bookhobbit (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bookhobbit) wrote2020-09-24 01:10 pm
bookhobbit) wrote2020-09-24 01:10 pm
Entry tags:
Piranesi by Susanna Clarke
Well. It got here. I started it at about 10:30, stopped for lunch around 11, and then from 11:30-1:00 or so I just read it straight through. So this is a very first impressions kind of post rather than a seasoned review. I might have more thoughts later.
I'm not sure where to start so let's start with my only real point of negativity: an character who is described as shocking and transgressive and immoral who, btw, is a queer man. Are we supposed to find his queerness shocking and transgressive? I know pederasty is strongly implied but that doesn't really make it better because it's playing on such old and destructive stereotypes. Really wasn't impressed by this, and it almost ruined the book for me. It's such an obvious bit of homophobia and it stands out in particular when you think about Drawlight in js&mn. I was willing to forgive her for Drawlight because he's only queer-coded, not canon queer, and he's not exactly a villain -- he's one of many, many morally unpleasant characters in a book largely about morally unpleasant characters. Given the very limited amount we know about any outside characters in Piranesi her choice to highlight gay sexuality in one of the most unpleasant is frustrating.
That's my only gripe but it's a really big gripe. Moving on from there what an AESTHETIC am I right?? I was very startled that it wasn't a historical setting, but I thought that was wise, really, because it's so thematically consistent with js&mn that if it had been, I think it would have been quite hard to dissociate it from that. I mean, an endless labyrinth, the idea that magic used to exist but has disappeared, roads starting in mundane locations and leading to mystical places, an attempt to revive lost magic, what the book cover review calls a "morally squalid supporting cast" (she sure loves those, huh). There was that bit about black writing on the pale sky. She's very aesthetically coherent. On that level it was pretty much perfect and I kept feeling like my mind was melting because it fit my tastes in that direction so well.
Also a protagonist you can't really dislike! I mean obviously tastes vary but on a personal/moral level, y'know. I sometimes find Good protagonists boring, but I didn't find that to be the case with Piranesi/Matthew because he's so obviously at sea. And, honestly, because I related to him very heavily. Bow is even now reading the novel and keeps quoting bits of his dialogue to me, with ill intent, to call me out. It's the combination of "I am trying very hard to be Scientific because this is how I cope with an incredibly stressful and confusing world" with "there is no one here to help me so I am going to try very hard to take care of myself and the small things that are around me". It's very autistic actually in my opinion -- there's a kind of very panicky clinging to rules and routines that I find very telling. (This makes Piranesi the second Extremely Autistic Protagonist she's written, given, well, everything about Norrell.)
I'm talking about this with Bow and there's something extremely raw and deliberate about Piranesi (I use this deliberately because we see so little of Matthew and I don't think that it applies to him) that reminds me very much of myself when I'm what I call low-filter, which is to say, not masking very heavily. It's that combination of rules and routines and the panic when he doesn't fulfill them (witness the tides thing and the way he berates himself), plus the very deliberate and careful laboredness of the ways he conducts himself, plus how he talks. There's this specific rhythm I talk in when I'm low-filter that's hard to explain or describe but it reminds me of that. Bow says when I've been low-filter for a while I talk with Capital Letters, which Piranesi does and Matthew doesn't. His, like, questioning of his own reality all the time, the way you do when you've been Compliance Trained, because other people know better than you. His reluctance to be anything less than pleasant to the Other. His constant intense anthropomorphization of the things around him.
This is not the place for me to hypothesize that Matthew is autistic but masks like most of us do and that Piranesi doesn't need to do that because he's alone all the time but uhhhhhhhhhhhhh what if I did though. @_@ Absolutely you could say it's the result of his, uh, essentially mental breakdown instead of being a natural part of him, but...shrugs.
This isn't what I came here to talk about! I barely even thought about it during the reading of the book, I just Absorbed it. It really was good apart from the gay thing, and the writing is up to her usual standard of absolutely brain-scramblingly good prose. I always feel overenthusiastic when I say things like this. I know it's probably not That Good. But it feels That Good to me. She pitches to an audience I'm part of, I think.
I should talk about the worldbuilding but the funny part of it is in one sense there isn't that much. She has a very organic style where she seems to be discovering it as she goes, like it's unfolding as you poke it, not like she's actually creating it. This conforms to that. The actual mechanics of the fantasy setting were only glanced over, and didn't need to be given in more detail, since you had the basics. The actual worldbuilding is about the House. There's a kind of minimalism to it that I find very appealing. No need to explain things: just watch them happen. I think this is another hallmark of her style and it's very effective.
My brain is foggy from all this so...I'll stop there. I liked it. I don't know if I'll read it again -- it was a lot. I'm glad the ending was what it was. Sometimes you get out of bad things but the person you were can't quite be saved.
I'm not sure where to start so let's start with my only real point of negativity: an character who is described as shocking and transgressive and immoral who, btw, is a queer man. Are we supposed to find his queerness shocking and transgressive? I know pederasty is strongly implied but that doesn't really make it better because it's playing on such old and destructive stereotypes. Really wasn't impressed by this, and it almost ruined the book for me. It's such an obvious bit of homophobia and it stands out in particular when you think about Drawlight in js&mn. I was willing to forgive her for Drawlight because he's only queer-coded, not canon queer, and he's not exactly a villain -- he's one of many, many morally unpleasant characters in a book largely about morally unpleasant characters. Given the very limited amount we know about any outside characters in Piranesi her choice to highlight gay sexuality in one of the most unpleasant is frustrating.
That's my only gripe but it's a really big gripe. Moving on from there what an AESTHETIC am I right?? I was very startled that it wasn't a historical setting, but I thought that was wise, really, because it's so thematically consistent with js&mn that if it had been, I think it would have been quite hard to dissociate it from that. I mean, an endless labyrinth, the idea that magic used to exist but has disappeared, roads starting in mundane locations and leading to mystical places, an attempt to revive lost magic, what the book cover review calls a "morally squalid supporting cast" (she sure loves those, huh). There was that bit about black writing on the pale sky. She's very aesthetically coherent. On that level it was pretty much perfect and I kept feeling like my mind was melting because it fit my tastes in that direction so well.
Also a protagonist you can't really dislike! I mean obviously tastes vary but on a personal/moral level, y'know. I sometimes find Good protagonists boring, but I didn't find that to be the case with Piranesi/Matthew because he's so obviously at sea. And, honestly, because I related to him very heavily. Bow is even now reading the novel and keeps quoting bits of his dialogue to me, with ill intent, to call me out. It's the combination of "I am trying very hard to be Scientific because this is how I cope with an incredibly stressful and confusing world" with "there is no one here to help me so I am going to try very hard to take care of myself and the small things that are around me". It's very autistic actually in my opinion -- there's a kind of very panicky clinging to rules and routines that I find very telling. (This makes Piranesi the second Extremely Autistic Protagonist she's written, given, well, everything about Norrell.)
I'm talking about this with Bow and there's something extremely raw and deliberate about Piranesi (I use this deliberately because we see so little of Matthew and I don't think that it applies to him) that reminds me very much of myself when I'm what I call low-filter, which is to say, not masking very heavily. It's that combination of rules and routines and the panic when he doesn't fulfill them (witness the tides thing and the way he berates himself), plus the very deliberate and careful laboredness of the ways he conducts himself, plus how he talks. There's this specific rhythm I talk in when I'm low-filter that's hard to explain or describe but it reminds me of that. Bow says when I've been low-filter for a while I talk with Capital Letters, which Piranesi does and Matthew doesn't. His, like, questioning of his own reality all the time, the way you do when you've been Compliance Trained, because other people know better than you. His reluctance to be anything less than pleasant to the Other. His constant intense anthropomorphization of the things around him.
This is not the place for me to hypothesize that Matthew is autistic but masks like most of us do and that Piranesi doesn't need to do that because he's alone all the time but uhhhhhhhhhhhhh what if I did though. @_@ Absolutely you could say it's the result of his, uh, essentially mental breakdown instead of being a natural part of him, but...shrugs.
This isn't what I came here to talk about! I barely even thought about it during the reading of the book, I just Absorbed it. It really was good apart from the gay thing, and the writing is up to her usual standard of absolutely brain-scramblingly good prose. I always feel overenthusiastic when I say things like this. I know it's probably not That Good. But it feels That Good to me. She pitches to an audience I'm part of, I think.
I should talk about the worldbuilding but the funny part of it is in one sense there isn't that much. She has a very organic style where she seems to be discovering it as she goes, like it's unfolding as you poke it, not like she's actually creating it. This conforms to that. The actual mechanics of the fantasy setting were only glanced over, and didn't need to be given in more detail, since you had the basics. The actual worldbuilding is about the House. There's a kind of minimalism to it that I find very appealing. No need to explain things: just watch them happen. I think this is another hallmark of her style and it's very effective.
My brain is foggy from all this so...I'll stop there. I liked it. I don't know if I'll read it again -- it was a lot. I'm glad the ending was what it was. Sometimes you get out of bad things but the person you were can't quite be saved.
no subject
I definitely agree about Piranesi's 'panicky clinging to rules and routines' reading as autistic! The way he takes comfort in the little routines of his strange life in the House, and the particular tone and register of his narration—that deliberation and punctiliousness in the way he chooses his words—were very familiar to me too. (Incidentally: that style combined with the modern setting confused me at first, because I initially read it as an 18th/early 19th century style and thought he was from the past. But no, I do that too. Is this a common autistic thing???)
...absolutely brain-scramblingly good prose. I always feel overenthusiastic when I say things like this. I know it's probably not That Good. But it feels That Good to me.
You're not alone! :D
Oh, yeah, and the mysterious worldbuilding! There are so many questions one could ask about the House—e.g., it's apparently an artificial structure, so who built it? What's going on with the real people (and real-world fictional characters?) appearing as statues? But that kind of mechanistic explanation isn't the way Clarke does worldbuilding, and what we get instead feels perfectly fitting.
no subject
That was SO INTERESTING and very startling to have appear at the end! I have hypotheses but we shall never know and it is both cool and vexing!
no subject
no subject
Yes, very much this. I felt like Clark almost celebrates this, or at least gives the traumatised person space to just be, and that was one of the most moving things about the book for me.
While I was reading, I was strongly latching on to how queer Piranesi read, and I didn't as strongly catch onto how autistic he is -- maybe because he reacts to stuff exactly how I would, I was just like, "Ah yes this guy is being a person," when really I should have thought, "Oh yes, he's an autism like me."
The aesthetic is so good! I want to reread it for the aesthetic alone, so I can really think about the statues and what they mean.
no subject
I think that's very reasonable! I don't think I quite caught onto the autistic thing actually until my partner and I started talking about it, and he started pointing out how much of the stuff was me, so I think that's very understandable.
I think I missed a lot with the statues! I'm going to have to pay careful attention next time.