SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Piranesi
Group Reads Discussions 2021
>
"Piranesi" Discuss Everything *Spoilers*
This book is just so beautiful, meaningful, and thematically somewhat very relevant to our current times. I am so excited that SFFBC is reading it!
1 1/2 starsThis book was well written but I'm in the very unpopular opinion that I pretty much hated it. I hardly ever DNF books and if this book wasn't so short, took about 3 hours to read I'd have DNF it. The only thing I knew about the book going into it was it's supposed to be based on a myth. That sounds just up my alley in the past month I've read 2 books and a trilogy based on Greek myths and loved them all. So based on myth, with a Satyr on the cover maybe it's about Dionysus. I'd love that. It's not about Dionysus.
After reading the book I searched through reviews and everybody seems to love it, so you might too. This book just wasn't for me. I found one of review that I agree with 100%, "Piranesi by Susanna Clarke is a 245 page book that should really have been about 45 pages." I mean it's a decent idea and if Ray Bradbury had written it as a short story I probably would loved the 30-40 minute read.
1. What did you think of the world?I loved the world. I wanted to explore ALL the halls (or try to anyway!) and look at all the statues and hang out with the birds. I probably wouldn’t have been as good as Piranesi at surviving with limited supplies, but I would have loved the solitude and the sound of the waves and the infinite things to explore and discover. It would be a great vacation spot.
2. What did you think of the characters?
I liked Piranesi a lot. I liked his can-do attitude, his desire to believe the best of people, his curiosity and his respect for his surroundings, and his attempts to do the right thing when presented with a moral dilemma.
At first, I wanted The Other to be a good person, but it was clear early on that he had ulterior motives and self-serving goals. I wanted to learn more about him though, and I was initially a little frustrated at how little of him we actually saw, even in the early section titled “The Other”, when I was so curious about him.
Although we didn’t see as much of her, I really liked Raphael (16), the hints of her personality through what little back story we got for her, and the way she supported Piranesi and didn’t try to push him into anything he wasn’t ready for.
3. What surprised you the most?
I didn’t feel like there were any big surprises. Even though there are many questions in the beginning, the clues were all laid out in such a way that I slowly figured things out well before they were revealed.
Actually, the one thing I was surprised by was in the very beginning – for some reason I had been reading Piranesi as a female, so I was surprised when he first referred to himself as a “young man” and had to keep reminding myself of that for a while. I was also a little surprised when Raphael (aka 16) was revealed to be a police officer. I had assumed she was a friend or just another curious academic person who had noticed his disappearance in connection with Arne-Sayles.
4. What worked or didn't for you?
I love these sorts of “confusing start” books where everything is slowly revealed with small clues, so the story-telling format worked really well for me, as did the setting and the main character.
I’m not sure there’s really anything that didn’t work for me. I had a few niggling questions about things I initially thought didn’t make sense but for which I could come up with explanations that satisfied me when I put more thought into them. I also would have enjoyed if the story had kept going a bit longer.
I guess if I have one minor nitpick, it’s that it doesn’t really make sense that the first journal entries we read (which are from his latest journal) summarize things he had already discovered and still remembered from a few years ago. He had his indexes if he needed to refer back to the info, so there was no apparent story-based reason for him to suddenly decide to start writing summaries. It didn't bother me too much though because it did serve as an interesting introduction for the reader.
1. What did you think of the world?Loved it. I was immediately enthralled because of the House of Leaves vibes. Also made me think of Amnesia: The Dark Descent. Alternate universes we don't understand are so cool.
2. What did you think of the characters?
More Amnesia vibes! Presenting everything through Piranesi's lens made it so interesting, with his wide-eyed innocence. It let the optimist reader feel the same, and the cynical reader worry for him. The many unknowns of the world around them made the characters much more interesting, and made their actions far more mysterious, particularly The Other.
3. What surprised you the most?
Piranesi coming around to the real world even after his initial statement of resistance. The way he was presented, and the time we spent inside his head, really made him seem like a prison lifer--not willing nor able to return to the life he once knew. Though I was glad he did.
4. What worked or didn't for you?
The world-crafting was excellent. The pacing of the reader discovering the intricacies of the House, and more importantly, all the questions left unanswered--I thought the balance was superb. There are many books I read where I feel unsatisfied either because too much was revealed and the mystery was lost, or many of my questions went unanswered. In the latter case, I spend way too much time on discussion boards running fanon with people. I did not feel that way with Piranesi. It was *chef's kiss*.
That said, something about the "bombshell" of the truth of Piranesi's origin did not hit me as hard as it could have. It could have to do with how the clues were presented as the story progressed; that same general revelation pacing of the universe worked less so with Piranesi's personal development/memory gain. I wouldn't trade it for the other way around, though. One of the best books I've read in a long while.
Really enjoyed this. Perhaps because of the sea…”it has a soothing effect.” Seriously, I did enjoy the references to the tides so close to the never ending halls and statues. I kept imagining Venice. So…soothing. While it was definitely an unexpected turn, I agree that it occurred so slowly that it didn’t feel entirely surprising.
And I loved Raphael, her persistence and her brokenness which resonates so strongly with Piranesi.
Overall I found the story pleasant, easy to read, and was enthralled by imagining the breadth and expanse of the halls, statues, and tides.On the other hand I have a hard time reconciling the way Piranesi's experience of not remembering is portrayed. I get that it is stated that sea has a soothing effect but I still found it jarring that when confronted with evidence that he had experienced events that he could no longer remember, Piranesi was able to quickly engage these inconsistencies with wonder/rationality/mild consternation. Knowing that one "should" be able to remember something, or that they used to be able to remember something is [in our world] often incredibly traumatic, which typically produces a much stronger emotional/psychological/existential response than described by Piranesi in his journal.
Perhaps I didn't read closely enough and missed that nuance? Or am unaware of this perspective on experiencing memory loss? [As a healthcare provider my understanding of memory loss is heavily influenced by a medical frame of reference] Or maybe I am simply way overthinking this?
Regardless, the book was enjoyable but not one I am likely to read again anytime soon.
Piranesi seems to be suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder, no doubt of a peculiar kind. Matthew Rose Sorenson 'fled' from his trauma, and the new personality of Piranesi took over, and rationalises his situation as being under the protection of the House (and it may be that the House really is responsive). Where the memory, or thought of the lost memory, is troubling, Piranesi's mind looks elsewhere. Befire the arrival of the Prophet, he doesn't seem to have consciously considered the earlier entries in his Index while updating it, or puzzled about strange words such as Orkney, or the identity of people like Georgia O'Keeffe, even while making multiple entries about The Other.Where a memory or association isn't troubling, he doesn't even realise that it is a gap in his memory. The identification of Prince of Wales check doesn't make him ask who the Prince of Wales was, nor is he puzzled by his ability to identify scents of petrol, violets, blackcurrants and lemons, none of which occur in the House.
Rosina wrote: "Piranesi seems to be suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder, no doubt of a peculiar kind. Matthew Rose Sorenson 'fled' from his trauma, and the new personality of Piranesi took over, and rat..."Great catch! Thanks for pointing out the DID perspective Rosina! I was definitely looking at Piranesi's experiences from more of a "magical memory loss -> mentally resolved as different identities" angle than as viewing his experience of multiple identities as a direct response to the trauma he experienced.
Using the DID perspective I am still shocked at how quickly and uneventfully the narrator/Piranesi/MRS internally deals with the overlap and interaction between his formerly distinct identities. For example when Piranesi begins to sob after Raphael put her hand on his shoulder. Piranesi is able to immediately identify and accept that this emotion comes from MRS, not to the identity that is currently conscious. That suggests an immense level of self-awareness and mindful compassion from someone who has just realized that he has multiple identities. While sweet, I find that hard to wrap my head around. {That being said, I fully admit that my perspective on the typical speed of a person's ability to apply acceptance and mindfulness to DID is likely highly flawed as I regularly work with people who are either currently-in, or recovering-from mental health crises, not people who are able to better manage their condition}.
Mod
Does the House, and its birds, really send messages about the future?Raphael is the Angel with the Trumpet, who stands by ready to announce the Day of Resurrection. A ship has Sayles, and a book, and fog, clearly are involved in MRS's 'Resurrection'. I did wonder if the boy with the flower and the petal-like hair was Matthew Rose Sorenson, I'm not sure about the meaning of the mice and the grain.
Allison wrote: "I see what you're saying Andrew. For me, it worked because we know this is not the first or even second time he's freaked out about MRS. He went through all of the anger and fear and loathing and a..."That his response has evolved through repeated discovery of his MRS identity makes sense. Thanks for your perspective Allison :)
I flew through this book in a couple of days. I couldn't sleep for wanting to finish it and it led to some very strange dreams. I'll be thinking about this book a lot longer than it took for me to read it. I need some time to process it but just wanted to thank this book club for recommending it
It's really hard to know what to say about this book... it's such a fascinating experience, and it felt like it could have gone a lot of different ways and been satisfying in any of them. I thought the world was fascinating. Early on I worried a bit it might be one of those stories that was nothing but a nice world setting and little else, but this book proved to be rather a lot more than that.
One interesting question I had for quite a while was whether the labyrinth was going to prove to be a real place or not. For a while I was considering the possibility that the entire location was in Piranesi's mind, or perhaps simply the way he perceived the world around him.
Is it odd to say that while I predicted very little of it, also not a lot of it stood out as particularly surprising or shocking? I think maybe because it all fit together so well in the end that it felt that way.
On more random notes:
The chapter heading "Do trees exist?" had me pondering philosophy a bit before actually reading the section and discovering it was meant quite literally. (In retrospect, it ends up tying in well with the revisitation of the idea later that Piranesi knows the meanings of words that simply do not apply to this place.)
The discussion of understanding birds via their behaviour struck me as altogether too accurate: "Generally it runs along the lines of: Is this food? Is this? What about this? This might be food. I am almost certain that this is. Or occasionally: It is raining. I do not like it."
I find myself speaking for the birds in the garden in Piranesi's voice (or Chiwetel Ejiofor's voice). Particularly the ones that hide under the car when it's raining.
Kevin wrote: I found one of review that I agree with 100%, "Piranesi by Susanna Clarke is a 245 page book that should really have been about 45 pages."Having finished the book, I actually felt that I had read a short story rather than a short novel. However, I really enjoyed it. Contrary to my usual reaction, I had no problem accepting Piranesi's amicable naivety, seeing it as one of the effects of the different world (plus it's possible that Clarke just intends him to be a nice person).
I agree with Liane that the story unfolds in an unexpected but unsurprising way, even the attempted murder by the Other, and his subsequent drowning in the flood wasn't a moment of high tension.
If I have any complaints, it would be that I would have loved to see more explanation of the other world. Is there anything apart from sea and the house? Who built the statues? Although I realise that extra detail would possibly ruin the story's mystery.
Wow, that's gorgeous, Ori!
Ori, i love that so much!
Thanks for sharing! So gorgeous!
For the record, that's not my art. I'm just sharing it. The artist is supposedly selling prints with all profits going to charity, but the moment, they're not on the Etsy store.
Mod
I waited a few days after finishing Piranesi to write this because I wanted to see what stuck with me and what I kept thinking about. I've now been contemplating it for about three days and love this book more and more as I reflect. What I loved most was viewing everything through Piranesi's perspective. His innocence and gratitude were a joy to follow along with. This could have been a much different story if Susanna Clark had chosen to give him disdain for his situation or perhaps more of his previous memories, and I love that she gave us this sweet character instead. However horrible what happened to him was, it was wonderful to see what came from it.
Another thing I enjoyed was the feel of untangling a web as the story went along. I feel that this novel had a great deal of mystery to it while answering my questions at just the right pace and leaving just the right amount unexplored. I enjoyed how we (the readers) got enough information to scratch the itch of curiosity without taking away the element of mystery. When I closed the book I was left wanting more (in a good way!).
I really don't have any complaints about this story at all. It unfolded beautifully and I would recommend it to anyone who likes to get lost in a novel and is okay with accepting something a little bit off the beaten track.
Also - has anyone else watched The OA on Netflix? Did anyone else get reminded of that as it went along? In the first impressions thread I compared Piranesi to The Starless Sea but now I actually feel more reminded of The OA.
Ori wrote: "Piranesi fan art:https://twitter.com/etluiii/status/14..."
This is an incredible work of art, thanks for sharing it!
Does anyone have thoughts about the choice of Piranesi as the main character's name? When I first heard of the book I expected some link to Giovanni Battista Piranesi, the 18th C artist, now famous for his prison etchings:https://artmuseum.princeton.edu/objec...
The world has prison like resonances but I can't recall how the name came about (gave my copy to a friend) was it the other who gave him the name, that would fit with what he's done to the young man or did Piranesi choose it himself, or is it just a given?
And I loved the book, especially the beginning section when we wander through the strangest of worlds (I've had dreams of walking through vast cavernous halls and rooms, the feeling of awe stays on waking) and the end where Matthew helps another to some peace and then himself finds a kind of peace.
Glynis wrote: "Does anyone have thoughts about the choice of Piranesi as the main character's name? When I first heard of the book I expected some link to Giovanni Battista Piranesi, the 18th C artist, now famous..."The Other calls him Piranesi "Which is strange because as far as I remember it is not my name."
Later, he explains to Raphael: "Dr Ketterly used to call me Piranesi. He said it was a name to do with labyrinths, but I think perhaps it was meant to mock me."
Thanks Rosina, very helpful. I will have to get myself another copy, read it way back in the Spring and definately need to reread.
BTW, does anyone have the Waterstones edition with the bonus story "Two Interviews"? Any impressions? I hope it will become available in other forms in the future.
Allison wrote: "...this felt more like an allegory for recovery for me."Now that I like. At first I felt the story was a clever metaphor on memory and mental health, then my pendulum swung the other way to a literal portal fantasy. Maybe it’s somewhere in the middle depending on what each of us cares to take from it.
It also makes me wish I had a better classical education as I’m sure there’s a lot of goodies in there for those who know their stuff.
This book was not to my tastes, in part because the atmosphere did not pull me in like it did to others, and I do not find naivety interesting in a character. It did inspire me to ask a few questions:Is there any consistency with the capitalizations? Most often it refers to physical things within the halls but that isn't always true. I suppose, then, it's just random stuff Piranesi deems important.
What is the great and secret knowledge Ketterley is after? I'm assuming he's just delusional.
In Part 2, Piranesi hears voices: "People have no shame..."
Are we supposed to know what this means, or is it just intended to give readers an idea that some kind of world-hopping is going on?
In Part 7, the narrator mentions that Jamie Askill theorized that Ketterley imprisoned Matthew then killed himself after police suspected him. We know he didn't kill himself deliberately. Any speculations on what Ketterley's plans were given the trouble in the real world?
At the end, the narrator notices people that are depicted in statues. But there are billions of people in the world and only thousands of statues in the halls. I get that ideas leak into the House but how is it that the narrator encountered so many people that happened to make it into the House? Given the odds, it seems there must be something magical going on here, or that he is misidentifying people.
1. What did you think of the world?Beautiful yet very dark and gloomy
2. What did you think of the characters?
I loved the main character and Raphael, the rest were not likable
3. What surprised you the most?
Discovering Piranesi's real identity
4. What worked or didn't for you?
The main idea of the book just wasn't for me. I'm not books that are too ambiguous and open to the reader. I always seem to me that the author is too lazy to makeup their mind, but thats my opinion
Ryan wrote: "At the end, the narrator notices people that are depicted in statues. But there are billions of people in the world and only thousands of statues in the halls. I get that ideas leak into the House but how is it that the narrator encountered so many people that happened to make it into the House? Given the odds, it seems there must be something magical going on here, or that he is misidentifying people"There are presumably "only" thousands of statues in the section of the House that the narrator has explored, but it's evident that the House stretches on farther than that ... how far, we (and he) have no way of knowing. There may be plenty of room in it for billions of statues. Which doesn't necessarily mean that there's a statue in the House for every person in our world, either, but for the set of depicted people to intersect with the set of people the narrator encounters in our world, at least in a couple of cases, doesn't seem impossible to me.
Statistically I think it is basically impossible. You could figure out the odds with division. I think there must be some way Piranesi affects the halls that makes it more likely for people he meets IRL to show up as statues.
Ryan wrote: "I think there must be some way Piranesi affects the halls that makes it more likely for people he meets IRL to show up as statues."I could believe that, too! It's not like there's no connection, or influence, between the worlds.
Perhaps a person's way in is influenced by his entry point.
Mod
A lot of the 70s fads/cults/groups were about higher planes of existence, and I don't think it's too too wild to associate a plane in that sense with partitioning ones' self from trauma.
So you think the House is all in his mind, while Piranesi's actual body is while he's being imprisoned? Is there a precedent for this sort of extended, detailed, fantastical hallucination in people who have been abused?I think I prefer the portal explanation.
I think that within the context of the book, the House is to be taken as real -- people can physically go there from our world, for instance, and may or may not come back. That doesn't prevent it from also being a metaphor, or symbol, for things that happen to people, or their states of mind, in what we (for the sake of argument) call the "real world", the one that continues to exist when we're not reading the book.
Mod
I think there’s some confusion around the statues and the “people” Piranesi takes care of. Aren’t those skeletons? I recall him saying that they are skeletons and that he considers some of them make or female but has no real evidence or knowledge of whether his choice of sex is true. The statues are often fantastical creatures like Minotaurs.
I think that the World is 'real', that people really do go to another place, and some die there, and some merely visit. If it isn't then the whole book (including the final 'return to normality' chapter is in Piranesi's head, since the death or disappearance of Ketterly doesn't make sense if the entire story is played out in Piranesi's head.As for the recognition of statues, I don't think it necessarily means that there is feature-by-feature identity, but rather that the man, and the woman and children, look like those represented, which cheers Piranesi up, and begins to reconcile him to the real world. Just as he identifies Ketterley with the man who has broken sword and sphere, and Arne Sayles with the dissolute Pope.
There is another question about the statues - how are they dressed? The Pope is clearly wearing recognisably papal attire - no earlier than mediaeval - and I imagine a lot of the others in generic classical drapery. But for some reason I see the crowd in the 192nd Western Hall as being in 20th century dress, looking like a football crowd in the early days of Wembley. Or the Jarrow marchers, since the young man has a Banner.
But if the other world was real why was James Ritter locked up in a white room? Since he was discovered dehydrated and malnourished, why not just keep him there permanently and visit him (just like what happened with Piranesi) instead of locking him up in a room. It doesn't make sense to me
Barelyspicy (Bash) wrote: "But if the other world was real why was James Ritter locked up in a white room? Since he was discovered dehydrated and malnourished, why not just keep him there permanently and visit him (just like..."Things are not explained, of course, so we are entitled to make up our own minds about the explanation. But if it's not real, if the entire thing is played out in Piranesi's head, then James Ritter, and Arne Sayles' conviction for imprisoning him, aren't real either ...
My explanation is that Arne Sayles' brought Ritter back from the House to the room in his house when the other became dangerously ill, mentally and physically (which is remarkably kind of LAS ...). But Piranesi is able to survive, with a few multivitamins, and can still help Ketterley with his investigations into the House. Ketterley would kill Piranesi rather than risk bringing him back to the real world for treatment, and be exposed.
I also saw the house as real, especially since separate people had experienced it and independently gave similar descriptions. Raphael’s character in particular would make no sense if the house weren’t real since she sometimes went back with him and discussed with him other characters who had likely died there based on the skeletons Piranesi had found. Of course, since the entire book is written from the POV of Piranesi, I can definitely understand the interpretation that it was all in Piranesi’s head and that we can’t trust anything he wrote. He could have made up the corroborating evidence he wrote about. In situations like this, I prefer to assume that most of what the POV characters write really happened, especially if I liked that POV character and if the story seemed coherent.I did not take Piranesi’s recognition of people in the normal world to mean those were the exact same people as the statues, though. Not even the man who reminded him of the king he was so passionate about. I think those people simply had some element to the way they looked or carried themselves that reminded Piranesi of some of the statues he was familiar with. It wasn’t until king-guy squinted his eyes against the snow, for example, that Piranesi noticed a resemblance. I saw it as a natural human tendency to look for familiarity in an unfamiliar situation. On the 29 November 2018 entry, we’re told, “Piranesi lived among statues: silent presences that brought him comfort and enlightenment.” Seeing resemblances between real people and his statues may have brought him some comfort in this scary world he wasn’t yet sure he wanted to be a part of again. Similar to how Ritter took comfort from working at a building that reminded him of the house.
I wonder if this is an allusion ...I have just finished reading The Keeper of Lost Things by Ruth Hogan. In it, a man's ashes are carried (and lost) in a Huntley and Palmer's biscuit tin. One could almost argue that Arne Sayles is also a keeper (or at least a student) of Lost Things.
Mod
Finding an alternate plane/world/whatever the House is would be pretty big for science. I think they were hoping that they'd find something about its origin, construction or initial inhabitant that would convey power in our world...but mostly it just destroys people with its infinity and strangeness. Again though, I took a lot of this from a meta-perspective. The halls of the mind, the idea of Labyrinth in mythology and so on. I'm finding hard to explain myself so I'll stop with the word salad now XD
Possible that it's a manifestation of human thought made concrete.
A few questions to get us startedL
1. What did you think of the world?
2. What did you think of the characters?
3. What surprised you the most?
4. What worked or didn't for you?
Non-spoiler thread here: First impressions