It certainly does benefit from re-reading. I've not even begun working out all the references yet! It did strike me that cataloguing the statues mentioned in the book and trying to track down real-world references/symbolic meanings for them could make a really fun meta project sometime. And then everyone keeps comparing it to this writer called Borges who I've never read, and perhaps I should now... lots to find out :D
he definitely stands for the whole "right and wrong are irrelevant concepts" that make Faerie so interesting
Oh, that's a good comparison! Haha, I wonder how he'd have reacted to being stolen away into Faerie Uskglass-style.
Yes, I like the idea of the House as a healing thing—especially for the odd contrast it forms with the obvious way to interpret Matthew's story, which would view the House as a tool (if not an agent) of destruction. That sort of feeling—where something is eerie, uncanny, slightly horrible and at the same time quietly comforting and secure—is one of my favourite things about JSMN, and I'm recognising it in Piranesi now too.
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.
Yes! (or the way Jonathan Strange does, you might say—seeking knowledge through destruction?) A search for meaning can be good and valuable—Piranesi's 'scientific' work that he does independently from the Other, as well as his book at the end, and his interpretations of the things the birds tell him—but there's definitely a right way and a wrong way to go about it.
I love the idea of a parallel between the narrator, Lady Pole and Stephen in the way they're changed by their experiences—indeed, they're not who they were at the start, the things they've gone through have changed them, but they (especially Stephen—I agree that the House is very like Lost-hope in some ways!) find healing and strength in that.
The House is awful for the Other, who only cares about what he can get from it, and beautiful for Matthew.
Oh, that's a great point—and it ties in beautifully with Clarke's portrayal of the world as alive, because characters who understand that and respect the world are in turn respected by it, whereas it quite happily turns on characters who don't. (Again, I think, compare Stephen's defeat of the gentleman by calling on the living world in the shape of the trees, stones etc. of England to aid him. Oh, the more I think about all this the better it gets...!)
The birds as oracle divination, yes! I suppose the 'wordy' tarot cards in JSMN are more appropriate to what's a very wordy, academic book, whereas the birds in Piranesi are themselves more obviously part of the world itself, its thinking voice sending messages for Piranesi, who understands them, to interpret.
no subject
It certainly does benefit from re-reading. I've not even begun working out all the references yet! It did strike me that cataloguing the statues mentioned in the book and trying to track down real-world references/symbolic meanings for them could make a really fun meta project sometime. And then everyone keeps comparing it to this writer called Borges who I've never read, and perhaps I should now... lots to find out :D
he definitely stands for the whole "right and wrong are irrelevant concepts" that make Faerie so interesting
Oh, that's a good comparison! Haha, I wonder how he'd have reacted to being stolen away into Faerie Uskglass-style.
Yes, I like the idea of the House as a healing thing—especially for the odd contrast it forms with the obvious way to interpret Matthew's story, which would view the House as a tool (if not an agent) of destruction. That sort of feeling—where something is eerie, uncanny, slightly horrible and at the same time quietly comforting and secure—is one of my favourite things about JSMN, and I'm recognising it in Piranesi now too.
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.
Yes! (or the way Jonathan Strange does, you might say—seeking knowledge through destruction?) A search for meaning can be good and valuable—Piranesi's 'scientific' work that he does independently from the Other, as well as his book at the end, and his interpretations of the things the birds tell him—but there's definitely a right way and a wrong way to go about it.
I love the idea of a parallel between the narrator, Lady Pole and Stephen in the way they're changed by their experiences—indeed, they're not who they were at the start, the things they've gone through have changed them, but they (especially Stephen—I agree that the House is very like Lost-hope in some ways!) find healing and strength in that.
The House is awful for the Other, who only cares about what he can get from it, and beautiful for Matthew.
Oh, that's a great point—and it ties in beautifully with Clarke's portrayal of the world as alive, because characters who understand that and respect the world are in turn respected by it, whereas it quite happily turns on characters who don't. (Again, I think, compare Stephen's defeat of the gentleman by calling on the living world in the shape of the trees, stones etc. of England to aid him. Oh, the more I think about all this the better it gets...!)
The birds as oracle divination, yes! I suppose the 'wordy' tarot cards in JSMN are more appropriate to what's a very wordy, academic book, whereas the birds in Piranesi are themselves more obviously part of the world itself, its thinking voice sending messages for Piranesi, who understands them, to interpret.