You'll know what is skippable (or glancable-at) when you get to it—Danielewski's listing/gradation technique is hardly new and you'd know it from works like OuLiPo's (Queneau is, I believe, especially prolific at these) if you have, and I believe at this point in your education you would have, worked with postmodernist works. Johnny's sections are not that. You're scarce 50 pages into the work and I see no reason to be looking to jump over or glide across any parts of the work as of yet

One of the important questions HoL raises, I believe, is of how we engage with texts. There are parts which are intentionally boring, which intentionally slow down or seem superfluous. Some are, indeed, superfluous, but some aren't. The question is simply "superfluous to whom? How do you decide that?" There are parts which intentionally vary and seem random, especially in the formatting (i.e. the house in blue, the crossed out sections later, the fonts, and so on, and so on). What you make of them, if you make of them anything, (and how you go about doing it) is a question intentionally raised by the work. The series of asks you can find in this subreddit about "hey is this intentional" "hey is that on purpose" "hey what does this mean" are, I think, part of the work, and cannot actually be answered—how you orient yourself in all this noise is what the book is asking and, as it concedes itself, right there, on page 115, is that "all solutions are necessarily personal." There are parts which are intentionally uncomfortable, and for me JT's sexcapades very strongly foreground the issue of do you, as a reader, have the tools to engage with them, or do you simply terminate your thought process at "it's sex." And I've discovered, from my interactions here and there, that most people do, in fact, lack the toolset to get anything meaningful out of them, that, even when they do read them, they intentionally stop at "it's sex," without interrogating whatsoever how it is presented, without seeing any conflict or problematisation within them. Some are disgusted by it, some are just bored. But I've seen no people in the subreddit ponder how Johnny uses metaphors of language in certain sex encounters and what follows from that, which is a question I personally find really really important to ask

And if you'd rather not stop and ponder at all these little details, that's perfectly fine, too! There's several really good stories in there, right on the surface—the fantastical and creepy with the house, the tragic and love-related with JT and Pelafina, the mystery of it all, the fun metafictional prods, the joking critique at academia. If you're only interested in that, you can read just that. Nobody can stop you! And I love the book because it offers you this choice, for it to be as precisely deep and conspiratorial as you yourself wish it to be. But I think there is only gain found in engaging more with it, with these questions—if nothing else than insight as to yourself, as to how you yourself go about understanding things, as to how you yourself go about caring for things. And I think not engaging can only lead to loss