I devoured Piranesi by Susanna Clarke in just two days. Not nearly as big or complicated as her masterful Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, and unlike that book there’s nary a footnote to be seen, but it’s a quiet, deeply moving fantasy novel about a semi-amnesiac man living in a vast marble palace that is, from time to time, inundated by the sea. Gradually, from visitors - one friendly, but others not - and through his own inquiries, he learns who he is and just how he got there. Highly recommended.
Funny enough I just read this book as well. I LOOOOVED Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell. It is one of my favorite books of all time. So I was excited to read Piranesi as it had been too long since Clarke wrote a book…
and I HATED it. I was so utterly bored by the entire endeavor that I had to force myself to finish. Just seemed to be a whole lot of nothing happening for most of the book. The reveal didn’t really make it worth it either.
I read Piranesi about a year ago and I really enjoyed it. It was fun trying to figure out what was going on, and the revelations at the end wrapped it up well.
I haven’t read Joanthon Strange and Mr. Norrell yet.
I thought it was terrific. The premise was beguiling, the language was beautiful and I thought the ending was nicely understated. I “read” it on audio and Chiwetel Ejiofor’s performance was amazing (and deservedly earned the recording an award for audiobook of the year).
It’s a very different type of story to JS&MN - for starters, it’s a far simpler story with far fewer characters, a much smaller world being built (metaphorically speaking), and the plot is much more of a straight line as a result. In some respects I was disappointed by the simplicity of it; it felt like a novella padded out by the descriptions of the House. That said, those descriptions were rich and beautiful and a joy to read in themselves.
I may have said previously here that the descriptions of the House reminded me of the better descriptive efforts of Italo Calvino in his writings of fantasy worlds but without Calvino’s tedious structuralism - Calvino would have banged on for another 40 pages with diagrams about how the rooms were set out on X and Y and Z axes representing differing metrics and how each intersection manifested in the decorations of the room. Clarke doesn’t even bother to impose a rigid structure - there’s the lower floors (mostly sea), the upper floors (open to the sky) and the middle one, but she lets the House be more organic in its room-by-room presentation, and the story is all the better for it.
Again, it’s a little light on actual plot but what plot there is largely works for me. I thought the climax needed a little more buildup and complexity when it happened, and the fate of the villain surprisingly banal given the richness of what had come before, but overall it was a good read. I’m not likely to revisit it often (although I will probably pick up JS&MN again sometime soon, having just read “The Ladies of Grace Adieu”), but it was certainly worthwhile.
I loved it. I actually had a dream while reading it, of being in the House, and there was a sense of wonder and peace that really stuck with me.
I did also appreciate the second half of the book, in which you get some answers about what’s really going on.
I remember absolutely loving it, but thinking that the setting outshone the plot. The plot, a year or so later, isn’t especially memorable. Bad guy tricks good guy, mad science, estranged lovers, climactic action scene with guns–it was all pretty familiar stuff.
But the world? The world was gorgeous and haunting and something I hadn’t ever read before.
Yup, that’s about what I’d give it as well. I haven’t read a book that gave me such intense head movies in a really long time. I kept trying to envision the scope and physics of the House and couldn’t stop trying to make it make sense. It never did, but in a really good way.
Thanks to all who’ve posted in this thread so far. It’s been a few days since I finished the book and I’m still thinking about it. The scenes towards the end, in particular, when Piranesi/Matthew gives DS Raphael a tour of the House, and when he brings back poor James Ritter to visit it again, really pack a punch and are still on my mind.
A few questions, if I may:
Why, when Dr. Ketterley tricks Matthew into first going to the House, does Matthew not attack him or otherwise force Ketterley to take him back to London?
What did Matthew mean, when he realized he had been tricked, in saying “Put it back”? Why not say “Take me back” or “Undo the ritual” or something of that sort?
There are thirteen sets of bones that Piranesi/Matthew reverently takes care of. Speculate for me: how many of them were lured there and killed by Ketterley? (Raphael thinks at least one of them, and maybe more). But the House must be ancient; are some of them people who might accidentally have been transported there, perhaps hundreds or even thousands of years earlier?
For those sets of bones which have seaweed tying together or linking the bones, do you think all of that was Piranesi’s work?
Why didn’t Piranesi put all the bones on the top floor of the house, rather than having to move them whenever a flood threatened them?
This is the best book I’ve read so far this year. I think it’s outstanding.
Some thoughts on your questions:
I think Ketterley drugged the coffee he gave Sorensen. Maybe he fell asleep to the sound of Ketterley’s laughter.
I think Ketterley’s responsible for the child. Laurence is responsible for the three adults plus Ritter. Also, I think he put a monkey in there as an experiment and the child. I can totally see him luring a child down there. Rapheal should’ve had more to say about that.
I think Piranesi’s not entirely clear on the difference between the living and the dead. I think he thinks of each set of bones as “inhabiting” a certain area.
Books which almost certainly influenced Clarke: Titus Groan and Gormenghast– the statues and the immense, strange House. Robinson Crusoe–someone stranded who writes about how he survives by using natural resources and how he relates to people he meets unexpectedly. Crusoe also views God as Piranesi views the House. Isaiah (Specifically Chapter 43, verse 2: “When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze.” The first part refers to Piranesi, and both parts to Raphael.
(Of course, the myth of the Minotaur and C.S. Lewis’ The Magician’s Nephew, which the author directly refers to, are important, too.)
People who Influenced this Book:
Matthew Henson: He was an African-American explorer who traveled in the Arctic with Robert Peary. Sorensen is a person of color, and explores the House.
Raphael: A famous sculptor, especially of religious and classical subjects. Also, an archangel referred to in the Apocrypha. Piranesi tries to make himself an angel by merging with the albatross early in the book.
Book which possibly might have influenced this book: Power of Three, a children’s book by Diana Wynne Jones, includes submerged Halls under a moor in England. Probably a coincidence, but Clarke may have read it and it’s a terrific book anyway. Recommended.emphasized text
Thanks for that, WE. I admit I haven’t read that particular Heinlein story.
Thanks also to DD. I hadn’t thought of some of those points - I appreciate your sharing those, and your answers to my questions, too. I noticed a reference to a statue shaped like Mr. Tumnus, too, early in the book (p. 16 in my 2020 paperback edition); another likely C.S. Lewis reference.
I missed any reference to Sorensen being a person of color. Where was that?
I thought it was great - brilliantly imagined book. Reminds me I’ve not read Jonathan Strange so should do so.
Think it would be a book for the ages but the plotting sort of pulled it down a little bit for me - like tethering such an imaginative tour de force to a more conventional plot, even if it was a good one, wasn’t needed for such a good writer. Would have been deeper if it was more open-ended, interpretative and not plot-driven so much.
To put it another way, we would prob all have our own ideas on what the labyrinth represents, or themes the book is exploring. But if we all sat down to discuss what actually happened in the book we’d be in agreement, which feels like a missed opportunity for such a mysterious premise.
Loved the book though - and there are prob commercial reasons for plotting it the way she did.
I love Clarke and read this one right when it came out, then listened the audiobook right away too. It wasn’t what I expected until I was finished with it, and then I decided it fits perfectly with and provides a lot of insight into Jonathan Strange, one of my tippy-top favorites.
There is a line at the very end, when the narrator recognizes a sad old tired man on the street, and he wants to tell the man he (the man) is a king in another world, and that “I have seen it!” I remember that I wasn’t sure about the way the book was ending, then I read that line and was suddenly sure that I thought it was great.
At some point he is described as having a Danish father and a Ghanaian mother, I think, and black curly hair, but that’s all we get.
I really enjoyed it. Nothing much more to add, except it’s a shame that Clarke’s health has made this only her second novel at more than a decade after her first. She has a love and mastery of classic English novels, and it shines through.