the long, detailed, purposely vulgar and purple descriptions of sex are boring. I would have liked to see more world-building and less, uh, play-by-play, because the House of Holes sexual theme park is a great idea.
This is Nicholson Baker writing that "anything" book, trying that experiment.
There is a blurb on the back of House of Holes from Charles McGrath, of The New York Times Magazine, that reads: "When he is not writing about sex (and also when he is), Baker is one of the most beautiful, original, ingenious prose stylists to have come along in decades."
And here is an excerpt of beautiful writing from this book: "He breathed little panting breaths, his hips rocking as he flummoxed his beatstick."
OK. I get that this is satire of our oversexed culture. I get that it is super nasty and lewd and full of crazy kinks, because that's how people are under our polite societal veneer, and that is OK. But..."beautiful"?
This is a book that has multiple instances of Bad Sex Award quality writing. In fact, there is probably one passage every fifteen pages that is deserving of such nomination. I respect Baker really shooting for the stars of ludicrousness (pun totally intended). But I don't have much love for seeing it called "beautiful." A writer with no reputation producing the same sort of material would almost certainly get laughed off the page. I think next year Gary Shteyngart should write an entire book about scat fetish and see what happens; it'll probably be nominated for the National Book Award.
Two stars because even though I sort of like what Baker was trying to do here, the long, detailed, purposely vulgar and purple descriptions of sex are boring. I would have liked to see more world-building and less, uh, play-by-play, because the House of Holes sexual theme park is a great idea.
anlters's review against another edition
1.0
If I had to read another "ingenious" term for penis ("big meat wagon", "fully spunkloaded meatloaf of a ham steak of a dick") or vagina ("her famished slutslot", "fuckfounain", "her simmering chickenshack"), I would go crazy, so I am abandoning this halfway through. Also I was sick of all the heteronormativity after the first "sexy" scene that read like a bad straight porn, where there is no plot or characters and all women just love to have a "slickened seedstick" in their "hot wet-pooters". Nothing about this was erotic. Except maybe this:
"She got in the water and held Wade’s hand. After a moment’s time, she reached down and poked into herself. Then her face contorted, and her upper lip pushed out, and she drooled a little. She practically broke his fingerbones in her grip. In the water was a large brown object. She slumped back for a moment, resting. “That hurt very, very much, even more than your cock hurt,” she said. “But I will recover.”
“I think you may have just crapped the bathtub,” said Wade.
She looked up. “No, I did not ‘crap.’ That is incorrect. You will see. This is one of my sculptures. It is made of asswood.”
Just kidding. There was nothing.
"She got in the water and held Wade’s hand. After a moment’s time, she reached down and poked into herself. Then her face contorted, and her upper lip pushed out, and she drooled a little. She practically broke his fingerbones in her grip. In the water was a large brown object. She slumped back for a moment, resting. “That hurt very, very much, even more than your cock hurt,” she said. “But I will recover.”
“I think you may have just crapped the bathtub,” said Wade.
She looked up. “No, I did not ‘crap.’ That is incorrect. You will see. This is one of my sculptures. It is made of asswood.”
Just kidding. There was nothing.
lainecid's review against another edition
3.0
Pretty raunch, but with a side of the comical and bizzare that cuts down on the seriousness of all the sex.
ajanik's review against another edition
5.0
Vox times a million, HILARIOUS, the word "raunch" in the title is a valid warning. I tried reading passages out loud and couldn't keep a straight face. I'd love to read it again and write down how many euphemisms for sex, sexual organs and sexual acts Baker achieved. He's fantastic.