Piranesi again!
Dec. 9th, 2020 05:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regshoeI decided to read Piranesi again, and it turns out this was an excellent idea—I enjoyed it way more than the first time through! I think a lot of things about the early parts of the book benefit from reading them while knowing what's coming later on, and I really enjoyed getting to know the whole thing better, paying more attention to the details in the way you can on a second read.
Some more specific thoughts below the cut...
Having been ambivalent about Laurence Arne-Sayles before, he's my fave now. I think part of it is that he reminds me a little bit of John Uskglass, both in character and in how they stand in relation to the story—now, obviously they're not the same, and I think ultimately Arne-Sayles is not nearly as important, narratively or symbolically, as Uskglass, and also not nearly as good a person, but... a lifelong outsider, incredibly brilliant in ways that enable them to understand the true nature of magic but always cut off from other people, a sense that conventional questions of right and wrong are just kind of irrelevant as far as they're concerned, does bad things (compare poor James Ritter to Henry Barbatus, I think) but there's a sense in which good and bad really aren't the point, taking a position more or less outside the story as we readers experience it, most of what we learn is through references and in-universe backstory notes, etc. etc. Well, it's my kind of character type, apparently.
I was particularly intrigued by the 'Prophet' scene, as a kind of backwards version of 'The hawthorn tree' from JSMN. In both cases, we meet this 'outsider' character from the perspective of another character who doesn't fully understand who they are or what the significance of the meeting is; he himself has turned up out of a sort of fascinated interest in the story that other people have made of his creation; and then he disappears back into a mystery. But with Uskglass that scene is so good because the reader has already heard all the backstory information about him and understands exactly what's going on, whereas with LA-S we only learn the rest later on—which makes the scene an even better one for a re-read...
I want all the backstory fic about LA-S. How did he first become interested in magic and other worlds, how did he first develop this idea of the ancients having and then losing magical knowledge? How did his personality develop (I can imagine some very interesting stuff with how his sexuality might have, growing up in the ~50s, informed his view of himself as an outsider and his contempt for other people and their opinions of him, which could certainly interact with his magical ideas). What really happened at basically any point in the backstory we hear about through Matthew's notes?
As for the narrator's view of LA-S as the statue of a 'heretical pope' who 'revels in the thought that he is somehow shocking'... yeah, fair. But that's such an interesting character...!
As for characters who are actually somewhat nice people: I loved both the narrator and Sarah Raphael even more this time round. Raphael—wow, to imagine her as this ordinary police detective living in the normal world with no idea about magic, investigating Matthew's disappearance and gradually learning the truth about the House. It must have been so much for her to take in, and the fact that she not only takes it in her stride but ends up with the sympathetic, positive view of the House that she does, going there to escape when the world gets too loud and crowded... I love her. <3
The conversations between Raphael and the narrator, after the flood and later on towards the end, are written with this sort of beautiful simplicity. There's so much they could have to talk about, but instead you get the sense that they just... get each other. They understand each other without having to work through all the details, and it means so much to both of them. I love the way Raphael says 'OK', and I love their relationship. You know, for someone whose last novel was over a thousand pages long, Susanna Clarke is really very good at not saying things sometimes.
Also, the fact that Raphael was (apparently) so easily able to find the way to the House without fancy rituals as soon as LA-S told her how, when we're repeatedly told that's something hardly anyone can do.
Speaking of which, the other person who could do it—Sylvia D'Agostino. Definitely my fave of the backstory characters! Is it significant that the only other characters besides LA-S who can get to the House that easily at first are both women?
I can't quite put into words why I love the narrator (i.e. the character who's narrating by the end of the book, who says he's neither Piranesi nor Matthew Rose Sorensen—though, of course, both those characters are very good and interesting in their ways...) so much, but once again the final section of the book was my absolute favourite part and so, so beautiful. I think it's that there's this weird dissonance, between how horrible what has actually happened is when you think about it from an outside perspective for more than a few moments, and how gently the narrator deals with it. The Beauty of the House is immeasurable; its Kindness infinite.
There's definitely a Point being made here, in a way that's definitely related to JSMN while not being exactly the same thing, about the sort of people who are able to understand the speaking, living world. I love how softly and gently Clarke conveys this sort of thing. I was particularly struck by Piranesi calmly and methodically interpreting what the birds tell him, in contrast to the mysterious significant birds the exact meaning of which no one can ever interpret in JSMN. And also by this: vs.:
There's something very profound in Clarke's view of wisdom, I think.
At the end the narrator returns to Matthew's ambition of writing a book about Laurence Arne-Sayles. What on earth is he going to say in it??? (and what will LA-S make of the whole thing?)
I love the suggestions that there are many other worlds besides the House. I can just see LA-S going off exploring into the great magical unknown and finding out more things he contemptuously thinks are beyond everyone else, and meeting John Uskglass there and being very amused. Laurence Arne-Sayles/John Uskglass, new OTP.
I'm sorry, I can't get over this: the ending is so, so mysteriously, understatedly, heartbreakingly beautiful. I love it. What an incredible book. <333
Some more specific thoughts below the cut...
One sentence puzzles me: The world was constantly speaking to Ancient Man. I do not understand why this sentence is in the past tense. The World still speaks to me every day.
Bright yellow leaves flowed swiftly upon the dark, almost-black water, making patterns as they went. To Mr Segundus the patterns looked a little like magical writing. ‘But then,’ he thought, ‘so many things do.’
no subject
Date: Dec. 10th, 2020 05:32 pm (UTC)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
Date: Dec. 10th, 2020 06:20 pm (UTC)And I'm very glad to know that I'm not the only one to find all those Borges references--I feared that I must be too obvious! When I first read it, I made it only a few pages before thinking "This is *exactly* like that Borges story!" (And oh man, if you ever decide to read him, you're in for such a treat... all that magical realism! I won't say anything more, because otherwise I won't shut about, but I have many Opinions--and recs, should you ever want them...)
Definitely! I like how, just as things/people being good or bad is irrelevant in Faerie, so is the beautiful/horrible thing, because... it's both? It's not exactly the point? And you can't describe magic with human terms anyway?
Also, I like your point about Strange and his search for knowledge through destruction... the way he goes with a different point of view to understand is also something Matthew does, in both cases, there's "definitely a right way and a wrong way to go about it", I agree... but both are characters willing to go above and beyond to search for meaning, and I totally respect that!
I think that what I like best is the House as a world that's alive, a place where some people can find healing and strength, because, like you said, they "understand that and respect the world", and "are in turn respected by it, whereas it quite happily turns on characters who don't." That's very otherwordly and magical, and also comforting and excellent!
Haha, my thoughts exactly. I have to say, I am loving these posts, if you ever feel like making more in the future... ;)
As for the oracle imagery... I may or may not have spent a whole afternoon with my cards, figuring out ideas and imagery and which card/symbol could stand for which character (I did something similar with the Marseilles tarot when I first read JS&MN, so I love the parallels, hehe)
no subject
Date: Dec. 10th, 2020 07:12 pm (UTC)Looking at his wikipedia page, this sounds very relevant to my interests (as well as to Susanna Clarke's writing!): short stories interconnected by common themes, including dreams, labyrinths, philosophers, libraries, mirrors, fictional writers, and mythology. I may indeed check them out!
Strange's approach to magic is a difficult one–I feel quite strongly that it and he are wrong, but it's tricky to pin down exactly what's wrong about it, especially in comparison to Norrell's much more obvious flaws. But he doesn't simply understand the world the way Stephen and Segundus and Piranesi do (more relevantly, perhaps, the way the ladies of Grace Adieu do), and perhaps that's it. Well, I'm going to re-read JSMN next, so I'll think about it more then, no doubt.
Yes, bigger on the inside indeed :D Well, I'm sure I will have a lot more to say about it in future...
no subject
Date: Dec. 10th, 2020 07:42 pm (UTC)He also really liked to use footnotes, if that helps! ;)
As for Strange's approach, I think he means well, but there is something wrong about it, definitely... I always go back to what the Ladies tell him, about him being at war with himself (his head vs. his heart), and that makes a lot of sense to me, because the deeper understanding of the world can only come when that war ends, so to speak.
no subject
Date: Dec. 10th, 2020 07:55 pm (UTC)Better and better :D
Yeah, I think that's more or less it—hmm, perhaps I'll make it a Clarke marathon and re-read LoGA too!