Yes! More Piranesi thoughts! I'm still not over it either, so this is great, I've really enjoyed your excellent thoughts about this excellent book! :D
It really is one of those books that unfolds/expands the more you read it, right? It's so full of details and references that you definitely need more than one read to start getting it. Of course, this is true of JS&MN too, but that so much is packed into such a short book is very impressive!
You are totally right about Arne-Sayles and all the Uskglass-related symbolism... he definitely stands for the whole "right and wrong are irrelevant concepts" that make Faerie so interesting, and for the whole idea of magic being only truly understood by outsiders (which is one of my favourite things about JS&MN), and for some things remaining a mystery always (Matthew/Piranesi's potential book could be a sort of modern stand-in for the King's letters...)
And Sarah Raphael... I love her so much too! The way she accepts the House and magic as things that exist, no questions asked, the way she offers her friendship and support (I kind of feel she is the Flora Greysteel character type in this universe) and especially, how the House becomes part of her healing process as well as Matthew's.
"Beautiful simplicity" is really a good way of describing this book. I also got the sense of things left unsaid/hiding between the lines, and still think the book is deceptively short and simple! ;) There's something really powerful about it, about accepting that there are things you don't know, and yet that they are important and enough in and of themselves, simply by existing...
...which brings me back to the type of character that "truly" gets magic, I think it comes down to those who don't search for meaning the way the Other does, for example, but accept the mystery as it is, because it already makes sense and is beautiful and meaningful already. I think this is the relationship that Matthew and Sarah Raphael (and Sylvia D'Agostino too!) have with the House, and it's lovely.
And the question of the "narrator" at the end is fascinating indeed! He is not Matthew, he is not Piranesi, but he is a bit of both, and yet this sum of parts means that he is someone completely different. Back to JS&MN parallels, I think of Lady Pole and Stephen's dualities, how they are not who they were at the start, and how they are (two of) the ones to save the day. Like Matthew/Piranesi, they have gone through horrible experiences (I thought that, at times, the House could be a sort of modern Lost-hope) but the experience made them stronger, and in a way, made them become themselves in the end, and everyone gains a new sort of agency and understanding by the end of both books.
Also, in another parallel, the places are horrible or beutiful depending on who looks at them, and for what reason. Lost-hope under the Gentleman's domain is not great, but becomes a better place thanks to Stephen. The House is awful for the Other, who only cares about what he can get from it, and beautiful for Matthew. So, basically, it points out to perspective and intention, and how it can ruin or save a place, and , back to the idea of simplicity as acceptance, how the House becomes an escape from the loud and crowded outside world--and actually, for the people who Get It, it becomes the world that speaks to them every day <3 (very Borgesian, I think...I'm never going to give up that interpretation, haha)
And yes, the ending is really something!! And so are the very significant birds, I also loved that part when the birds send messages via the statues! (The other interpretation that I am not giving up is that she seems to have found a divination style for each of her novels, heh! JS&MN uses tarot imagery--more obscure and wordy, but "Piranesi" uses oracle divination instead--more simple and straightforward, less words... well, I might be overreaching here, but it totally fits!
no subject
It really is one of those books that unfolds/expands the more you read it, right? It's so full of details and references that you definitely need more than one read to start getting it. Of course, this is true of JS&MN too, but that so much is packed into such a short book is very impressive!
You are totally right about Arne-Sayles and all the Uskglass-related symbolism... he definitely stands for the whole "right and wrong are irrelevant concepts" that make Faerie so interesting, and for the whole idea of magic being only truly understood by outsiders (which is one of my favourite things about JS&MN), and for some things remaining a mystery always (Matthew/Piranesi's potential book could be a sort of modern stand-in for the King's letters...)
And Sarah Raphael... I love her so much too! The way she accepts the House and magic as things that exist, no questions asked, the way she offers her friendship and support (I kind of feel she is the Flora Greysteel character type in this universe) and especially, how the House becomes part of her healing process as well as Matthew's.
"Beautiful simplicity" is really a good way of describing this book. I also got the sense of things left unsaid/hiding between the lines, and still think the book is deceptively short and simple! ;) There's something really powerful about it, about accepting that there are things you don't know, and yet that they are important and enough in and of themselves, simply by existing...
...which brings me back to the type of character that "truly" gets magic, I think it comes down to those who don't search for meaning the way the Other does, for example, but accept the mystery as it is, because it already makes sense and is beautiful and meaningful already. I think this is the relationship that Matthew and Sarah Raphael (and Sylvia D'Agostino too!) have with the House, and it's lovely.
And the question of the "narrator" at the end is fascinating indeed! He is not Matthew, he is not Piranesi, but he is a bit of both, and yet this sum of parts means that he is someone completely different. Back to JS&MN parallels, I think of Lady Pole and Stephen's dualities, how they are not who they were at the start, and how they are (two of) the ones to save the day. Like Matthew/Piranesi, they have gone through horrible experiences (I thought that, at times, the House could be a sort of modern Lost-hope) but the experience made them stronger, and in a way, made them become themselves in the end, and everyone gains a new sort of agency and understanding by the end of both books.
Also, in another parallel, the places are horrible or beutiful depending on who looks at them, and for what reason. Lost-hope under the Gentleman's domain is not great, but becomes a better place thanks to Stephen. The House is awful for the Other, who only cares about what he can get from it, and beautiful for Matthew. So, basically, it points out to perspective and intention, and how it can ruin or save a place, and , back to the idea of simplicity as acceptance, how the House becomes an escape from the loud and crowded outside world--and actually, for the people who Get It, it becomes the world that speaks to them every day <3 (very Borgesian, I think...I'm never going to give up that interpretation, haha)
And yes, the ending is really something!! And so are the very significant birds, I also loved that part when the birds send messages via the statues! (The other interpretation that I am not giving up is that she seems to have found a divination style for each of her novels, heh! JS&MN uses tarot imagery--more obscure and wordy, but "Piranesi" uses oracle divination instead--more simple and straightforward, less words... well, I might be overreaching here, but it totally fits!