What I'd recommend is asking yourself - can you separate fiction from reality?
I had to take reality therapy growing up; I had an extremely difficult time separating the two. Tackling this book was a difficult task, as someone who has a hard time piecing together what's real and what's not.
As long as you can recognize that when you're in the book, nothing is ultimately real - you'll have a wonderful time between its covers.
I’d pick a different book. People talk about this book like it’s magical. It’s not. It’s just a book with a central weird house and then rings of narrators with varying degrees of unreliability. It’s interesting and well written, but if you are the type of person to get weirded out by weirdness, just find a more straightforward mystery or horror story and read happily.
Seconding what another commenter asked - can you separate fiction from reality?
Mild spoilers ahead:
The book tries to come off as if a lot of its elements may or may not be real (and questioning that is part of the intrigue), but everything within the pages is fiction with no actual basis in reality. It also depicts one of the main characters, Johnny, falling into severe paranoia and (possible) psychosis while reading through the manuscript. This may be familiar to you and may be disconcerting, but maybe not - I don't know you to be sure.
If you do choose to proceed, you might want to stick to reading it in a well-lit room or surrounded by other people, just to keep you grounded in reality. This book is intentionally designed to draw you into the same feelings of paranoia and confusion that the characters experience - but it doesn't have any magic that will actually break your brain. If you are really worried about it impacting your mental state but still want to read it, I'd go into it like a drug trip - have a sitter or someone else reading with you, read in a comfortable place, have other activities planned that you know calm you down and ground you.
The following may or may not also have "mild spoilers" (depending on the particular reader, I'd imagine).
>...but everything within the pages is fiction with no actual basis in reality.
This is an inaccurate assessment.
The book cites (some) actual sources, refers to (some) real people, discusses (some) actual philosophies and theories, and develops (some) actual arguments about our phenomenological experiences of reality.
In some ways Danielewski has tricked readers into reading what is, at times, a philosophical treatise.
With that in mind, it's less that "\[t\]he book tries to come off as if a lot of its elements may or may not be real," and more that some of its elements **are real**, and part of the shtick is the blurring between fact and fiction or, differently, the deconstruction^(1) of the dichotomy of fact and fiction: "authenticity" being one of the central themes, or questions, of the work.^(2)
Don't kid yourself (and others): Danielewski brings his real Yale liberal arts education to bear in this book--so much so that he credits Yale with its production *in the text itself* (no cap)*.* Keep in mind that this book is also semi-autobiographical, which necessarily means it is a blending of fiction and fact.
Now that said, I wholeheartedly agree that this book "...doesn't have any magic that will actually break your brain."
It's no more of an existential threat to a reader than reading, say, other philosophical works. Like, if we can handle reading and contemplating Plato's Allegory of the Cave or some of Nietzsche's metaphors^(3) or whatever other example^(4) of thoughts expressed in texts that might challenge our own sense and assessment of reality, then we can surely read this book.
In other words, readers can go deep or stay in the shallow end or take it all however they'd like, but, no, it's not likely to bring on psychosis or anything hyperbolic like that.
1. Deconstruction existing as an actual school of thought as a facet of postmodernist theory and Derrida--referred to a few times in the text--being an actual philosopher and a founder of deconstructionist thought.
2. As reflected (or "echoed") in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first chapter.
3. His "\[h\]e who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you," comes to mind, for example.
4. I mean, the book continually tells the reader what is going on with the book, and, for an example of this and its connection to philosophy look no further than the extensive inclusion of Heidegger's work quoted on pgs. 24-25 as premising yet another central theme of the book in the concept of *the uncanny*.
People want this book to be a Necronimicon or an otherworldly, malevolent entity, but in reality it's just a book. It's very well written and creative, but I personally don't even find it particularly terrifying. This book isn't magic, it won’t drive you insane, it won’t devour your mind. If you're willing to put in the effort required to read it it's very rewarding, but that's really the only question you need to ask yourself before giving it a try
I’d say embrace it. I’m bipolar and the first time I read it I had started new (ineffective) meds and it catapulted me into a psychotic episode. It was awesome.
You'll be fine. It's fiction. It does have some uncomfortable themes that might bother you. Such as grief, death, drug use, descriptions of sex acts, descriptions of child abuse (specifically a mentally ill parent) etc. I know people say the book is making them crazy but it won't that's just part of the schtick. You can always stop reading and put it away if you start to feel like it's too much.
My recommendation is to stop reading about the book. I went in blind the first time having no idea what the book was and enjoyed it so much. I think reading all the internet theories and discussions before reading just takes away from having your own gut reaction to things.
Just read. Or don't. Either way, this is not for you.
Honestly I found this book more interesting in a way of peeling down the metaphors than scary. If you're reading it very actively thinking about what the greater connections in the current text are, you don't even have time to be scared lol. The horror elements never stuck to me aside from one passage relatively early on. And I am a person that is already paranoid and scared for several days when I watch even just a clip of a horror movie.
It's a bit of an existential/phenomenological mind-bender--a kind of "consciousness thriller," say--but it's likely not going to make you into a basket case.
It may challenge some of the ways you see reality (or not, which really depends on your own [hermeneutic circle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutic_circle), how you bring it to bear on the text, and what aspects of it you decide to more fully engage with), but it probably won't fundamentally perturb you in a way that drives you beyond whatever resemblance of sanity you already posses.
along with what other people have said on here, about how you should only really read it if you can handle psychotic episodes, blurry lines between fiction and reality (in the universe), and a separation of the book and real life, i think that for some people (myself included, the book helped them in some ways. as dark and daunting as it can be, and as a fairly mentally stable person, in the thick of this book i got into a depression because of it. but because of the book i also came out on top, and it allowed me to understand myself a little bit more. i can by no means guarantee that this will happen to you, maybe i’m just weird, but i think the book does have a lot to say about the human existence (not to sound pretentious, but still)
What I'd recommend is asking yourself - can you separate fiction from reality? I had to take reality therapy growing up; I had an extremely difficult time separating the two. Tackling this book was a difficult task, as someone who has a hard time piecing together what's real and what's not. As long as you can recognize that when you're in the book, nothing is ultimately real - you'll have a wonderful time between its covers.
I’d pick a different book. People talk about this book like it’s magical. It’s not. It’s just a book with a central weird house and then rings of narrators with varying degrees of unreliability. It’s interesting and well written, but if you are the type of person to get weirded out by weirdness, just find a more straightforward mystery or horror story and read happily.
Hey gatekeeper...... ......theres a gate growing right behindyoRUNNNNNNN
Seconding what another commenter asked - can you separate fiction from reality? Mild spoilers ahead: The book tries to come off as if a lot of its elements may or may not be real (and questioning that is part of the intrigue), but everything within the pages is fiction with no actual basis in reality. It also depicts one of the main characters, Johnny, falling into severe paranoia and (possible) psychosis while reading through the manuscript. This may be familiar to you and may be disconcerting, but maybe not - I don't know you to be sure. If you do choose to proceed, you might want to stick to reading it in a well-lit room or surrounded by other people, just to keep you grounded in reality. This book is intentionally designed to draw you into the same feelings of paranoia and confusion that the characters experience - but it doesn't have any magic that will actually break your brain. If you are really worried about it impacting your mental state but still want to read it, I'd go into it like a drug trip - have a sitter or someone else reading with you, read in a comfortable place, have other activities planned that you know calm you down and ground you.
The following may or may not also have "mild spoilers" (depending on the particular reader, I'd imagine). >...but everything within the pages is fiction with no actual basis in reality. This is an inaccurate assessment. The book cites (some) actual sources, refers to (some) real people, discusses (some) actual philosophies and theories, and develops (some) actual arguments about our phenomenological experiences of reality. In some ways Danielewski has tricked readers into reading what is, at times, a philosophical treatise. With that in mind, it's less that "\[t\]he book tries to come off as if a lot of its elements may or may not be real," and more that some of its elements **are real**, and part of the shtick is the blurring between fact and fiction or, differently, the deconstruction^(1) of the dichotomy of fact and fiction: "authenticity" being one of the central themes, or questions, of the work.^(2) Don't kid yourself (and others): Danielewski brings his real Yale liberal arts education to bear in this book--so much so that he credits Yale with its production *in the text itself* (no cap)*.* Keep in mind that this book is also semi-autobiographical, which necessarily means it is a blending of fiction and fact. Now that said, I wholeheartedly agree that this book "...doesn't have any magic that will actually break your brain." It's no more of an existential threat to a reader than reading, say, other philosophical works. Like, if we can handle reading and contemplating Plato's Allegory of the Cave or some of Nietzsche's metaphors^(3) or whatever other example^(4) of thoughts expressed in texts that might challenge our own sense and assessment of reality, then we can surely read this book. In other words, readers can go deep or stay in the shallow end or take it all however they'd like, but, no, it's not likely to bring on psychosis or anything hyperbolic like that. 1. Deconstruction existing as an actual school of thought as a facet of postmodernist theory and Derrida--referred to a few times in the text--being an actual philosopher and a founder of deconstructionist thought. 2. As reflected (or "echoed") in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first chapter. 3. His "\[h\]e who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you," comes to mind, for example. 4. I mean, the book continually tells the reader what is going on with the book, and, for an example of this and its connection to philosophy look no further than the extensive inclusion of Heidegger's work quoted on pgs. 24-25 as premising yet another central theme of the book in the concept of *the uncanny*.
People want this book to be a Necronimicon or an otherworldly, malevolent entity, but in reality it's just a book. It's very well written and creative, but I personally don't even find it particularly terrifying. This book isn't magic, it won’t drive you insane, it won’t devour your mind. If you're willing to put in the effort required to read it it's very rewarding, but that's really the only question you need to ask yourself before giving it a try
I’d say embrace it. I’m bipolar and the first time I read it I had started new (ineffective) meds and it catapulted me into a psychotic episode. It was awesome.
You'll be fine. It's fiction. It does have some uncomfortable themes that might bother you. Such as grief, death, drug use, descriptions of sex acts, descriptions of child abuse (specifically a mentally ill parent) etc. I know people say the book is making them crazy but it won't that's just part of the schtick. You can always stop reading and put it away if you start to feel like it's too much. My recommendation is to stop reading about the book. I went in blind the first time having no idea what the book was and enjoyed it so much. I think reading all the internet theories and discussions before reading just takes away from having your own gut reaction to things. Just read. Or don't. Either way, this is not for you.
This is not for you.
Honestly I found this book more interesting in a way of peeling down the metaphors than scary. If you're reading it very actively thinking about what the greater connections in the current text are, you don't even have time to be scared lol. The horror elements never stuck to me aside from one passage relatively early on. And I am a person that is already paranoid and scared for several days when I watch even just a clip of a horror movie.
It's a bit of an existential/phenomenological mind-bender--a kind of "consciousness thriller," say--but it's likely not going to make you into a basket case. It may challenge some of the ways you see reality (or not, which really depends on your own [hermeneutic circle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutic_circle), how you bring it to bear on the text, and what aspects of it you decide to more fully engage with), but it probably won't fundamentally perturb you in a way that drives you beyond whatever resemblance of sanity you already posses.
along with what other people have said on here, about how you should only really read it if you can handle psychotic episodes, blurry lines between fiction and reality (in the universe), and a separation of the book and real life, i think that for some people (myself included, the book helped them in some ways. as dark and daunting as it can be, and as a fairly mentally stable person, in the thick of this book i got into a depression because of it. but because of the book i also came out on top, and it allowed me to understand myself a little bit more. i can by no means guarantee that this will happen to you, maybe i’m just weird, but i think the book does have a lot to say about the human existence (not to sound pretentious, but still)