Hey guys, I just finished this novel for the first time (it is phenomenal). Anyway, my head is buzzing from all the possible interpretations; however, one thread seems evident to me. I'm sure there are many Piranesi fans here so I'm interested to hear your interpretations.
I think one of the most obvious motifs is Piranesi's deep empathy and connection to his surrounding world. In many ways, I couldn't help but view Piranesi as a Buddhist monk who isn't looking for anything more from the world as existence contains enough beauty and pleasure as it already is, or rather the 18th-century Romantic poet who emphasized the return to a child-like wonder for existence and who shared a deep appreciation for the natural world. In addition, Laurence's original desire to travel to Other worlds (The House) was to rediscover ancient knowledge. When Laurence describes this knowledge, he discusses how the ancient ways involved treating nature with deep reverence, as if it were another human being. Of course, in many ways, Piranesi epitomizes this behavior through his deep empathy for his surrounding world. This is further highlighted through Piranesi's return to the real world as he seems uninterested in the hyper-materialism of the 21st century and seems to view such behavior as a hindrance to connecting with what matters.
Considering Piranesi plight and Laurence's criticism of the modern, rationalist man and their disregard of ancient wisdom, is one of Clarke's key themes the notion of how we have forgotten to have appreciation and gratitude for the world we live in? In the character of Piranesi, was Clarke showing everything that we have lost in the modern world? Namely, that child-like wonder for existence and the world's beauty that we tend to dismiss in favour of selfish, materialistic pursuits?
[link] [comments]