There be spoilers in this comment! Now then, I can't speak to this with the same academic eloquence as you (I'm a rather more intuitive and abstract person to be great at precise analysis), but nevertheless I shall try! This book enchanted me from the start. The setting called up a mind palace, that memory tool people use. Especially the way Piranesi navigated the House, and remembered all of it; it struck me early on that this was, in some way, an internal world made external. I'm not sure how well that held up in the text itself, but I could never quite shake it. Two parts of the story in particular gave me absolute chills. The first was when Piranesi was on the moon-quest from the Other, and he came to the windowless hall that was blacker than black. And so it stayed until night fell and the moon rose and then he realized that this darkness was populated with statues all crafted to marvel at the moon, to forever wait for the fleeting glimpse of its beauty. That straight-up blew me away. It was such a wonderful image of absolute awe, coupled with this prior assumption of the hall's emptiness and inherent terror. Then go have Piranesi remark that for the first time, he felt a part of a crowd! Chills. The second was quite in the end, when the whole theory of the House is being proposed as ideas and knowledge that have sunk down into the earth and essentially stalagmited their way into the House; they're described as water, and instantly, I thought of the Tides booming in the depths, and how they must be steadily eroding further and further down, that the Hall's depths are not filled with external water but rather very artistic water that has trickled down and carven out an entire world, and will continue to expand up that world with the endlessness of knowledge. Oof, so many chills. I also quite enjoyed the way the House was not viewed as Something Bad, in the end. 16 (whose real name escapes me) eventually comes around to Piranesi not wanting to leave this place, in viewing it as beautiful, and that it is a place of comfort and peace that he does return to, accompanied by the other victim of the cult, who also was desperate to return. I felt like there was something to the anticipation of madness in staying there, and the converse contentment that Piranesi received, but I couldn't really parse the idea more than that. An interesting vibe, though. Anyway, this book is just wonderful. I'm glad I found someone who's talking about it! Thanks for the video; it definitely provided perspectives I would never be able to consider ✌️
The best Piranesi review! It captures all the deep and simple meanings behind each page, each paragraph, each line of this masterpiece... Thanks for sharing your beautiful point of view with us!
This was the best review and analysis of this book I’ve seen so far. You’ve really outdone yourself in terms of research into the themes and references she used. Really nice job!
A wonderful contemplation and analysis, Mark. Thanks a lot. It has helped me straighten out a few quirks in my own writing. "Unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven".
Fantastic analysis! I too had the idea that the reverse was true about the house being a "prison," but I feel like your analysis took this insight to a whole new level in exploring the essence of things and asking the reader to question perspectives of the mundane world. Beautiful exploration on what Piranesi represents and the wisdom in presence. Thank you for sharing!
I have just finished reading it, your video was really good, as it made my reading feel like a second reading where I get to know the book better while not giving away the actual plot. This was the first book I have read in quite a while that was a real page turner for me, it deeply engaged me, it was something of an extension of the work of the Inklings, I found that very reassuring as sometimes it feels like art and culture have stopped or reached a cul de sac but this was seriously good in both being imaginatively rich and philosophically strong. It obviously helps that I like Barfield and the Inklings. A work of contemplation a call for us to make our psyches whole, to realise that the works of the past are not trying to speak in a strange code but that they are expressing how they experienced the world and it is different from how we do now. Thanks, this was a great impetus to plunge into the book and it was deeply satisfying.
This is a very good review, Mark, and has given me a lot to think about now having finished the book. Thank you for taking the time to do this. Though it's rare for me to pick up books a second time, this one may get me to do it (and your review encourages that).
I did the same but in reverse order. I highly, highly recommend reading the book first. This is a book which deserves frequent pauses and thinking at your own pace while processing the story. For me it opened in an entirely different way when read.
Excellent video, the best analysis of this book I've seen! I love how you decoded the literary references here and interpreted Piranesi's psyche. I really dislike those interpretations of the book as being about mental illness, such a view is so reductionist and simply not supported by the actual text. I'm glad you showed how deep the meanings of this book go without the need of "this book is ACTUALLY about..." - fantasy can be deep and meaningful and intellectual, we don't have to superimpose prosaic interpretations. Thank you for your wonderful analysis! By the way, what's the book you have behind you with "MAGIC" on the spine?
Very nice review - you are so well-spoken and it was really enjoyable and enlightening. I would have liked more of your critical perspective on the book as well. I think the book stands beautifully as allegory. But I sometimes wonder how Piranesi's character functions more as allegory than as narrative. For example, is his character believable from a psychological perspective? What is Clark saying about the human spirit, and most importantly, is it accurate? I think Clarke has a habit of entering the dark mirrors, whilst avoiding the darkest questions they ask. I love Clarke's miraculous wit and weaving. At the same time, I view the brilliant author as a kind of children's book writer for grown-ups. This may be a good thing, by some opinions, but for me the allegorical aspects of both her major books feels incomplete. At the same time, she offers a truly unique voice, one that I wouldn't necessarily want to change, so I'm of two minds about it. Cheers!
SPOILERS You articulated your analysis very well. I was definitely intuiting something similar but was having trouble solidifying the thoughts. When piranesi is talking to the other I think it becomes more and more apparent the nothingness or wholeness that piranesi represents against the single pointed knowing and seekingness of the other. At one point the other comments on how the world is dead, and piranezi comments that although the tide isn’t alive in the traditional sense, it is certainly alive in another. The other had already written the tide and world off as known and thus was blinded to it. He was blind to piranesi waving to him in the beginning of the book just like he was blind to the remarkable world around him. I think that it’s ironic the other sought an ancient power to become invisible or turn into an eagle yet he had already found out a way to shift into a different dimension. He said that it wasn’t enough and continued seeking something more. The prophet realized the error in that thinking and essentially accepted that this was all there was like piranesi did, but the prophet was a narcissist and so his acceptance manifested differently. I guess the main difference in how the house effected pirenesi vs the prophet is that the person piranesi was died. the prophet saw it clearly but did not die. I think that this book ultimately illustrates how we are surrounded by “god” as you say, but some of us are blind to it, some of us seem glimpse it but it does not “kill” us, and some of us it annihilates. Idk it’s very interesting book.
I share many of your views. The book reminds me a lot of That Hideous Strength in it's anti-gnosticism. But what would you say, contra your thesis, about Michael Rose Sorenson at the end of the book? He talks about Piranesi and Michael as being separate from himself. If Piranesi lived in an idyllic state, what does "Michael's" post house life represent?
Thank you for a wonderful review. I think my starting place for the book centered more around the character of the other. You did not mention his name, which might have been a spoiler. He is the grandson of the magician in the CS Lewis book The magician's nephew. I think there's a closer connection to Lewis's understanding of the wood between the worlds and the notion that there are many different places and ways as you say, to understand God. I would be curious if you were familiar with the Lewis book the magician's nephew, and his dialogues that Lewis had with Owen Barfield and Charles Williams?
Susanna Clarke has talked about these links, if you have a google. I've done stuff on Lewis and Barfield in general, not the magician's nephew specifically. Do you know @pintswithjack? They're having a Barfield month right now that will cover this ground, I guess.
@@PlatosPodcasts Clarke places Piranesi squarely in the Lewis universe through the Magician's nephew. Ketterly (the other) is the grandson of the main character in the Narnia novel. I found this fascinating, esp since Lewis deals with paths to other worlds in several of his novels. thanks again. thoroughly enjoyed it.
I didn’t really like the dissonance between the spoken beauty of the house and it’s objective description in the book where it’s not being praised. The house is infinite and varied, yes, however it seems that anyone would be pretty bored with it within a couple hours as it’s just a sequence of repeating rooms and halls with marble statues that often repeat in subject. It’s kind if hard not to relate to the other’s disinterest in exploring it outside of what’s necessary for his objective. I personally attribute Piranesi’s aesthetic admiration for the house to insanity.
I think Piranesi is a jumbled dreamscape with no point or merit. I am mystified as to how anyone could feel positive about it. There is no meaning and there are no insights.
Spoiler alert!!! This book is genius only if you read it on a literal level. All you say is perfectly true but who is Paranesi? He is a person suffering from schizophrenia and most likely multiple personality disorder. In a quest to learn about himself he pursues a cult leader and is held captive by a deranged cult member. Deprived of all human interaction, he lives solely in his head in a made up world or ‘the house’, during his captivity. Time is transient in the novel. The ‘Other’ is perhaps his captor from the past or his psychiatrist in the present. The policewoman who rescues him from captivity might also be the seer or 16. Whatever, whenever or whoever, the author has dropped the reader squarely into the delusional mind of a madman with amazingly beautiful prose.
I think we are so used to phsychologizing everything nowadays.. It becomes a problem. Not everything that is difficult for us to imagine is automatically a mental illness.
Human psychology is at the basis of every book, fantasy or realistic. Of course in creating the character of Piranesi realistically the author has to understand the psychology of isolation, amnesia, Stockholm syndrome. Of course in creating the Prophet and the Other she created a parallel between them and cult members. But this doesn't mean the book is "actually" about mental illness. This interpretation is so reductionist! And it doesn't bring justice to the genius of Piranesi. We're so used to fantasy literature being bloated with lots of action and lore and characters that when we finally read a book which has elements of fantasy and philosophy and psychology we think there is some hidden meaning that will turn the way we read it on its head, as if this "literal" meaning is superior. It's not. It's just prosaic.
This is by far the best review of this book I've seen. Nothing felt quite right until I got here. Thank you!
I’ve finished this book today. I can’t get it out of my head. It totally draws you in.
It really does!
There be spoilers in this comment! Now then, I can't speak to this with the same academic eloquence as you (I'm a rather more intuitive and abstract person to be great at precise analysis), but nevertheless I shall try! This book enchanted me from the start. The setting called up a mind palace, that memory tool people use. Especially the way Piranesi navigated the House, and remembered all of it; it struck me early on that this was, in some way, an internal world made external. I'm not sure how well that held up in the text itself, but I could never quite shake it.
Two parts of the story in particular gave me absolute chills. The first was when Piranesi was on the moon-quest from the Other, and he came to the windowless hall that was blacker than black. And so it stayed until night fell and the moon rose and then he realized that this darkness was populated with statues all crafted to marvel at the moon, to forever wait for the fleeting glimpse of its beauty. That straight-up blew me away. It was such a wonderful image of absolute awe, coupled with this prior assumption of the hall's emptiness and inherent terror. Then go have Piranesi remark that for the first time, he felt a part of a crowd! Chills.
The second was quite in the end, when the whole theory of the House is being proposed as ideas and knowledge that have sunk down into the earth and essentially stalagmited their way into the House; they're described as water, and instantly, I thought of the Tides booming in the depths, and how they must be steadily eroding further and further down, that the Hall's depths are not filled with external water but rather very artistic water that has trickled down and carven out an entire world, and will continue to expand up that world with the endlessness of knowledge. Oof, so many chills.
I also quite enjoyed the way the House was not viewed as Something Bad, in the end. 16 (whose real name escapes me) eventually comes around to Piranesi not wanting to leave this place, in viewing it as beautiful, and that it is a place of comfort and peace that he does return to, accompanied by the other victim of the cult, who also was desperate to return. I felt like there was something to the anticipation of madness in staying there, and the converse contentment that Piranesi received, but I couldn't really parse the idea more than that. An interesting vibe, though.
Anyway, this book is just wonderful. I'm glad I found someone who's talking about it! Thanks for the video; it definitely provided perspectives I would never be able to consider ✌️
Sarah Raphael?
The best Piranesi review! It captures all the deep and simple meanings behind each page, each paragraph, each line of this masterpiece... Thanks for sharing your beautiful point of view with us!
This was the best review and analysis of this book I’ve seen so far. You’ve really outdone yourself in terms of research into the themes and references she used. Really nice job!
Tis a great book!
A wonderful contemplation and analysis, Mark. Thanks a lot. It has helped me straighten out a few quirks in my own writing. "Unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven".
Thanks for talking us through this with insight and grace.
Fantastic analysis! I too had the idea that the reverse was true about the house being a "prison," but I feel like your analysis took this insight to a whole new level in exploring the essence of things and asking the reader to question perspectives of the mundane world. Beautiful exploration on what Piranesi represents and the wisdom in presence. Thank you for sharing!
I can’t tell you how much I thoroughly enjoyed your breakdown of the multiple perspectives possible through which to view this novel
A book like no other. It is genius.
Brilliant!
I did also think of plato's cave when i read the book!
A great interpretation of a great book. Thank you so much.
What a great analysis. Thank you.
I have just finished reading it, your video was really good, as it made my reading feel like a second reading where I get to know the book better while not giving away the actual plot. This was the first book I have read in quite a while that was a real page turner for me, it deeply engaged me, it was something of an extension of the work of the Inklings, I found that very reassuring as sometimes it feels like art and culture have stopped or reached a cul de sac but this was seriously good in both being imaginatively rich and philosophically strong. It obviously helps that I like Barfield and the Inklings. A work of contemplation a call for us to make our psyches whole, to realise that the works of the past are not trying to speak in a strange code but that they are expressing how they experienced the world and it is different from how we do now.
Thanks, this was a great impetus to plunge into the book and it was deeply satisfying.
Beautifully put!
Great analysis! Thank you for sharing!
This is a very good review, Mark, and has given me a lot to think about now having finished the book. Thank you for taking the time to do this. Though it's rare for me to pick up books a second time, this one may get me to do it (and your review encourages that).
Is Piranesi religious in its themes? Christian? It has a C.S. Lewis quote so I thought I would ask.
Glad I found this. Keep up the great work. Amazing analysis. :)
Wonderful insight
Such a beautiful review. Thank you.
Your review, like the book, was a meditative experience. Thank you.
Thanks for your insights Mark. Looking forward to reading this. Best. Paul.
I would also like to say the audiobook is excellent. I read the book and listened to the audiobook; the audiobook elevated it for me.
I did the same but in reverse order. I highly, highly recommend reading the book first. This is a book which deserves frequent pauses and thinking at your own pace while processing the story. For me it opened in an entirely different way when read.
Great review
Wonderful! Thank you !!
Thank you for your wonderful video!
I was thinking of reading Piranesi, your recommendation seals the deal!
It doesn't disappoint
Thank you so much Mark. I knew this book was brilliant but wasn't sure how. You are brilliant at literary criticism. Bless you.
Great video
Excellent video, the best analysis of this book I've seen! I love how you decoded the literary references here and interpreted Piranesi's psyche. I really dislike those interpretations of the book as being about mental illness, such a view is so reductionist and simply not supported by the actual text. I'm glad you showed how deep the meanings of this book go without the need of "this book is ACTUALLY about..." - fantasy can be deep and meaningful and intellectual, we don't have to superimpose prosaic interpretations. Thank you for your wonderful analysis!
By the way, what's the book you have behind you with "MAGIC" on the spine?
Very nice review - you are so well-spoken and it was really enjoyable and enlightening. I would have liked more of your critical perspective on the book as well. I think the book stands beautifully as allegory. But I sometimes wonder how Piranesi's character functions more as allegory than as narrative. For example, is his character believable from a psychological perspective? What is Clark saying about the human spirit, and most importantly, is it accurate? I think Clarke has a habit of entering the dark mirrors, whilst avoiding the darkest questions they ask. I love Clarke's miraculous wit and weaving. At the same time, I view the brilliant author as a kind of children's book writer for grown-ups. This may be a good thing, by some opinions, but for me the allegorical aspects of both her major books feels incomplete. At the same time, she offers a truly unique voice, one that I wouldn't necessarily want to change, so I'm of two minds about it. Cheers!
Loved this. New sub! Hey 👐
SPOILERS
You articulated your analysis very well. I was definitely intuiting something similar but was having trouble solidifying the thoughts.
When piranesi is talking to the other I think it becomes more and more apparent the nothingness or wholeness that piranesi represents against the single pointed knowing and seekingness of the other. At one point the other comments on how the world is dead, and piranezi comments that although the tide isn’t alive in the traditional sense, it is certainly alive in another. The other had already written the tide and world off as known and thus was blinded to it. He was blind to piranesi waving to him in the beginning of the book just like he was blind to the remarkable world around him.
I think that it’s ironic the other sought an ancient power to become invisible or turn into an eagle yet he had already found out a way to shift into a different dimension. He said that it wasn’t enough and continued seeking something more. The prophet realized the error in that thinking and essentially accepted that this was all there was like piranesi did, but the prophet was a narcissist and so his acceptance manifested differently. I guess the main difference in how the house effected pirenesi vs the prophet is that the person piranesi was died. the prophet saw it clearly but did not die. I think that this book ultimately illustrates how we are surrounded by “god” as you say, but some of us are blind to it, some of us seem glimpse it but it does not “kill” us, and some of us it annihilates.
Idk it’s very interesting book.
your beard is kinda heart shaped, that's so cool
I share many of your views. The book reminds me a lot of That Hideous Strength in it's anti-gnosticism. But what would you say, contra your thesis, about Michael Rose Sorenson at the end of the book? He talks about Piranesi and Michael as being separate from himself. If Piranesi lived in an idyllic state, what does "Michael's" post house life represent?
Thank you for a wonderful review. I think my starting place for the book centered more around the character of the other. You did not mention his name, which might have been a spoiler. He is the grandson of the magician in the CS Lewis book The magician's nephew. I think there's a closer connection to Lewis's understanding of the wood between the worlds and the notion that there are many different places and ways as you say, to understand God. I would be curious if you were familiar with the Lewis book the magician's nephew, and his dialogues that Lewis had with Owen Barfield and Charles Williams?
Susanna Clarke has talked about these links, if you have a google. I've done stuff on Lewis and Barfield in general, not the magician's nephew specifically. Do you know @pintswithjack? They're having a Barfield month right now that will cover this ground, I guess.
@@PlatosPodcasts Clarke places Piranesi squarely in the Lewis universe through the Magician's nephew. Ketterly (the other) is the grandson of the main character in the Narnia novel. I found this fascinating, esp since Lewis deals with paths to other worlds in several of his novels. thanks again. thoroughly enjoyed it.
Try The Soul Gene.
I didn’t really like the dissonance between the spoken beauty of the house and it’s objective description in the book where it’s not being praised. The house is infinite and varied, yes, however it seems that anyone would be pretty bored with it within a couple hours as it’s just a sequence of repeating rooms and halls with marble statues that often repeat in subject. It’s kind if hard not to relate to the other’s disinterest in exploring it outside of what’s necessary for his objective. I personally attribute Piranesi’s aesthetic admiration for the house to insanity.
I agree with what you say about the dissonance.
I think Piranesi is a jumbled dreamscape with no point or merit. I am mystified as to how anyone could feel positive about it. There is no meaning and there are no insights.
Spoiler alert!!! This book is genius only if you read it on a literal level. All you say is perfectly true but who is Paranesi? He is a person suffering from schizophrenia and most likely multiple personality disorder. In a quest to learn about himself he pursues a cult leader and is held captive by a deranged cult member. Deprived of all human interaction, he lives solely in his head in a made up world or ‘the house’, during his captivity. Time is transient in the novel. The ‘Other’ is perhaps his captor from the past or his psychiatrist in the present. The policewoman who rescues him from captivity might also be the seer or 16. Whatever, whenever or whoever, the author has dropped the reader squarely into the delusional mind of a madman with amazingly beautiful prose.
I think we are so used to phsychologizing everything nowadays..
It becomes a problem. Not everything that is difficult for us to imagine is automatically a mental illness.
Human psychology is at the basis of every book, fantasy or realistic. Of course in creating the character of Piranesi realistically the author has to understand the psychology of isolation, amnesia, Stockholm syndrome. Of course in creating the Prophet and the Other she created a parallel between them and cult members. But this doesn't mean the book is "actually" about mental illness. This interpretation is so reductionist! And it doesn't bring justice to the genius of Piranesi.
We're so used to fantasy literature being bloated with lots of action and lore and characters that when we finally read a book which has elements of fantasy and philosophy and psychology we think there is some hidden meaning that will turn the way we read it on its head, as if this "literal" meaning is superior. It's not. It's just prosaic.