Welcome back to our ongoing conversation on Susanna Clarke’s Piranesi. This week we’re discussing the book’s genre-bending nature, Clarke’s extremely allusive approach (from Coleridge to Lewis and others in between), whether the house of a dark place or a peaceful place, and much more. Happy listening!
I was wondering, do you think it is beneficial to read unsettling books? And if so, how often and why? Personally, I find Piranesi a rather unsettling book to read, as do some of the other readers I am reading it along side with. We were curious about your opinion.
Haven't read through all the comments but I keep thinking on the Garden of Eden. Piranesi does not have full Knowledge of Good and Evil and he is safe in the House ("Garden"). It's as if he is sinless in the Garden still and the Other is the Serpent telling him what to believe and not believe...possibly leading him astray? Piranesi has child-like faith because of his innocence. So far in the book, we are receiving more and more clues of the potential evil actions of others but Piranesi is content to not look for the ultimate Knowledge but happy to explore the science (wonders of creation). Unfortunately, his hand is forced and he will have to face the wicked and choose one way or another. This is the vibe I continue to get...excited to read more!
This book always has this weird optical illusion effect on me (like the ‘is it a duck or rabbit?’ picture). For example, he is an innocent like in the garden, but might it be better for him to know evil? The illusion effect is because as I read I swing back and forth between wanting him to stay in the cave/garden and wanting him to move beyond it.
Maybe this is going too far, but reading this book looking for Easter eggs from other classics got me thinking about Gollum…living in a set of labyrinthian tunnels/caves, his split personality (one of them innocent and childlike), his experiential rather than theoretical knowledge of magical alternative realities, and even his diet of fish. But Piranesi almost seems to redeem Gollum by repudiating violence and clinging to his childlike innocence. Is there anything there, or is Gollum just another iteration of Plato’s Cave in western literature and that’s the stem from where the similarities emerge?
Also, my baby is now five weeks old and calmed by wave sounds, so I read most of this book with the perfect audio backing. 🌊
Since I was so critical of spoilers in the first episode, just wanted to shout out the strong intentionality you guys showed for NOT having spoilers in this episode. Duly noted and appreciated!
Answers to questions about genre, opinions on if the book is allegorical or not, whether or not there is a need to look for one-to-one symbolism in events and statues or if these easter eggs are simply red herrings, in my opinion these answers to these spoiled much of the mystery. Part 1 obviously leads to these questions, but since so far there no answers provided by the narrator, statements that lead the reader in any direction help ease the disorientation that Clark has masterfully crafted up to now. Also, a reference made about the "outer world" and the discussion of Plato's allegory of the cave confirm a plot point which at this point the reader might suspect, but is not sure of.
To be fair, we Close Readers who clamored for this book to be on the pod essentially set the new readers up for this and didn't realize it until the discussion began. It's the very nature of this show we love so much, and especially of you David with your most excellent questions. You were asking the exact right ones of course, the ones we all had and some I'm sure we hadn't even though of on the first read-through. I just never thought of the implications of Close Reading this book on a first-time read through. The disorientation of the first read through can never be recaptured, and for this book I wonder if it an essential element of eventual enjoyment. This book held my interest in large part because the unfolding of the plot seemed to continue raising more questions than it was answering for much of the book. This frustrated me to no end, I disliked the disorientation and feeling that I was out of my depth, missing things that it felt like I should be getting since the allusions were so familiar. The experience of realizing this was utterly intentional upon finishing the book is in large part why I recommend it to others. Had my questions been answered by and discussed with trusted friends before-hand, the experience would have lost it's intenseness. If, as you all discussed, you end up not really liking this book, I'll wonder if the experience of having a bit of mystery taken away so early on contributed to that.
I read a few pages in this book and decided I needed the podcast to motivate me, so I listened before finishing part one and was at least intrigued enough to keep going. It's gaining interest for me, but I'm skeptical now. Is this a positive book? Or negative? If that seems too simplistic, it's a question I was once asked about another book that shook me but made me think.
I like that question, and my take is that it’s positive. I understand your concern and wondered the same thing as I began reading it for the first time. My knowledge of the friend who recommended it and the way she recommended it to me, lead me to trust that the read would be a positive experience, and that is how it was for me.
Okay, listen, Josh Gibbs: I don’t know you, but your criticism is silly.
Yes, Piranesi is very effeminate! This is a feature, not a bug! He’s effeminate in the way that a little boy is effeminate, not the way a woman is effeminate. His childlike nature is the reason he has been able to maintain his sanity to the degree he has. The House also erodes the personalities of its residents. He’s gonna be weird.
Anyway, I just want to put in a strong word for Susannah Clarke here. This is definitely an intentional choice, not a poorly written character.
Thank you for being so candid. I sort of hope this topic gets put to rest because as you stated, it is silly. David's comment that Piranesi is childlike is spot on, and tracks with the story. Adorning himself by putting shells in his hair is not feminine. A sane grown woman in that situation would not be doing that. It is clearly a person who is losing/has lost his mind and is quite alone for most of the time. Brilliant character development by Susannah Clarke.
I read Piranesi and The Aviator very close together, maybe in the same month. I sense of mystery and disorientation is very similar at the beginning of the two books.
I think it's funny that Sean thinks it's funny that they are marketing fantasy to senior citizens. We were reading it long before you were born. I had probably read LotR to my kids before you were born. Heck, when I was born, LotR wasn't even published yet. 😎
Heidi's comment that different parts of the house affect Piranesi differently is something I definitely did not pick up on when reading it, and it's a fascinating idea....and seems really hard to write well.
I appreciate the discussion around the house. I've been listening to a different podcast about the book and it is largely along the lines of "the house is good and beautiful." I was very creeped out by the house and the book to begin with. There was a sense of foreboding. I even went to read spoilers on how it ended because I was worried about the direction the book could possibly take. So, I appreciate the "the house is an in-between place" idea.
Here is another potential angle: what is the place of scientific inquiry? It’s easy to dismiss the narrator as no real scientist—but what if there is an important sense in which he is. He is meticulous. He collects careful data which he is constantly hypothesizing about. He knows the stars, the tides, the animals. Basically everything he does is driven by a tender desire to know the house. In doing this, he conforms himself to (the house’s) nature. For example, he moves with tides. He survives because his desire to collect and preserve knowledge of the external world fills his life with meaning.
When he realizes HE is becoming the object of his own inquiry—that is when his world starts to fall apart.
The beautiful scientific inquiry of the narrator can be contrasted with the diabolical “scientific” delving of the Other and the Prophet (think That Hideous Strength).
Also, I feel pretty strongly that Clarke intentionally wrote the narrator as a feminine man. But his own self knowledge is in line with nature biologically/ontologically/teleologically (haha sorry for all the adverbs). He calls himself male and considers the possibility that the house may have intended to bring him a female with whom he can/should procreate.
I came here to comment on this! I completely agree. I think he is a scientist in the truest and best way. I think his relationship to his environment/what he is studying is oriented in love. He has a love and respect for the object of his study which leads him to care for it, to learn from it and let it inform the way he lives there (learning the tides, species, etc.) This is contrasted to the Other who specifically engages with the house (and Pirinisi) for what power can be extracted from it. This cold/ removed way of discovery is more in line with post-enlightenment science (Which I think is specifically what Heidi meant)
CS Lewis said in Abolition of Man, “The fact that the scientist has succeeded where the magician failed has put such a wide contrast between them in popular thought that the real story of the birth of Science is misunderstood. You will even find people who write about the sixteenth century as if Magic were a medieval survival and Science the new thing that came in to sweep it away. Those who have studied the period know better. There was very little magic in the Middle Ages: the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are the high noon of magic. The serious magical endeavour and the serious scientific endeavour are twins: one was sickly and died, the other strong and throve. But they were twins. They were born of the same impulse.” I think this theme is within Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell and I also find it very prevalent here.
I also think his faith that the house is beautiful and cares for him is in part because he has adjusted himself to live within its boundaries and "Take dominion" over it in a way that suits its nature.
Piranesi is a naturalist! He should have been nicknamed Fabre. He’s approaching science from a place of observation, wonder, and respect for reality. The Other is basically an embodiment of the shortcomings of empirical science.
I wonder if Piranesi’s receptive nature to is the reason he has been able to stay sane-ish for so long.
Oh yes. He's definitely a scientist. I like the distinction between Piranesi as curious naturalist, observing and cataloguing, and the Other and the Prophet as diabolical empirical scientist/magicians who delve too deep and who use science as a means to dominate and control.
Ms. Heidi,
I was wondering, do you think it is beneficial to read unsettling books? And if so, how often and why? Personally, I find Piranesi a rather unsettling book to read, as do some of the other readers I am reading it along side with. We were curious about your opinion.
Is anyone thinking, as I am, that Piranesi is a victim?
Sebastian Flyte in heaven. Amen.
I named my son Sebastian because of him.
Haven't read through all the comments but I keep thinking on the Garden of Eden. Piranesi does not have full Knowledge of Good and Evil and he is safe in the House ("Garden"). It's as if he is sinless in the Garden still and the Other is the Serpent telling him what to believe and not believe...possibly leading him astray? Piranesi has child-like faith because of his innocence. So far in the book, we are receiving more and more clues of the potential evil actions of others but Piranesi is content to not look for the ultimate Knowledge but happy to explore the science (wonders of creation). Unfortunately, his hand is forced and he will have to face the wicked and choose one way or another. This is the vibe I continue to get...excited to read more!
This book always has this weird optical illusion effect on me (like the ‘is it a duck or rabbit?’ picture). For example, he is an innocent like in the garden, but might it be better for him to know evil? The illusion effect is because as I read I swing back and forth between wanting him to stay in the cave/garden and wanting him to move beyond it.
Maybe this is going too far, but reading this book looking for Easter eggs from other classics got me thinking about Gollum…living in a set of labyrinthian tunnels/caves, his split personality (one of them innocent and childlike), his experiential rather than theoretical knowledge of magical alternative realities, and even his diet of fish. But Piranesi almost seems to redeem Gollum by repudiating violence and clinging to his childlike innocence. Is there anything there, or is Gollum just another iteration of Plato’s Cave in western literature and that’s the stem from where the similarities emerge?
Also, my baby is now five weeks old and calmed by wave sounds, so I read most of this book with the perfect audio backing. 🌊
Since I was so critical of spoilers in the first episode, just wanted to shout out the strong intentionality you guys showed for NOT having spoilers in this episode. Duly noted and appreciated!
What did we spoil in the first episode.
Answers to questions about genre, opinions on if the book is allegorical or not, whether or not there is a need to look for one-to-one symbolism in events and statues or if these easter eggs are simply red herrings, in my opinion these answers to these spoiled much of the mystery. Part 1 obviously leads to these questions, but since so far there no answers provided by the narrator, statements that lead the reader in any direction help ease the disorientation that Clark has masterfully crafted up to now. Also, a reference made about the "outer world" and the discussion of Plato's allegory of the cave confirm a plot point which at this point the reader might suspect, but is not sure of.
To be fair, we Close Readers who clamored for this book to be on the pod essentially set the new readers up for this and didn't realize it until the discussion began. It's the very nature of this show we love so much, and especially of you David with your most excellent questions. You were asking the exact right ones of course, the ones we all had and some I'm sure we hadn't even though of on the first read-through. I just never thought of the implications of Close Reading this book on a first-time read through. The disorientation of the first read through can never be recaptured, and for this book I wonder if it an essential element of eventual enjoyment. This book held my interest in large part because the unfolding of the plot seemed to continue raising more questions than it was answering for much of the book. This frustrated me to no end, I disliked the disorientation and feeling that I was out of my depth, missing things that it felt like I should be getting since the allusions were so familiar. The experience of realizing this was utterly intentional upon finishing the book is in large part why I recommend it to others. Had my questions been answered by and discussed with trusted friends before-hand, the experience would have lost it's intenseness. If, as you all discussed, you end up not really liking this book, I'll wonder if the experience of having a bit of mystery taken away so early on contributed to that.
I read a few pages in this book and decided I needed the podcast to motivate me, so I listened before finishing part one and was at least intrigued enough to keep going. It's gaining interest for me, but I'm skeptical now. Is this a positive book? Or negative? If that seems too simplistic, it's a question I was once asked about another book that shook me but made me think.
I like that question, and my take is that it’s positive. I understand your concern and wondered the same thing as I began reading it for the first time. My knowledge of the friend who recommended it and the way she recommended it to me, lead me to trust that the read would be a positive experience, and that is how it was for me.
Okay, listen, Josh Gibbs: I don’t know you, but your criticism is silly.
Yes, Piranesi is very effeminate! This is a feature, not a bug! He’s effeminate in the way that a little boy is effeminate, not the way a woman is effeminate. His childlike nature is the reason he has been able to maintain his sanity to the degree he has. The House also erodes the personalities of its residents. He’s gonna be weird.
Anyway, I just want to put in a strong word for Susannah Clarke here. This is definitely an intentional choice, not a poorly written character.
Thank you for being so candid. I sort of hope this topic gets put to rest because as you stated, it is silly. David's comment that Piranesi is childlike is spot on, and tracks with the story. Adorning himself by putting shells in his hair is not feminine. A sane grown woman in that situation would not be doing that. It is clearly a person who is losing/has lost his mind and is quite alone for most of the time. Brilliant character development by Susannah Clarke.
Haha, poor Josh. I should clarify it was merely an observation, not a criticism.
(I’m also not seriously judging him)
Yeah, I didn't take him to be critical either.
The conversation reminded me of this verse for some reason. Knowledge, child-likeness, etc.
1 Corinthians 14:20 (KJV)
Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
Yes! Another verse to keep in mind at this point in the book is:
Genesis 2:17: "But of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die."
I read Piranesi and The Aviator very close together, maybe in the same month. I sense of mystery and disorientation is very similar at the beginning of the two books.
Oh that's a great pairing. I love The Aviator as well.
I think it's funny that Sean thinks it's funny that they are marketing fantasy to senior citizens. We were reading it long before you were born. I had probably read LotR to my kids before you were born. Heck, when I was born, LotR wasn't even published yet. 😎
Heidi's comment that different parts of the house affect Piranesi differently is something I definitely did not pick up on when reading it, and it's a fascinating idea....and seems really hard to write well.
I appreciate the discussion around the house. I've been listening to a different podcast about the book and it is largely along the lines of "the house is good and beautiful." I was very creeped out by the house and the book to begin with. There was a sense of foreboding. I even went to read spoilers on how it ended because I was worried about the direction the book could possibly take. So, I appreciate the "the house is an in-between place" idea.
I've read the novel many times and I hadn't picked up on the different parts of the House affecting him differently either.
Here is another potential angle: what is the place of scientific inquiry? It’s easy to dismiss the narrator as no real scientist—but what if there is an important sense in which he is. He is meticulous. He collects careful data which he is constantly hypothesizing about. He knows the stars, the tides, the animals. Basically everything he does is driven by a tender desire to know the house. In doing this, he conforms himself to (the house’s) nature. For example, he moves with tides. He survives because his desire to collect and preserve knowledge of the external world fills his life with meaning.
When he realizes HE is becoming the object of his own inquiry—that is when his world starts to fall apart.
The beautiful scientific inquiry of the narrator can be contrasted with the diabolical “scientific” delving of the Other and the Prophet (think That Hideous Strength).
Also, I feel pretty strongly that Clarke intentionally wrote the narrator as a feminine man. But his own self knowledge is in line with nature biologically/ontologically/teleologically (haha sorry for all the adverbs). He calls himself male and considers the possibility that the house may have intended to bring him a female with whom he can/should procreate.
I came here to comment on this! I completely agree. I think he is a scientist in the truest and best way. I think his relationship to his environment/what he is studying is oriented in love. He has a love and respect for the object of his study which leads him to care for it, to learn from it and let it inform the way he lives there (learning the tides, species, etc.) This is contrasted to the Other who specifically engages with the house (and Pirinisi) for what power can be extracted from it. This cold/ removed way of discovery is more in line with post-enlightenment science (Which I think is specifically what Heidi meant)
CS Lewis said in Abolition of Man, “The fact that the scientist has succeeded where the magician failed has put such a wide contrast between them in popular thought that the real story of the birth of Science is misunderstood. You will even find people who write about the sixteenth century as if Magic were a medieval survival and Science the new thing that came in to sweep it away. Those who have studied the period know better. There was very little magic in the Middle Ages: the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are the high noon of magic. The serious magical endeavour and the serious scientific endeavour are twins: one was sickly and died, the other strong and throve. But they were twins. They were born of the same impulse.” I think this theme is within Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell and I also find it very prevalent here.
I also think his faith that the house is beautiful and cares for him is in part because he has adjusted himself to live within its boundaries and "Take dominion" over it in a way that suits its nature.
Piranesi is a naturalist! He should have been nicknamed Fabre. He’s approaching science from a place of observation, wonder, and respect for reality. The Other is basically an embodiment of the shortcomings of empirical science.
I wonder if Piranesi’s receptive nature to is the reason he has been able to stay sane-ish for so long.
Oh yes. He's definitely a scientist. I like the distinction between Piranesi as curious naturalist, observing and cataloguing, and the Other and the Prophet as diabolical empirical scientist/magicians who delve too deep and who use science as a means to dominate and control.
Piranesi does not use contractions in his speech. What do you make of that?
Wonderful discussion. I mentioned this in a chat thread, but I wanted to bring to any other listeners' attention this excellent (but spoiler-heavy) review that was submitted to Scott Alexander's book review contest last year. Some really insightful thoughts here I think: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cp6iw5OEyDjnD_viZo-KL0Zv4jwQnMXtE4yIovfVAco/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.oedt50otw6yt
This was a great read!