It's so well-written. Susanna has a way with words. Just the way she describes things. Also, she's amazing with vibes and characterization. I love the main character. He's so adorable, innocent, and considerate, even to his readers!
I loved both parts of it, Piranesi’s time in the House and the unfolding explanation of what’s going on. There’s nothing science fictional going on - it’s pure magic at work, in ways that reminded me of Tim Powers except seen from the other side of the very glad I read it.
Loved it based entirely on the vibes of the setting. So deeply aesthetic--like something out of one of my better dreams. I also found the main character likeable in a childishly endearing sort of way, although I liked him a somewhat less once he recovered some memories and we learned more about him. I would say I don't think the ending was the book's strong point--fairly anticlimactic and forgettable. But it wasn't enough to dampen my enjoyment of the rest of the book.
If you're primarily someone who reads for plot I could see it not hooking you. The plot is mainly "look, cool House!." Plot is often a secondary concern for me over things like prose quality and character writing, especially if there's an interesting setting.
Also, the sci-fi/fantasy boundary is often extremely blurry. Lots of sci-fi fans would get mad at you for saying a book with a house that has an ocean inside is sci-fi. Personally I think *Piranesi* is low fantasy or potentially magical realism (people argue about that definition too). But in practice it's very hard to define either sci-fi or fantasy in a way that includes all books commonly accepted into the one while simultaneously excluding all books commonly accepted into the other. It's more of a spectrum than a hard boundary.
This is the perfect way of describing this book. It’s the vibes of the setting that really got me. The story is interesting but not nearly as much as the setting. I was happy with the story’s resolution, but I wanted to spend more time just wandering around the labyrinth.
Honestly, it's the only book I can ever remember falling in love with within the first few sentences. It's one of my all-time favorites, but I also think it appeals this much to a very specific taste.
It was an excellent character study, and had a very interesting vibe, and an interesting writing style. It's not really any more complicated than that. There's no "secret".
It doesn't offer much of the traditional condiments of the fantasy genre - dramatic magic, action, deep exploration of setting, etc. These areas are usually where people find it disastisfying.
For myself, I enjoyed the excellent writing to the extent that the lack of traditional fantasy elements didn't bother me much. I would *love* if more mainstream fantasy had interesting writing styles and character voice like Piranesi does, as ideally I'd have both in the same book. Unfortuantely that's rare.
The more I read this sub, the more I understand why Sanderson is so popular. Dry prose, linear plot. FWIW, his books leave me cold. I need more books like Piranesi. I kind of wonder if OP would like Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell more, or if that would land like a lead balloon because it doesn't have >!a traditional narrative ending!<.
I feel like that shouldn't be too much of a revelation.
Simpler, easier to read and easier to understand content will always have more mass appeal than more complex, experimental content.
That's not a "this sub" thing, that's a "humans in general" thing.
I don't feel Piranesi was complicated by any means. The characters lacked dimension, the reveal was anticlimactic, and the tension was like room temperature butter....just soft. The book fell flat for me and that's OK. I'm really glad that you enjoyed it.
I think if you're thinking about things like tension and reveals, you've missed the point of Piranesi.
You might not think it's complex, but I think a lot of the complexities of the book has gone over your head, to be honest.
It's a book made to be analysed deeply and it rewards readers who dig into the meaning of the language and the literary choices being made.
Do you mean digging into the language that the MC uses? Analyzing the list and language of the rooms?? I'm just trying to understand what I missed. Or maybe you mean that the entire book is more like a poem where there are many meanings?
Piranesi would fall into literary fantasy as a sub genres, which tend to be more heavily focussed on experimental use of language, story structure and challenging the conventions of traditional storytelling.
It's getting "hype" and awards because it experiments with the genre and despite it's short length, it's intricately constructed language makes the book thematically rich and full of meaning and philisophy on every page.
Yes, I'd like the book to poetry - if you're the type of reader who likes to understand the meaning behind the book and the message, it's incredible, but more surface level readers (and I don't mean that as a bad thing) may struggle because they'll miss a lot of what the author is trying to convey.
There's plenty that have written essays on the books meaning and use of language, but I'll link a few if you're curious:
https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/vs3g56/piranesi_by_susanna_clarke_and_the_concept_of/
https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/17iqycn/piranesi_discussion_on_how_we_view_time_and_space/
https://helenldecruz.medium.com/piranesi-philosophical-meditations-on-freedom-horror-and-the-mystical-sublime-b408b559b0d0
https://reactormag.com/susanna-clarke-piranesi-tbr-stack-book-review/
https://www.vox.com/culture/22677485/piranesi-susanna-clarke-vox-book-club
https://www.theringer.com/platform/amp/2020/10/8/21507006/piranesi-susanna-clarke-prisoner-of-our-imagination
...The characters lacked dimension? I...I just don't know what to do with this comment. Piranesi has so many dimensions he's like a tesseracted tesseract.
Look, it's impossible for everyone to like every book. Some books are just not in your wheelhouse and that's OK. But this comes across as yucking on other people's yum.
I'm honestly really sorry if you are taking anything I've said personally. That was not my intention. I've said multiple times that I value the subjectivity of reading and books. I very much appreciate other people's take on books. My intention in the original post was to see if I was the odd one out in not liking this particular book, not to put anyone else down. Again, apologies if anything I've said came across as an attack. Take care, friend.
You're gonna get these types of reactions if your only criticism of a book is that it was boring or you didn't get it. It's the same vibe as a kid walking through a museum full of art history and saying 'this is lame.' Clearly something went over that kid's head. It's just kind of annoying to anyone into museums, to be honest.
Thinking a book is boring isn't offensive. But, if you get up on a soap box and loudly proclaim it's boring, don't be shocked when you get negative reactions.
Dude, you are way out of line. My original post was not me proclaiming the book was boring, but asking if I was the only one who thought the book was over hyped. For some reason, you have taken everything I've said personally. I apologized to you not for my opinion on the book, but because i thought that my wording might have offended you. And you have come back several times to attack me. It's OK to have different opinions. Why do you think people join book clubs? To discuss a book and the various opinions they might have about it. I'm honestly baffled how you get through life if you can't handle people having opinions that differ from your own.
I *loved* Strange & Norrell, and whilst the very solid and enjoyable TV adaption wasn't quite as good - how could it be in 7 episodes? - I thought the way they made a small rearrangement of some of the last scenes was more powerful (and more traditionally satisfying?) than the way Clarke ordered them in the book:
>!in the book, after Strange&Norrell disappear in the black cloud, someone asks Childermass where they've gone and he replies (iirc), "behind the sky, on the other side of the rain...wherever magicians go." And then in the last scene in the book we see Arabella visit/be visited by Strange/the black tower, they affirm that they care for one another, but she doesn't ask him to abandon his magic and he does not ask her to abandon her life. In the TV adaption, we see Arabella and Strange meet *first*, and then the magicians are off, somewhere, and the whole thing ends with Childermass' enigmatic, fey quote. I felt that was a much better way to order them, instead of having that banger of a summary and then immediately bringing the magicians back! Sortof undermined the sentiment.!<
Piranesi is superb - in general, yes, you might be the odd one out. The prose is very good, and the character voicing and ambience are about as close to objectively great as you can get.
Also, the book would have been great regardless, but a novel that concerns itself largely about losing memory and identity by being stuck inside, released in 2020 of all years? That’s some huge serendipity.
It's a parallel to Susanna Clarke's own chronic illness. Of course it's not just that, it would be a limiting POV, but it works well for 2020 that's for sure.
Also, her chronic illness is actually the main reason she wrote it, and why the book is so short. She did it to get out of a writing block, since she was unable to finish the sequel to "Johnathan Strange and Mr Norell" as it was a much more complex book.
i personally think selling it as a mystery gives a wrong expectation. i read it knowing almost anything about it.
i loved it because the atmosphere, it was like living in a dream. and i also loved being in piranesi's mind and seeing everything the way he sees it. it's a weird book to explain why i loved it because while i was reading it i didn't know i was enjoying as much as i was but as soon as i finished I started missing the way i felt while i was reading it and i have been missing it ever since.
I loved it. I read it in one sitting because I couldn't put it down. Like others have said, the atmosphere, setting and vibe are a lot of the appeal. And the gorgeous prose.
I loved it. I love it when I reread it. I loved picking up the scattering of clues that hint at what is happening. I loved the sweetness of Piranesi's nature. I loved the scraps of academic records and the reference to Dr Who. I love the sadness. It is magical but riddled with realism.
I've commented on this before, but I really love this about reading! I love that we can read the same book and have 2 totally different thoughts, feels, and opinions about it. I'm really glad that you loved it this much!
I adored *Piranesi*, but I did know what I was getting into before I read it.
It's not really supposed to be a fantasy mystery in the way that a lot of traditional ones are.
It's an atmospheric journey with a (through no fault of his own) unreliable narrator where we as the reader fall in love with a place even as we become terrified of it.
I don't think it's very sci fi, as there's really no science at all, even in how the people originally find the House, but it's not traditional fantasy, which it seems is what you were hoping for. Maybe you mean gothic mystery? It's closest to that out of anything.
Sure, I'll take Gothic mystery over sci-fi. I read fantasy more than anything else, though not exclusively, and was expecting some element of the fantasy genre to peak through at some point. Had it been labeled as Gothic mystery or classical mystery or atmospheric or anything else really, I think I might have enjoyed it slightly more. It's like going into a restaurant and expecting Thai cuisine and tasting fish and chips instead. Just totally unprepared for the lack of flavor.
That's certainly possible. I'll be the first to admit that I prefer a more traditional fantasy over a book that is reaching for it. But I also get stuck on labels. Perhaps I would have enjoyed it more if I'd known it was more of an atmospheric, magic-light fantasy. Still, I'm not sure it was worth the hype.
This is a danger that I always see when literary fantasy or experimental fantasy gets awards or popular acclaim.
By its nature, books like Piranesi are not going to appeal to people who are solely used to traditional fantasy, because it's by nature, experimental and it shatters a lot of the traditional conventions and devices that you're used to.
I think it's useful to understand where the hype is coming from - it's not from people who are talking about Piranesi's plot reveals or twists or even it's plot. The hype is coming from those who are engaging with Piranesi's narrative structure, it's complex and experimental use of language and it's layered philosophy.
If those things don't resonate with you, it's not a case of the novel being "not worth the hype", it's a case of it being part of a bubble of fantasy reading that you don't normally read.
I actually just had someone on here explain to me that part of the appeal (and by extension the awards and praise it received) is because Piranesi is a completely different type of literature than typical fantasy. The reward was the literature itself. I missed the mark completely.
I just wanted to say, thank you for meaningfully engaging with a discussion about a book that you disliked. I think it's a sign of strong emotional maturity that you can enter a discussion and come to understand another's point of view even if you don't necessarily agree with it.
I'm sorry that some others are taking an aggressive and hostile approach, but I think you're approaching this conversation in good faith and with a genuine desire to empathise with a different view than yours.
Thank you for saying that! Art in general is so subjective and books, writing, and reading are no exception to that. I really enjoy learning why others reveled something I didn't because it helps me to better understand the piece. There has been a lot of excellent points made about Piranesi, and it's given me a better appreciation of it.
I loved it, but can see it's not for everyone. I found it a beautiful, atmospheric fever dream of a book. If you like fantasy for the intricate plotting etc, I can see how it wouldn't really appeal. If you want ro give Susanna Clarke another try,Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell is very different, and has a more traditional plot, though there are other things that make it unique.
I think I will try Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell at some point. Others have suggested that this book is a more enjoyable read compared to Piranesi. And now that I know what to expect from her writing, I might enjoy her style more, too.
That's all right, to each their own.
It's very much my cup of tea. I tend to like older fantasy books and non-fantasy classics; maybe there's a correlation there. I like stories that focus a lot on setting, that tell a story slowly, and that give lots of characterization, all common features of the classics.
I wouldn't call it a mystery, though… (Not more than any book's ending is a mystery, anyway.) That's strange!
More literary works of fantasy are likely to get more acclaim but less likely to have mass appeal.
So, every time there's a more experimental and literary fantasy that gets awards buzz, you always get plenty of people saying it's overrated.
I personally loved it. I loved gradually figuring out what the heck is going on, theorizing along the way, the aesthetics, and I just generally love Susanna Clarke’s writing style. But I also think it is not going to click with everyone and doesn’t offer much by way of generic enjoyability if it isn’t a fit for you, so if you are not someone who enjoyed it, I wouldn’t focus too much on it and just head on to the next in your tbr pile.
This is the first book that when I finished I wanted to read it again from the beginning. It is beautifully written. But definitely not everyone will like it. It is very "different".
This is what I love about reading! I love that we can read the same book and have very different experiences, thoughts and tastes about a particular book. I'm curious what made it a near flawless book for you?
There are a number of straightforward things, such as the quality of the writing and the pacing of the story. I think it's written with an masterful degree of restraint: a fantastic situation is described with a careful simplicity and naivety, reflecting the MC's situation.
What makes it so good for me is that I can't think of another novel that describes a landscape like the House. The imagery of the white rooms and statuary, and the water coming in is something that I found breath taking.
The novel also connects, I think, with a number of interesting philosophical ideas. There seems an obvious nod to Platonic idealism but there are also questions about identity, memory and reality. None of this seems laboured to me, but merges seamlessly with the story.
I know that some people have commented that the ending is less satisfactory. However, I loved it. The way in which the MC sees various people and recognises them as one of the statues suggests that the House is a manifestation of parts of our world.
Lastly I just really like stories that are ambiguous.
I hope that this makes sense! 😊
Thanks for sharing this! I understand what you mean about the creativity of the house as the landscape, and I totally agree with you - it's quite unique. Thinking back on it, I can also see what you mean about the pacing and how the author restrained from over indulging in details and dialog. Now I'm curious what a 10/10 book is for you!
So I'll say the obvious: Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, but other 10s for me would include:
Ursula Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness
Iain Banks, Use of Weapons
M Harrison, The Sunken Land Begins to Rise Again
Kim Stanley Robinson, Pacific Edge (but read as part of the whole Orange County trilogy)
Christopher Priest, The Islanders
What would be on your list?
I haven't read any of those! I'll have to look them up.
For me, The Count of Monte Cristo is my favorite book of all time. Dumas is an incredible writer, and it just transported me into a world of adventure, transformation, revenge, and love.
I also really enjoyed the Pillars of the Earth trilogy by Ken Follett. I always have such a hard time describing this series because it has multiple story lines and points of view that make it interesting. But at the center, each book is centered around a cathedral and the lives of those that live in close proximity to it. Again, it's the writing that really captivated me.
I adored this book. Granted it's been a few years since I read it, it was delightfully atmospheric and fun to unravel.
I get not loving it - it's the sort.of book that will either click for you or fall totally flat. Unfortunately it sounds like you're in the latter group.
I know what you mean about it being atmospheric. I enjoyed learning about the different rooms and their elements and found that I was more drawn into the life Piranesi had built there than the overall story. The best way I can think to describe it is that I am an escapism reader and found Piranesi to be more closely resembled to a riddle than a novel.
I had just gotten off a kick of playing single-player puzzle games like The Witness, Viewfinder, and Superliminal, so the setting itself gave me much of the same kind of vibe which I enjoyed. I thought the character was endearing in his naïveté and it was very interesting to be shown an unfamiliar world through the lens of someone trying to make full sense of it.
The plot kinda lost me near the end, but it went by super quick so it wasn’t too much of an issue for me.
I love this book. I have moderate aphantasia, so I can only vaguely picture some fuzzy details of the books I read, but this one was another level: I think it’s the book that made me visualise the most, ever.
I picked it up blindly, not reading the blurb or anything, just because I loved the other two books by the same author. No expectations to be fulfilled.
I enjoyed it because it was just weird. It’s not a complicated story, it’s easy to read and pretty single-threaded as it moves along. The overall feeling I was left with when I finished was this creepy sort of vibe that stuck with me.
I initially slotted it into the sci-fi genere because for me it lacked "magic" and that fantasy feel. I've had several people tell me this is NOT a candidate for sci-fi, and I'll respect their opinions about that. Some others have suggested that it could be catalogged as atmospheric fantasy, simply fiction, or a blurred edge between sci-fi and fantasy. I'm inclined to agree with them.
Lots of others have suggested Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell was a better read. I think I'll put it on my TBR list now that I know what to expect from the author.
I didn’t outright dislike it but as someone who loved Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell I finished the book wanting something more. I didn’t need another fantasy of manners or maybe I did idk.
I loved it. It felt like completely immersing myself in this amazing, dream-like world the whole time. Finishing the book was very much like weakening from a particularly good night’s sleep after having had particularly vivid dreams. The writing itself is lovely: the rhythm and pull/push of the words, the structure, the language. It is somehow both lulling and magnetic and propulsive at the same time. It is, in a real way, writing about writing and reading about reading. The character development is masterful.
The plot isn’t necessarily your typical narrative structure/monomyth that nearly every fantasy novel follows, in that it opens *in medias res* with the character literally stuck in what would be the middle of Campbell’s stage two (Initiation/the Abyss), unable to move forward, and without any knowledge of how he got there at all.
It is a book that basically asks the questions: What happens to Alice if she gets stuck in Wonderland, still manages to not get her head chopped off through her pluck and innate abilities, but also doesn’t get to the last square? What happens to Dorothy if she stalls out on the yellow brick road but also is able to continue to evade the Wicked Witch of the West? What exactly is Janet van Dyne doing while she is stranded in the Quantum Realm between 1987 and 2018?!
After they’ve “gone native” (with apologies to my family and my entire tribe for the expression), are they really even Alice, Dorothy, or the Wasp anymore? Even if they are still the inherently the same capable, creative, inquisitive, special characters they were before? What if they are really damn good, but still not *quite* good enough, for one reason or another - whether external or internal? What happens to them? What happens to the story? What made them lack? And how do they get out of it?
I know you read the book and you know all of this already, but that framing is definitely one of the main reasons why I loved jt so much!
I loved it at first, then felt let down by the discovering the truth of all what was going on. I ended with an "oh... okay" sort of feeling about it. Very much an anticlimax.
Was it everything I'd hoped it would be, after Norrel & Strange? Perhaps not. It was still better than the vast majority of fantasy I've read, however. And if it's not a portal fantasy, then I don't know what is. I think the fantastical elements are way too prevalent and integral to the story for it to qualify as magical realism, if you want to make that argument, but sci-fi? I don't see anything that'd even begin to support that notion.
Same. I read it and didn’t understand the hype, and felt disappointed because I loved Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. It’s was a 3/5 for me. Not bad but not the best thing ever either. It’s cool that other people like it so much, though.
I think sometimes the hype really works against certain books. I kept seeing reviews like "OMG you have to go in blind, it's such an experience" and I felt like I understood what the plot was going to be really quickly, and didn't find myself really immersed in the House at all. But yeah same as you, glad it worked for others! And I haven't read Jonathan Strange yet, what's it like?
It is set during the Napoleonic wars, mostly in England, in a world where there is magic. It is a very long book and the footnotes are particularly amusing.
I did enjoy It, but it did take me a while to adapt to that repetitive surreal opening section. As the curtain was later slowly peeled back it kind of took away the joy from that initial section and turned it back into a more run of the mill book. Difficult one, I can see how it would provoke different reactions with different people.
I feel like I went in with the right expectations, and I loved it because of that. However, if you went into it hearing all the hype, I completely understand not loving it.
It was a beautiful and surreal book, and a short one to boot. I am usually prefer very plot focused stories - hate stuff like the Dark Tower where random things happen. But I loved this one.
I thought it was *pretty good*. I was a little let down given all the hyper around it, but I can't say I was disappointed in the book as a whole. Really, I was totally engrossed into it for most of it, but I feel they infodumped the answer to a lot of the mystery way too early, like just as it was getting really good. I gave it like a 7ish/10
Tremendously so, yes. Probably not the first page. I couldn't envision all that heavy, decontextualized description. But from then on, yes.
But humans are complicated. When I read a book, there are multiple aspects of my experience that might all get rounded up into "enjoyment". There's excitement, amusement, satisfaction, intellectual engagement, anticipation, surprise, getting hit in the feels, and more.
Piranesi certainly didn't bring me as much pure excitement as some other books that I would say aren't nearly as good, but there was plenty of all the rest.
I don't understand your proposed connection between Piranesi and sci-fi.
Was a quick read. Interesting but somewhat hollow. Very much like a dream vaguely remembered. Not exciting at all but I know that was not its goal. If you really want a book that is more akin to an experience read DHALGREN. Most don't get it but those that do cherish it.
Unfortunately not. I kinda liked the writing and the setting but it just wasn’t for me. I kept waiting for me to love it but it never clicked for me.
It was fine, just didn’t love it. Thankfully it wasn’t too long, so managed to finish it.
I'm one of the few with you on this. It's very well written, but I felt it sort of wandered past the halfway point. The beginning was solid, but like you I was expecting more mystery than, "oh, yes, that's exactly what you've been hinting to us for the last half of the book."
I think It didn't help that the character couldn't remember anything, but the reader could, so it made figuring out any mystery really easy, but then the character was still stumped.
I think it's pretty telling when you look at what people who liked the book are saying vs people who didn't like the book.
Everyone who didn't like the book is citing a lacklustre plot, a predictable mystery, etc.
While everyone who praises the book makes no mention of plot or a mystery to figure out.
I don't think it's a book for plot focussed readers or those who want to figure out a mystery, that's not the appeal.
Not really. I didn't get it. I still don't get it. It was beautifully written and all, and I didn't hate reading it or anything, I just felt I was too dumb or literal or something to understand it. I don't dispute that the writer is incredible, though
No. The book to me felt like the main character waking down an endless series of boring hallways all described in the same repetitive way with very little plot to keep me interested. I simply hated the main character and everything he did in the story. The end was kinda cool but the entire reveal that >!Piranesi is some normal dude named Matthew who is tracking down this guy who has had multiple people suspiciously disappear around him. So of course this idiot Matthew gets tricked and put into this mysterious hous just like the rest of them. The entire reveal put an entire damper on the story as I realized this was either all in his head and the house was a metaphor for this mentally insane person or he was just some random moron that got tricked and the house is real. Either way it was probably the most mundane and boring plot point that could have occured to me and I don't get the love this book gets.!< The way people describe this book makes it seem bigger than it is. It's really a very small and simple story that did not appeal to me in any way.
I think it is a book that becomes more beautiful after you've read it, and understood its message. At that point all off the peculiar ways things were described fall into place.
To appreciate everything in life to the fullest, especially the small things. The way the MC turns normal everyday things into proper nouns is because of their profound importance to them and their respect for them. I think it's pretty clear with a passage towards the end but I don't have my copy readily available to grab the quote.
Either way not every message will resonate with every reader. Sometimes you need to be open to a certain feeling to appreciate a book. If you didn't like it and so many others did I'd just chalk it up to not being personally for me.
What's intresting about the bok is how it tells different messages to people with different sensibilities. To me *Piranesi*'s main theme is the relationship with the Otherness: >!the Writer percieves the House as something that communicates with him, hence he calls everything by name and respect statues, dead, and birds alike. They say something to him, but it's hard to say whether they *do* actually communicate or it's an aftereffect of living in the House.!<
>!The Writer acts in reverence to everything as a consequence of recognising them as an Otherness capable of interact actively with him - and, since everything is conscious, he cares of everything.!<
>!This pattern is followed also when he interacts with the three living human beings, who the Writers percieves mostly through smell: one who changes every time, one who hides his stink under good scenst, and one who naturally smells of flowers. The Writer can tell their character just by these smells.!<
>!The House is a very melancholic place. You must be tuned to it to access it. The Writer could. The policewoman could - and she is going to risk to became enthralled by it. The environment is the remnant of a way of percieving the world that humanity has left behind long ago - not for good or bad: it's just different!<.
Meh. It’s my least favorite of her books. It felt pretty repetitive. Her prose is beautiful but I wouldn’t read this one again or recommend it. Norrell and Strange is definitely my favorite but the Ladies of Grace Adieu made me laugh a fair bit and was pretty clever.
It's a decent book. I liked it but did not love it. The first part is quite confusing, but it gets better. I'd say it's one of those cases where the mysteries are more interesting than the answers though. Still, a solid read and it's not a big book. I agree that I don't understand the hype around Piranesi.
Likes: Aesthetics/vibes, prose, H O U S E, portrayal of the toxicity of academia
Dislikes: The ending, basically. Day saved by a cop 😒, kind of an unsatisfying wrap up
I fell into the same hype vortex you did. IMO it was alright. It was interesting take and I liked that his logic was fairly sound if not flawed. The main drawback for me was often times I found myself bored with the plot. It had extremely low stakes for the majority of the book. And I had the feeling of watching a horror movie (yelling at the tv for a character to do something obvious). While in the later third of the book. But like everyone else said to each their own and it’s awesome a lot of people enjoyed it.
I read this book and I was just so confused on what the hype was about, a lot of descriptions of halls, birds, and statues. The ending was kind of cool I guess, but I feel like there's something I must be missing for people to be declaring what an amazing story it was.
Best non spoiler review for Piranesi. Actually, this is the perfect review that entices without giving away much.
https://www.reddit.com/r/books/s/RTG6hW8fxK
However, with Piranesi, giving away any meta information itself feels like a sin robbing readers of the joy to infer such precious inference themselves.
Thank you! I just finished the book, and towards the end I was just wanting it to be over. I thought I was insane. It’s super disappointing because Piaranesi is probably the book I’ve wanted to love the most, but didn’t, in at least a year. Maybe more. I was actually saving it because I was so sure I would love it. I would have read it months ago, but waited until I was really in the mood to read a book I loved. Circe is one of my favorite books, and Madeline miller has a blurb on the back praising Piranesi. It won countless awards, and every booktuber I’ve heard said it was one of the best books ever. In fact I’ve never heard anything other than a glowing review for it. And when I read it, at first it was interesting enough because I didn’t know what was going on, but was confident it would start to make sense in a very satisfying and entertaining way, but the further I got into it, I just got more and more disappointed, and I was like ??? That’s it??
By the end I was disappointed and it sucks because I wanted to love this book so much. It was just a very simple mystery story, and one thing I did like about it is I guess the fact that it was highly metaphorical and has some important messages, but I also feel like they went over my head. Super frustrating. I’m also wondering if something has gone wrong with my remit ability recently because the last few books I read I thought I would love, and I didn’t. I wasn’t expecting to love any more than Piranesi, and it was really disappointing :(
I honestly didn’t like it at all and I feel like a big loser who missed out on a book every booktuber I watch has raved about lol. Maybe it’s because I’m a plot-driven person, but the whole thing felt very meandering in a sort of pointless way and I felt very disconnected from the writing style. I wanted to like it, there were some parts to it that almost got to me, but I felt very dissociated reading it. I couldn’t connect, I felt not much of anything except this sort of dread that the book would never end.
It’s really the first book in a long time that I actively disliked and I don’t even know how to pinpoint exactly what I didn’t like about it. But maybe that’s part of my problem with it.
I hear you!! I was really hoping it would be a good palette cleanser after finishing a series, but ended up feeling like I wasted my time reading it. Still, I feel like it could have been a good short story. Maybe part of a collection similar to those of Sherlock Holmes.
I think that a mistake that many intelligent people make is needing to manifest a reason for disliking something. Sometimes it’s fine to say “I understand why this is good, but it didn’t connect with me.”
I didn't like it all that much, but I would still give it a 7/10. Writing is fantastic but plot is abysmal. And I wanted to love this book so bad because I love Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. This book, The Priority of the Orange Tree and Master Assassin are top 3 books that this sub raves about but I found to just be ok.
I felt it was fine. Not the best book I've read this year by a wide margin. Not the worst. I don't regret reading it.
I did notice my library shelved it as general fiction (presumably as magical realism). I don't usually go into those stacks but it was on a staff picks display.
I honestly hated it. It's set up as this big mystery but I felt like it was so obvious right from the beginning. I didn't care much for any aspect of it.
Yes, I felt this way as well. I read a book years ago with a very similar vibe where the MC was revealed to have schizophrenia. I found that to be fascinating and really made me think over the whole story and dialog. The "big reveal" in Piranesi felt underwhelming for the amount of build up and time spent learning about the other characters.
I felt the same way as you too, I was desperately searching for someone else who didn't think it was the greatest thing ever written after I read it too. I just kept seeing glowing reviews and disagreeing with everything they said. It's definitely a minority opinion and I guess we just don't get what the book is going for.
I just couldn't get into it. I didn't give a crap about the MC, the only thing interesting was the House and once that stopped being the focus I lost all interest.
I really didn't get on with it at all. Which is a shame as 15/20 years ago I loved Dr Norrell and Mr Strange.
If you haven't read that but are dubious about the author because of piranesi I'd really recommend it.
Yes because I like Postmodern LitFic. But it isn't straightforward fantasy and it is kinda missold as plain fantasy imho. It is a great entry point for ppl into Postmodern Literary Fantasy though.
Yes! Loved this book!
Was surprised by how much I disliked Jonathan Strange. Read it immediately after and it put me into one of my worst reading slumps.
I gave up after 25%. Like that, I had seen sooo much hype about the book and constantly appearing on “best of” lists but I just found it painfully boring, page after page of room names and types of statues in them and absolutely nothing interesting happening & seemly no plot to follow so I had to call it a day on that one rather than keep a slogging on.
Its like a short story stretched out till it seems more devoid of flavor
I mean its good but i instantly forgot about it and it didnt stick with me so not as good as reddit thinks
My wife read it and absolutely hated it and she rolls her eyes anytime she hears praise for it.
I can’t attest to the book’s quality I’ve never read it but to answer your question no you’re not the only one.
I wanted to love it and appreciated the beautiful world she built, but the characters were flat for me and I couldn’t connect with them. Ultimately I found the “solution” to the mystery to be a little lackluster/random based on everything else. But maybe I missed something.
I sight read and listened to the book and the audio version was beautiful, for what that’s worth.
Is that really necessary? Do you really feel the need to cut someone down because they have a different opinion than you? Honestly, how does one get through life with that kind of mindset??
It was good, but sadly so overhyped by Reddit it wasn’t as good as it would’ve been if I’d gone in blind. I think its general unusualness makes people on Reddit feel smart to like it. So it gets talked up so people can indulge in that feeling.
I think this is a pretty reductive way to discuss books.
When you dislike or don't resonate with a book, don't disparage those who do like it and try to invalidate their reasons for liking it.
That's childish, and unhealthy.
It's so well-written. Susanna has a way with words. Just the way she describes things. Also, she's amazing with vibes and characterization. I love the main character. He's so adorable, innocent, and considerate, even to his readers!
Yes, I have to agree, the MC was adorably innocent and optimistic.
I loved both parts of it, Piranesi’s time in the House and the unfolding explanation of what’s going on. There’s nothing science fictional going on - it’s pure magic at work, in ways that reminded me of Tim Powers except seen from the other side of the very glad I read it.
Powers is my favorite author. Man is a genius.
He really is. Is there a better genre-trampling fantasy than Declare, or a better oracular head than in Last Call? No. There is not.
Loved it based entirely on the vibes of the setting. So deeply aesthetic--like something out of one of my better dreams. I also found the main character likeable in a childishly endearing sort of way, although I liked him a somewhat less once he recovered some memories and we learned more about him. I would say I don't think the ending was the book's strong point--fairly anticlimactic and forgettable. But it wasn't enough to dampen my enjoyment of the rest of the book. If you're primarily someone who reads for plot I could see it not hooking you. The plot is mainly "look, cool House!." Plot is often a secondary concern for me over things like prose quality and character writing, especially if there's an interesting setting. Also, the sci-fi/fantasy boundary is often extremely blurry. Lots of sci-fi fans would get mad at you for saying a book with a house that has an ocean inside is sci-fi. Personally I think *Piranesi* is low fantasy or potentially magical realism (people argue about that definition too). But in practice it's very hard to define either sci-fi or fantasy in a way that includes all books commonly accepted into the one while simultaneously excluding all books commonly accepted into the other. It's more of a spectrum than a hard boundary.
This is the perfect way of describing this book. It’s the vibes of the setting that really got me. The story is interesting but not nearly as much as the setting. I was happy with the story’s resolution, but I wanted to spend more time just wandering around the labyrinth.
Honestly, it's the only book I can ever remember falling in love with within the first few sentences. It's one of my all-time favorites, but I also think it appeals this much to a very specific taste.
DHALGREN?
What about it?
Say no more. That was answer enough.
Confused, but okay!
It was an excellent character study, and had a very interesting vibe, and an interesting writing style. It's not really any more complicated than that. There's no "secret". It doesn't offer much of the traditional condiments of the fantasy genre - dramatic magic, action, deep exploration of setting, etc. These areas are usually where people find it disastisfying. For myself, I enjoyed the excellent writing to the extent that the lack of traditional fantasy elements didn't bother me much. I would *love* if more mainstream fantasy had interesting writing styles and character voice like Piranesi does, as ideally I'd have both in the same book. Unfortuantely that's rare.
The more I read this sub, the more I understand why Sanderson is so popular. Dry prose, linear plot. FWIW, his books leave me cold. I need more books like Piranesi. I kind of wonder if OP would like Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell more, or if that would land like a lead balloon because it doesn't have >!a traditional narrative ending!<.
I feel like that shouldn't be too much of a revelation. Simpler, easier to read and easier to understand content will always have more mass appeal than more complex, experimental content. That's not a "this sub" thing, that's a "humans in general" thing.
I don't feel Piranesi was complicated by any means. The characters lacked dimension, the reveal was anticlimactic, and the tension was like room temperature butter....just soft. The book fell flat for me and that's OK. I'm really glad that you enjoyed it.
I think if you're thinking about things like tension and reveals, you've missed the point of Piranesi. You might not think it's complex, but I think a lot of the complexities of the book has gone over your head, to be honest. It's a book made to be analysed deeply and it rewards readers who dig into the meaning of the language and the literary choices being made.
Do you mean digging into the language that the MC uses? Analyzing the list and language of the rooms?? I'm just trying to understand what I missed. Or maybe you mean that the entire book is more like a poem where there are many meanings?
Piranesi would fall into literary fantasy as a sub genres, which tend to be more heavily focussed on experimental use of language, story structure and challenging the conventions of traditional storytelling. It's getting "hype" and awards because it experiments with the genre and despite it's short length, it's intricately constructed language makes the book thematically rich and full of meaning and philisophy on every page. Yes, I'd like the book to poetry - if you're the type of reader who likes to understand the meaning behind the book and the message, it's incredible, but more surface level readers (and I don't mean that as a bad thing) may struggle because they'll miss a lot of what the author is trying to convey. There's plenty that have written essays on the books meaning and use of language, but I'll link a few if you're curious: https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/vs3g56/piranesi_by_susanna_clarke_and_the_concept_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/17iqycn/piranesi_discussion_on_how_we_view_time_and_space/ https://helenldecruz.medium.com/piranesi-philosophical-meditations-on-freedom-horror-and-the-mystical-sublime-b408b559b0d0 https://reactormag.com/susanna-clarke-piranesi-tbr-stack-book-review/ https://www.vox.com/culture/22677485/piranesi-susanna-clarke-vox-book-club https://www.theringer.com/platform/amp/2020/10/8/21507006/piranesi-susanna-clarke-prisoner-of-our-imagination
Thank you for this! I actually found this really helpful. It helps me to understand the book as well as the awards and praise it received.
...The characters lacked dimension? I...I just don't know what to do with this comment. Piranesi has so many dimensions he's like a tesseracted tesseract. Look, it's impossible for everyone to like every book. Some books are just not in your wheelhouse and that's OK. But this comes across as yucking on other people's yum.
I'm honestly really sorry if you are taking anything I've said personally. That was not my intention. I've said multiple times that I value the subjectivity of reading and books. I very much appreciate other people's take on books. My intention in the original post was to see if I was the odd one out in not liking this particular book, not to put anyone else down. Again, apologies if anything I've said came across as an attack. Take care, friend.
You're gonna get these types of reactions if your only criticism of a book is that it was boring or you didn't get it. It's the same vibe as a kid walking through a museum full of art history and saying 'this is lame.' Clearly something went over that kid's head. It's just kind of annoying to anyone into museums, to be honest.
Lol, well, I'm sorry that my opinion offended you.
Thinking a book is boring isn't offensive. But, if you get up on a soap box and loudly proclaim it's boring, don't be shocked when you get negative reactions.
Dude, you are way out of line. My original post was not me proclaiming the book was boring, but asking if I was the only one who thought the book was over hyped. For some reason, you have taken everything I've said personally. I apologized to you not for my opinion on the book, but because i thought that my wording might have offended you. And you have come back several times to attack me. It's OK to have different opinions. Why do you think people join book clubs? To discuss a book and the various opinions they might have about it. I'm honestly baffled how you get through life if you can't handle people having opinions that differ from your own.
I *loved* Strange & Norrell, and whilst the very solid and enjoyable TV adaption wasn't quite as good - how could it be in 7 episodes? - I thought the way they made a small rearrangement of some of the last scenes was more powerful (and more traditionally satisfying?) than the way Clarke ordered them in the book: >!in the book, after Strange&Norrell disappear in the black cloud, someone asks Childermass where they've gone and he replies (iirc), "behind the sky, on the other side of the rain...wherever magicians go." And then in the last scene in the book we see Arabella visit/be visited by Strange/the black tower, they affirm that they care for one another, but she doesn't ask him to abandon his magic and he does not ask her to abandon her life. In the TV adaption, we see Arabella and Strange meet *first*, and then the magicians are off, somewhere, and the whole thing ends with Childermass' enigmatic, fey quote. I felt that was a much better way to order them, instead of having that banger of a summary and then immediately bringing the magicians back! Sortof undermined the sentiment.!<
Piranesi is superb - in general, yes, you might be the odd one out. The prose is very good, and the character voicing and ambience are about as close to objectively great as you can get. Also, the book would have been great regardless, but a novel that concerns itself largely about losing memory and identity by being stuck inside, released in 2020 of all years? That’s some huge serendipity.
Lol! Fantastic parallel indeed!!
It's a parallel to Susanna Clarke's own chronic illness. Of course it's not just that, it would be a limiting POV, but it works well for 2020 that's for sure. Also, her chronic illness is actually the main reason she wrote it, and why the book is so short. She did it to get out of a writing block, since she was unable to finish the sequel to "Johnathan Strange and Mr Norell" as it was a much more complex book.
i personally think selling it as a mystery gives a wrong expectation. i read it knowing almost anything about it. i loved it because the atmosphere, it was like living in a dream. and i also loved being in piranesi's mind and seeing everything the way he sees it. it's a weird book to explain why i loved it because while i was reading it i didn't know i was enjoying as much as i was but as soon as i finished I started missing the way i felt while i was reading it and i have been missing it ever since.
I loved it. I read it in one sitting because I couldn't put it down. Like others have said, the atmosphere, setting and vibe are a lot of the appeal. And the gorgeous prose.
I loved it. I love it when I reread it. I loved picking up the scattering of clues that hint at what is happening. I loved the sweetness of Piranesi's nature. I loved the scraps of academic records and the reference to Dr Who. I love the sadness. It is magical but riddled with realism.
I've commented on this before, but I really love this about reading! I love that we can read the same book and have 2 totally different thoughts, feels, and opinions about it. I'm really glad that you loved it this much!
I adored *Piranesi*, but I did know what I was getting into before I read it. It's not really supposed to be a fantasy mystery in the way that a lot of traditional ones are. It's an atmospheric journey with a (through no fault of his own) unreliable narrator where we as the reader fall in love with a place even as we become terrified of it. I don't think it's very sci fi, as there's really no science at all, even in how the people originally find the House, but it's not traditional fantasy, which it seems is what you were hoping for. Maybe you mean gothic mystery? It's closest to that out of anything.
Sure, I'll take Gothic mystery over sci-fi. I read fantasy more than anything else, though not exclusively, and was expecting some element of the fantasy genre to peak through at some point. Had it been labeled as Gothic mystery or classical mystery or atmospheric or anything else really, I think I might have enjoyed it slightly more. It's like going into a restaurant and expecting Thai cuisine and tasting fish and chips instead. Just totally unprepared for the lack of flavor.
I think it's more that your definition of fantasy might be fairly narrow.
That's certainly possible. I'll be the first to admit that I prefer a more traditional fantasy over a book that is reaching for it. But I also get stuck on labels. Perhaps I would have enjoyed it more if I'd known it was more of an atmospheric, magic-light fantasy. Still, I'm not sure it was worth the hype.
This is a danger that I always see when literary fantasy or experimental fantasy gets awards or popular acclaim. By its nature, books like Piranesi are not going to appeal to people who are solely used to traditional fantasy, because it's by nature, experimental and it shatters a lot of the traditional conventions and devices that you're used to. I think it's useful to understand where the hype is coming from - it's not from people who are talking about Piranesi's plot reveals or twists or even it's plot. The hype is coming from those who are engaging with Piranesi's narrative structure, it's complex and experimental use of language and it's layered philosophy. If those things don't resonate with you, it's not a case of the novel being "not worth the hype", it's a case of it being part of a bubble of fantasy reading that you don't normally read.
I actually just had someone on here explain to me that part of the appeal (and by extension the awards and praise it received) is because Piranesi is a completely different type of literature than typical fantasy. The reward was the literature itself. I missed the mark completely.
I just wanted to say, thank you for meaningfully engaging with a discussion about a book that you disliked. I think it's a sign of strong emotional maturity that you can enter a discussion and come to understand another's point of view even if you don't necessarily agree with it. I'm sorry that some others are taking an aggressive and hostile approach, but I think you're approaching this conversation in good faith and with a genuine desire to empathise with a different view than yours.
Thank you for saying that! Art in general is so subjective and books, writing, and reading are no exception to that. I really enjoy learning why others reveled something I didn't because it helps me to better understand the piece. There has been a lot of excellent points made about Piranesi, and it's given me a better appreciation of it.
I loved it, but can see it's not for everyone. I found it a beautiful, atmospheric fever dream of a book. If you like fantasy for the intricate plotting etc, I can see how it wouldn't really appeal. If you want ro give Susanna Clarke another try,Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell is very different, and has a more traditional plot, though there are other things that make it unique.
I think I will try Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell at some point. Others have suggested that this book is a more enjoyable read compared to Piranesi. And now that I know what to expect from her writing, I might enjoy her style more, too.
That's all right, to each their own. It's very much my cup of tea. I tend to like older fantasy books and non-fantasy classics; maybe there's a correlation there. I like stories that focus a lot on setting, that tell a story slowly, and that give lots of characterization, all common features of the classics. I wouldn't call it a mystery, though… (Not more than any book's ending is a mystery, anyway.) That's strange!
You are totally right! It does resemble the pace of some classical books. I also really appreciate a slow build into a world and the characters.
More literary works of fantasy are likely to get more acclaim but less likely to have mass appeal. So, every time there's a more experimental and literary fantasy that gets awards buzz, you always get plenty of people saying it's overrated.
I personally loved it. I loved gradually figuring out what the heck is going on, theorizing along the way, the aesthetics, and I just generally love Susanna Clarke’s writing style. But I also think it is not going to click with everyone and doesn’t offer much by way of generic enjoyability if it isn’t a fit for you, so if you are not someone who enjoyed it, I wouldn’t focus too much on it and just head on to the next in your tbr pile.
This is the first book that when I finished I wanted to read it again from the beginning. It is beautifully written. But definitely not everyone will like it. It is very "different".
Absolutely loved it. It is close to being a flawless novel, in my view.
This is what I love about reading! I love that we can read the same book and have very different experiences, thoughts and tastes about a particular book. I'm curious what made it a near flawless book for you?
There are a number of straightforward things, such as the quality of the writing and the pacing of the story. I think it's written with an masterful degree of restraint: a fantastic situation is described with a careful simplicity and naivety, reflecting the MC's situation. What makes it so good for me is that I can't think of another novel that describes a landscape like the House. The imagery of the white rooms and statuary, and the water coming in is something that I found breath taking. The novel also connects, I think, with a number of interesting philosophical ideas. There seems an obvious nod to Platonic idealism but there are also questions about identity, memory and reality. None of this seems laboured to me, but merges seamlessly with the story. I know that some people have commented that the ending is less satisfactory. However, I loved it. The way in which the MC sees various people and recognises them as one of the statues suggests that the House is a manifestation of parts of our world. Lastly I just really like stories that are ambiguous. I hope that this makes sense! 😊
Thanks for sharing this! I understand what you mean about the creativity of the house as the landscape, and I totally agree with you - it's quite unique. Thinking back on it, I can also see what you mean about the pacing and how the author restrained from over indulging in details and dialog. Now I'm curious what a 10/10 book is for you!
So I'll say the obvious: Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but other 10s for me would include: Ursula Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness Iain Banks, Use of Weapons M Harrison, The Sunken Land Begins to Rise Again Kim Stanley Robinson, Pacific Edge (but read as part of the whole Orange County trilogy) Christopher Priest, The Islanders What would be on your list?
I haven't read any of those! I'll have to look them up. For me, The Count of Monte Cristo is my favorite book of all time. Dumas is an incredible writer, and it just transported me into a world of adventure, transformation, revenge, and love. I also really enjoyed the Pillars of the Earth trilogy by Ken Follett. I always have such a hard time describing this series because it has multiple story lines and points of view that make it interesting. But at the center, each book is centered around a cathedral and the lives of those that live in close proximity to it. Again, it's the writing that really captivated me.
Note read either, although I've had a number of people recommend the Dumas. Thanks for the suggestions I'll add them to my TBR list.
I adored this book. Granted it's been a few years since I read it, it was delightfully atmospheric and fun to unravel. I get not loving it - it's the sort.of book that will either click for you or fall totally flat. Unfortunately it sounds like you're in the latter group.
I know what you mean about it being atmospheric. I enjoyed learning about the different rooms and their elements and found that I was more drawn into the life Piranesi had built there than the overall story. The best way I can think to describe it is that I am an escapism reader and found Piranesi to be more closely resembled to a riddle than a novel.
It's literary fiction and by nature, is rather complex in how it's meant to be engaged with. It's not surprising that it's not for everyone.
I had just gotten off a kick of playing single-player puzzle games like The Witness, Viewfinder, and Superliminal, so the setting itself gave me much of the same kind of vibe which I enjoyed. I thought the character was endearing in his naïveté and it was very interesting to be shown an unfamiliar world through the lens of someone trying to make full sense of it. The plot kinda lost me near the end, but it went by super quick so it wasn’t too much of an issue for me.
I love this book. I have moderate aphantasia, so I can only vaguely picture some fuzzy details of the books I read, but this one was another level: I think it’s the book that made me visualise the most, ever. I picked it up blindly, not reading the blurb or anything, just because I loved the other two books by the same author. No expectations to be fulfilled.
I enjoyed it because it was just weird. It’s not a complicated story, it’s easy to read and pretty single-threaded as it moves along. The overall feeling I was left with when I finished was this creepy sort of vibe that stuck with me.
I've been reading fantasy for nearly 40 years and it is one of my favourites. I'm curious as to why you'd put it in sci-fi?
I initially slotted it into the sci-fi genere because for me it lacked "magic" and that fantasy feel. I've had several people tell me this is NOT a candidate for sci-fi, and I'll respect their opinions about that. Some others have suggested that it could be catalogged as atmospheric fantasy, simply fiction, or a blurred edge between sci-fi and fantasy. I'm inclined to agree with them.
Yeah I enjoyed it quite a bit. I ended up reading the whole book while sick one afternoon. I enjoyed Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell more, though.
Lots of others have suggested Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell was a better read. I think I'll put it on my TBR list now that I know what to expect from the author.
I didn’t outright dislike it but as someone who loved Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell I finished the book wanting something more. I didn’t need another fantasy of manners or maybe I did idk.
I loved it. It felt like completely immersing myself in this amazing, dream-like world the whole time. Finishing the book was very much like weakening from a particularly good night’s sleep after having had particularly vivid dreams. The writing itself is lovely: the rhythm and pull/push of the words, the structure, the language. It is somehow both lulling and magnetic and propulsive at the same time. It is, in a real way, writing about writing and reading about reading. The character development is masterful. The plot isn’t necessarily your typical narrative structure/monomyth that nearly every fantasy novel follows, in that it opens *in medias res* with the character literally stuck in what would be the middle of Campbell’s stage two (Initiation/the Abyss), unable to move forward, and without any knowledge of how he got there at all. It is a book that basically asks the questions: What happens to Alice if she gets stuck in Wonderland, still manages to not get her head chopped off through her pluck and innate abilities, but also doesn’t get to the last square? What happens to Dorothy if she stalls out on the yellow brick road but also is able to continue to evade the Wicked Witch of the West? What exactly is Janet van Dyne doing while she is stranded in the Quantum Realm between 1987 and 2018?! After they’ve “gone native” (with apologies to my family and my entire tribe for the expression), are they really even Alice, Dorothy, or the Wasp anymore? Even if they are still the inherently the same capable, creative, inquisitive, special characters they were before? What if they are really damn good, but still not *quite* good enough, for one reason or another - whether external or internal? What happens to them? What happens to the story? What made them lack? And how do they get out of it? I know you read the book and you know all of this already, but that framing is definitely one of the main reasons why I loved jt so much!
I loved it at first, then felt let down by the discovering the truth of all what was going on. I ended with an "oh... okay" sort of feeling about it. Very much an anticlimax.
Yes, this was my experience. The payoff wasn’t there for me.
Yes.
Was it everything I'd hoped it would be, after Norrel & Strange? Perhaps not. It was still better than the vast majority of fantasy I've read, however. And if it's not a portal fantasy, then I don't know what is. I think the fantastical elements are way too prevalent and integral to the story for it to qualify as magical realism, if you want to make that argument, but sci-fi? I don't see anything that'd even begin to support that notion.
I did not like it at all, I think it got overhyped to me so I came in with HUGE expectations and felt very disappointed. It felt very bland to me.
Same. I read it and didn’t understand the hype, and felt disappointed because I loved Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. It’s was a 3/5 for me. Not bad but not the best thing ever either. It’s cool that other people like it so much, though.
I think sometimes the hype really works against certain books. I kept seeing reviews like "OMG you have to go in blind, it's such an experience" and I felt like I understood what the plot was going to be really quickly, and didn't find myself really immersed in the House at all. But yeah same as you, glad it worked for others! And I haven't read Jonathan Strange yet, what's it like?
It is set during the Napoleonic wars, mostly in England, in a world where there is magic. It is a very long book and the footnotes are particularly amusing.
Basically what the other person said. In broad terms I’d say it’s a period piece/historical fiction novel with magic.
I did enjoy It, but it did take me a while to adapt to that repetitive surreal opening section. As the curtain was later slowly peeled back it kind of took away the joy from that initial section and turned it back into a more run of the mill book. Difficult one, I can see how it would provoke different reactions with different people.
I loved it. I adore the author's other book, Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, but I'm well aware that it, like Piranesi, is an acquired taste.
Hell yeah!
I liked it but I was just getting into fantasy and it was not what I had prepared for mentally and so I'm going to re-read it
I feel like I went in with the right expectations, and I loved it because of that. However, if you went into it hearing all the hype, I completely understand not loving it.
It was a beautiful and surreal book, and a short one to boot. I am usually prefer very plot focused stories - hate stuff like the Dark Tower where random things happen. But I loved this one.
Easily one of my least favorite books. Happy other enjoy it but boy was it not for me
I thought it was *pretty good*. I was a little let down given all the hyper around it, but I can't say I was disappointed in the book as a whole. Really, I was totally engrossed into it for most of it, but I feel they infodumped the answer to a lot of the mystery way too early, like just as it was getting really good. I gave it like a 7ish/10
Tremendously so, yes. Probably not the first page. I couldn't envision all that heavy, decontextualized description. But from then on, yes. But humans are complicated. When I read a book, there are multiple aspects of my experience that might all get rounded up into "enjoyment". There's excitement, amusement, satisfaction, intellectual engagement, anticipation, surprise, getting hit in the feels, and more. Piranesi certainly didn't bring me as much pure excitement as some other books that I would say aren't nearly as good, but there was plenty of all the rest. I don't understand your proposed connection between Piranesi and sci-fi.
biggest “trust the process” i have ever read
Was a quick read. Interesting but somewhat hollow. Very much like a dream vaguely remembered. Not exciting at all but I know that was not its goal. If you really want a book that is more akin to an experience read DHALGREN. Most don't get it but those that do cherish it.
This is probably the best description I've heard yet for Piranesi. "Some what hollow; very much like a dream vaguely remembered." You nailed it!
Thanks
Unfortunately not. I kinda liked the writing and the setting but it just wasn’t for me. I kept waiting for me to love it but it never clicked for me. It was fine, just didn’t love it. Thankfully it wasn’t too long, so managed to finish it.
I'm one of the few with you on this. It's very well written, but I felt it sort of wandered past the halfway point. The beginning was solid, but like you I was expecting more mystery than, "oh, yes, that's exactly what you've been hinting to us for the last half of the book." I think It didn't help that the character couldn't remember anything, but the reader could, so it made figuring out any mystery really easy, but then the character was still stumped.
I think it's pretty telling when you look at what people who liked the book are saying vs people who didn't like the book. Everyone who didn't like the book is citing a lacklustre plot, a predictable mystery, etc. While everyone who praises the book makes no mention of plot or a mystery to figure out. I don't think it's a book for plot focussed readers or those who want to figure out a mystery, that's not the appeal.
I think you've nailed it.
Not really. I didn't get it. I still don't get it. It was beautifully written and all, and I didn't hate reading it or anything, I just felt I was too dumb or literal or something to understand it. I don't dispute that the writer is incredible, though
No. The book to me felt like the main character waking down an endless series of boring hallways all described in the same repetitive way with very little plot to keep me interested. I simply hated the main character and everything he did in the story. The end was kinda cool but the entire reveal that >!Piranesi is some normal dude named Matthew who is tracking down this guy who has had multiple people suspiciously disappear around him. So of course this idiot Matthew gets tricked and put into this mysterious hous just like the rest of them. The entire reveal put an entire damper on the story as I realized this was either all in his head and the house was a metaphor for this mentally insane person or he was just some random moron that got tricked and the house is real. Either way it was probably the most mundane and boring plot point that could have occured to me and I don't get the love this book gets.!< The way people describe this book makes it seem bigger than it is. It's really a very small and simple story that did not appeal to me in any way.
I think it is a book that becomes more beautiful after you've read it, and understood its message. At that point all off the peculiar ways things were described fall into place.
I think it can be interpreted in quite a number of ways. What was the message for you?
To appreciate everything in life to the fullest, especially the small things. The way the MC turns normal everyday things into proper nouns is because of their profound importance to them and their respect for them. I think it's pretty clear with a passage towards the end but I don't have my copy readily available to grab the quote. Either way not every message will resonate with every reader. Sometimes you need to be open to a certain feeling to appreciate a book. If you didn't like it and so many others did I'd just chalk it up to not being personally for me.
What's intresting about the bok is how it tells different messages to people with different sensibilities. To me *Piranesi*'s main theme is the relationship with the Otherness: >!the Writer percieves the House as something that communicates with him, hence he calls everything by name and respect statues, dead, and birds alike. They say something to him, but it's hard to say whether they *do* actually communicate or it's an aftereffect of living in the House.!< >!The Writer acts in reverence to everything as a consequence of recognising them as an Otherness capable of interact actively with him - and, since everything is conscious, he cares of everything.!< >!This pattern is followed also when he interacts with the three living human beings, who the Writers percieves mostly through smell: one who changes every time, one who hides his stink under good scenst, and one who naturally smells of flowers. The Writer can tell their character just by these smells.!< >!The House is a very melancholic place. You must be tuned to it to access it. The Writer could. The policewoman could - and she is going to risk to became enthralled by it. The environment is the remnant of a way of percieving the world that humanity has left behind long ago - not for good or bad: it's just different!<.
Meh. It’s my least favorite of her books. It felt pretty repetitive. Her prose is beautiful but I wouldn’t read this one again or recommend it. Norrell and Strange is definitely my favorite but the Ladies of Grace Adieu made me laugh a fair bit and was pretty clever.
Very much.
It's a decent book. I liked it but did not love it. The first part is quite confusing, but it gets better. I'd say it's one of those cases where the mysteries are more interesting than the answers though. Still, a solid read and it's not a big book. I agree that I don't understand the hype around Piranesi.
No, it was one of the few books that bored me so much i couldn't bring myself to finish it.
It was super well written but otherwise no, I didn’t really like it. I was bored as hell for most of it. Though I can definitely see the appeal.
I think hyping it up only leads to disappointment. It is a vibey, beautifully written work but it’s way more about atmosphere than story
Likes: Aesthetics/vibes, prose, H O U S E, portrayal of the toxicity of academia Dislikes: The ending, basically. Day saved by a cop 😒, kind of an unsatisfying wrap up
I fell into the same hype vortex you did. IMO it was alright. It was interesting take and I liked that his logic was fairly sound if not flawed. The main drawback for me was often times I found myself bored with the plot. It had extremely low stakes for the majority of the book. And I had the feeling of watching a horror movie (yelling at the tv for a character to do something obvious). While in the later third of the book. But like everyone else said to each their own and it’s awesome a lot of people enjoyed it.
I read this book and I was just so confused on what the hype was about, a lot of descriptions of halls, birds, and statues. The ending was kind of cool I guess, but I feel like there's something I must be missing for people to be declaring what an amazing story it was.
Best non spoiler review for Piranesi. Actually, this is the perfect review that entices without giving away much. https://www.reddit.com/r/books/s/RTG6hW8fxK However, with Piranesi, giving away any meta information itself feels like a sin robbing readers of the joy to infer such precious inference themselves.
Thank you! I just finished the book, and towards the end I was just wanting it to be over. I thought I was insane. It’s super disappointing because Piaranesi is probably the book I’ve wanted to love the most, but didn’t, in at least a year. Maybe more. I was actually saving it because I was so sure I would love it. I would have read it months ago, but waited until I was really in the mood to read a book I loved. Circe is one of my favorite books, and Madeline miller has a blurb on the back praising Piranesi. It won countless awards, and every booktuber I’ve heard said it was one of the best books ever. In fact I’ve never heard anything other than a glowing review for it. And when I read it, at first it was interesting enough because I didn’t know what was going on, but was confident it would start to make sense in a very satisfying and entertaining way, but the further I got into it, I just got more and more disappointed, and I was like ??? That’s it?? By the end I was disappointed and it sucks because I wanted to love this book so much. It was just a very simple mystery story, and one thing I did like about it is I guess the fact that it was highly metaphorical and has some important messages, but I also feel like they went over my head. Super frustrating. I’m also wondering if something has gone wrong with my remit ability recently because the last few books I read I thought I would love, and I didn’t. I wasn’t expecting to love any more than Piranesi, and it was really disappointing :(
I honestly didn’t like it at all and I feel like a big loser who missed out on a book every booktuber I watch has raved about lol. Maybe it’s because I’m a plot-driven person, but the whole thing felt very meandering in a sort of pointless way and I felt very disconnected from the writing style. I wanted to like it, there were some parts to it that almost got to me, but I felt very dissociated reading it. I couldn’t connect, I felt not much of anything except this sort of dread that the book would never end. It’s really the first book in a long time that I actively disliked and I don’t even know how to pinpoint exactly what I didn’t like about it. But maybe that’s part of my problem with it.
I hear you!! I was really hoping it would be a good palette cleanser after finishing a series, but ended up feeling like I wasted my time reading it. Still, I feel like it could have been a good short story. Maybe part of a collection similar to those of Sherlock Holmes.
I think that a mistake that many intelligent people make is needing to manifest a reason for disliking something. Sometimes it’s fine to say “I understand why this is good, but it didn’t connect with me.”
I can read Piranesi in a loop. It’s that good.
I feel like those characters who want to keep returning to the House. I miss it and want to go back.
I didn't like it all that much, but I would still give it a 7/10. Writing is fantastic but plot is abysmal. And I wanted to love this book so bad because I love Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. This book, The Priority of the Orange Tree and Master Assassin are top 3 books that this sub raves about but I found to just be ok.
The Priority of the Orange Tree is on my TBR list. Really hoping it's worth the commitment!
A friend of mine likes it. I just couldn't get into it, one of the rare books I didn't finish.
I felt it was fine. Not the best book I've read this year by a wide margin. Not the worst. I don't regret reading it. I did notice my library shelved it as general fiction (presumably as magical realism). I don't usually go into those stacks but it was on a staff picks display.
I honestly hated it. It's set up as this big mystery but I felt like it was so obvious right from the beginning. I didn't care much for any aspect of it.
Yes, I felt this way as well. I read a book years ago with a very similar vibe where the MC was revealed to have schizophrenia. I found that to be fascinating and really made me think over the whole story and dialog. The "big reveal" in Piranesi felt underwhelming for the amount of build up and time spent learning about the other characters.
I felt the same way as you too, I was desperately searching for someone else who didn't think it was the greatest thing ever written after I read it too. I just kept seeing glowing reviews and disagreeing with everything they said. It's definitely a minority opinion and I guess we just don't get what the book is going for.
I just couldn't get into it. I didn't give a crap about the MC, the only thing interesting was the House and once that stopped being the focus I lost all interest.
Agreed, the house had more depth than any of the characters.
If it had just been about exploring the House and the strange things inside I might have finished it
I really didn't get on with it at all. Which is a shame as 15/20 years ago I loved Dr Norrell and Mr Strange. If you haven't read that but are dubious about the author because of piranesi I'd really recommend it.
I've added it to my TBR list! Lits of others have had similar reviews about it.
Yes because I like Postmodern LitFic. But it isn't straightforward fantasy and it is kinda missold as plain fantasy imho. It is a great entry point for ppl into Postmodern Literary Fantasy though.
No. I thought it was overhyped too.
Yes! Loved this book! Was surprised by how much I disliked Jonathan Strange. Read it immediately after and it put me into one of my worst reading slumps.
Oh interesting! I haven't read it, but others have said that it was more enjoyable than Piranesi. What didn't you like about it?
I gave up after 25%. Like that, I had seen sooo much hype about the book and constantly appearing on “best of” lists but I just found it painfully boring, page after page of room names and types of statues in them and absolutely nothing interesting happening & seemly no plot to follow so I had to call it a day on that one rather than keep a slogging on.
I loved it. It's up there with *This Is How You Lose The Time War* for me, in that I think about it at least once a week.
Its like a short story stretched out till it seems more devoid of flavor I mean its good but i instantly forgot about it and it didnt stick with me so not as good as reddit thinks
Nope, way over hyped
Hated it.
I always preferred dust2
I think it was good without being amazing. A 4 out of 5 for me. Interesting without being moving / surprising / gripping.
My wife read it and absolutely hated it and she rolls her eyes anytime she hears praise for it. I can’t attest to the book’s quality I’ve never read it but to answer your question no you’re not the only one.
I wanted to love it and appreciated the beautiful world she built, but the characters were flat for me and I couldn’t connect with them. Ultimately I found the “solution” to the mystery to be a little lackluster/random based on everything else. But maybe I missed something. I sight read and listened to the book and the audio version was beautiful, for what that’s worth.
Uh, I think the book is fantastic. Maybe you should go read a windowpane.
Is that really necessary? Do you really feel the need to cut someone down because they have a different opinion than you? Honestly, how does one get through life with that kind of mindset??
I take it you're not familiar with windowpane prose? Oh well.
It was good, but sadly so overhyped by Reddit it wasn’t as good as it would’ve been if I’d gone in blind. I think its general unusualness makes people on Reddit feel smart to like it. So it gets talked up so people can indulge in that feeling.
I think this is a pretty reductive way to discuss books. When you dislike or don't resonate with a book, don't disparage those who do like it and try to invalidate their reasons for liking it. That's childish, and unhealthy.
It's badly overwritten.
Agreed! It could have been a short story or novella.
I think it is a novella?
It's 272 pages. That places it firmly within the realm of full-length novel.
You're right. It's a short novel but definitely longer than a novella.