📚 Piranesi
Genre: Fantasy, Mystery, Literary Fiction Originally Published: 2020
💭 Quick Summary & Thoughts
I read this book as part of my book club, and it led to one of the best discussions we’ve ever had. If you’re in a book club and looking for your next pick, this is it. 100% recommended.
The concept of this book is amazing. You’re dropped into the journal entries of a man living inside an infinite, labyrinthine house filled with classical statues, where an ocean lives in the lower halls and tides flood through the corridors. He knows almost nothing about himself or how he got there. He calls himself Piranesi, and the only other living person he knows is someone he calls “the Other,” who visits periodically and seems to be searching for some kind of ancient knowledge.
I’ll admit, I read the acknowledgements early on, which mentioned Susanna Clarke’s inspiration from Narnia, so I was already expecting the House to be connected to the real world somehow. And having read as many books as I have by now, it wasn’t a huge surprise when the Other turned out to be the villain. But even with those elements partially spoiled for myself, the book was still a compelling and deeply thought-provoking read.
What really makes this book special isn’t the mystery itself - it’s the philosophical questions it raises. This is a book that stays with you and makes you think long after you’ve put it down.
⚠️ Spoiler Zone
🚨 Click to reveal spoilers 🚨
There were two things from this book that I couldn’t stop thinking about, and that sparked the best parts of our book club discussion:
What makes us us? Piranesi is really Matthew Rose Sorensen, a man who was lured into the House and had his memories systematically erased. But the person we meet in the journal, Piranesi, is kind, curious, generous, full of wonder. He’s genuinely a good person. So the question is: are we our memories? If you woke up tomorrow with none of yours, would you be a fundamentally different person? Would you be less kind? Less funny? Less you?
We discussed people with amnesia and how losing memories doesn’t seem to change who they are at their core. So we’re more than just our memories. But at the same time, we are the sum of our experiences and how we react to them. Losing your memories doesn’t erase your personality or your instincts, the latter stays, but the experiences themselves, the former, are gone. It’s a fascinating tension, and the book captures it beautifully.
Is it morally right to “rescue” someone who’s happy? Piranesi is clearly content in the House. He loves it deeply, the statues, the tides, the birds. He calls it beautiful and kind. He’s at peace. But he’s also there because of manipulation and memory erasure. So knowing that pulling him out would cause a kind of split personality, the collision of Matthew and Piranesi in one mind, is it actually the right thing to do? Would it have been kinder to leave him be?
Our group wrestled with this one hard, and the conclusion we landed on was that making a choice for someone else is itself a deeply privileged position. Morally, you should give them perfect information and let them decide for themselves, even if they end up worse off for knowing. You don’t get to decide that ignorance is better for someone else. At least, that’s where we ended up, and I think the book would agree.
Now, my gripes. First, I don’t think Clarke explored the House premise as much as she could have. Knowing that Narnia was the inspiration, I was expecting rooms that were vastly different from each other - maybe even connected to other worlds, each one a new discovery. Instead, the House is quite monotonous. Halls, statues, ocean. It’s atmospheric, sure, but it could have been so much more vivid and varied.
Second - and this is a pet peeve of mine - the villain’s death is way too convenient. The Other, this extremely calculating and manipulative person who has been orchestrating everything, just… drowns? On his own? After everything he’s done, that’s how he goes out? I always find it frustrating when a meticulously built-up villain makes a stupid decision at the end just so the plot can resolve itself neatly. It felt unearned.
🧠 Key Takeaways
-
We are more than our memories, but our memories are a huge part of us. Piranesi loses his entire past and yet remains fundamentally kind and curious. Our personality and instincts survive memory loss, but the richness of our experiences - the things that shaped those instincts - can be lost. We are the sum of our experiences and our reactions to them.
-
Happiness built on manipulation is still a kind of prison. Piranesi loves the House. He’s genuinely content. But his contentment is built on stolen memories and a reality constructed by someone else. The book asks whether happiness that depends on not knowing the truth is real happiness at all.
-
No one should get to decide what’s best for someone else. Even when you believe you’re acting in someone’s best interest, deciding what’s “better” for another person without their informed consent is an exercise of power, not compassion. Give people the information and let them choose.
-
Beauty exists independent of utility. Piranesi sees the House as valuable because it is the House - not because it leads somewhere or serves a purpose. There’s something deeply moving about his ability to find wonder and meaning in his surroundings without needing them to be useful.
-
Isolation distorts reality, but it doesn’t destroy goodness. Piranesi is completely isolated and fed lies by the only person he trusts, yet he remains generous and kind. The book suggests that goodness might be more inherent than we think - not just a product of socialization.
-
Knowledge can be both a gift and a burden. Learning the truth about who he really is doesn’t make Piranesi’s life better in any simple sense. He gains his past but loses his peace. Sometimes knowing more means suffering more - and the book doesn’t pretend otherwise.
⭐ Ratings
| 📊 Plot | |
| ⚡ Pacing | |
| 👥 Characters | |
| ✍️ Writing Style | |
| 🎯 Overall |