Scan barcode
A review by joanaprneves
Piranesi by Susanna Clarke
emotional
funny
hopeful
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.5
I really enjoyed the beginning of the book but I wonder if it was because it took me back to films such as Alain Renais' Hiroshima Mon amour and books such as Jorge Luis Borges' (a reference for the writer, as much as C S Lewis' Narnia books). I am not entirely convinced that it was as accomplished as 2020 told us it was, but I am also very glad to have read it, especially the first chapters.
The first 100 pages describe the central character, Piranesi, exploring halls and rooms of a seemingly endless house with monumental proportions, decorated with marble statues. The house is inhabited by fish, birds, and two men (including the narrator) and it is regularly swept by tides. Piranesi leaves a reverential, frugal and ritualistic life whereas the other person in the House (what Piranesi calls this strange environment) seems more worldly. In fact, the Other - as he is designated - is described wearing different sleak clothes and a handsome, groomed physique. Moreover, he only sees Piranesi once a week for a few hours, for mysterious, albeit unstructured meetings. This is the first clue that there is more to Piranesi's life than what appears at first.
Some readers seem to struggle with this first part of the book because it is outlandish and the House remains unexplained. However, that was my favourite part. It is beautifully written with a style that reflects Piranesi's innocent mind, but also the meanders of a world where he lives a simple life. There is a lot to say about the character, but the main trait of Piranesi is that he is a disciplined and spiritual person who keeps a record of everything he sees. Therefore we are reading his journal, and not a narrator's voice describing events, which leads to an eschewed view of the House. At about 60 pages in, the reader starts wondering about what is not said or seen and therefore does not make it into the journal, that is, the book. There is a strong possibility that PIranesi might be an unreliable narrator, but by that point the reader may be emotionally entangled with the character.
This is where the book became less fascinating to me and read a bit like Borges fan-fiction and psychological thrillers such as Shutter Island. The latter I am using as a negative reference for me, bcause I find it frustrating to explore serious metal illness as thriller plot hinges, as if schizophrenia was an exciting roller coaster between reality and a deluded mind for the viewer / reader to explore as a treat. Moreover, the strength of Borges' fiction is to provide false literary references or massive ones with an impressive shift of perspective - but it never ever takes you back to a flat reality. Borges' worlds crack your view of the world and are an ode to literary worlding.
In PIranesi, the introduction of a certain magical realism undoes the magic of the first part and turns to story into a whodunnit unnecessarily. The police, the missing person situation, the Stockholm syndrom Piranesi develops with the House, reduce the beautofil world that had been created and turn it into a setting.
However - and this is a big however - knowing that the author suffers from chronic fatigue synrome, and has herself spent many hours in the dark and is unable to communicate at times makes me think that this book describes the state of someone who is literary, or interested in fictional worlds, and uses them to retreat in her own life. Therefore, the toing and froing from the House to reality may stem or have taken root in those worls created by Borges or C S Lewis, but they make sense in a different way for the author. I would loved to have felt this particular experience - of mental health issues and illness - better adressed as a background for Piranesi. Borges used his encyclopaedic knowledge of literature and maths to build strange tales of hypothetical worlds. It seems to me that Clarke is writing from an experience of literary knowledge and a certain physical and mental condition - a bit like Virginia Woolf. I would have loved this to be more apparent.
The first 100 pages describe the central character, Piranesi, exploring halls and rooms of a seemingly endless house with monumental proportions, decorated with marble statues. The house is inhabited by fish, birds, and two men (including the narrator) and it is regularly swept by tides. Piranesi leaves a reverential, frugal and ritualistic life whereas the other person in the House (what Piranesi calls this strange environment) seems more worldly. In fact, the Other - as he is designated - is described wearing different sleak clothes and a handsome, groomed physique. Moreover, he only sees Piranesi once a week for a few hours, for mysterious, albeit unstructured meetings. This is the first clue that there is more to Piranesi's life than what appears at first.
Some readers seem to struggle with this first part of the book because it is outlandish and the House remains unexplained. However, that was my favourite part. It is beautifully written with a style that reflects Piranesi's innocent mind, but also the meanders of a world where he lives a simple life. There is a lot to say about the character, but the main trait of Piranesi is that he is a disciplined and spiritual person who keeps a record of everything he sees. Therefore we are reading his journal, and not a narrator's voice describing events, which leads to an eschewed view of the House. At about 60 pages in, the reader starts wondering about what is not said or seen and therefore does not make it into the journal, that is, the book. There is a strong possibility that PIranesi might be an unreliable narrator, but by that point the reader may be emotionally entangled with the character.
In PIranesi, the introduction of a certain magical realism undoes the magic of the first part and turns to story into a whodunnit unnecessarily. The police, the missing person situation, the Stockholm syndrom Piranesi develops with the House, reduce the beautofil world that had been created and turn it into a setting.
However - and this is a big however - knowing that the author suffers from chronic fatigue synrome, and has herself spent many hours in the dark and is unable to communicate at times makes me think that this book describes the state of someone who is literary, or interested in fictional worlds, and uses them to retreat in her own life. Therefore, the toing and froing from the House to reality may stem or have taken root in those worls created by Borges or C S Lewis, but they make sense in a different way for the author. I would loved to have felt this particular experience - of mental health issues and illness - better adressed as a background for Piranesi. Borges used his encyclopaedic knowledge of literature and maths to build strange tales of hypothetical worlds. It seems to me that Clarke is writing from an experience of literary knowledge and a certain physical and mental condition - a bit like Virginia Woolf. I would have loved this to be more apparent.