I remember Clarke's previous book, Jonathan Strange and Mr Norell, as an impressive feat of world-building: the writing style perfectly mimics Victorian novels, with the addition of magic. I was attracted to Piranesi by the prospect of its "mind-bending fantasy world, a vast labyrinth with infinite rooms and seas that sweep into halls and up staircases with the tides."
The first part of the book explores the "House" and introduces the two people who live in it: our narrator Piranesi and The Other, a well-dressed man who believes the House may provide access to long-lost Great and Secret Knowledge. I found myself thinking about the different attitudes that Piranesi and The Other had toward the mysteries of the House and what that might say about the human condition.
About a third of the way through, the focus shifts from the mysteries of the House to the mystery of the people. Who are Piranesi and The Other, and how did they come to be here? This shift gave the book more narrative drive but made it feel less thematically ambitious.
I have two criticisms.
- The House is said to represent (in part) a world that enters into conversations with humans, but we don't see much of that happening.
- As Piranesi learns about his past and the nature of the House, he doesn't really piece together clues but instead conveniently finds written records that lay it all out.
No comments:
Post a Comment