Maybe a question too specific, it's just that with this book specifically this is a common recommendation, one that i followed. i don't understand what could possibly be lost if one is told every beat of plot development, it seems to me that this is the diametrically opposite approach that one should be taking. thinking of atmosphere as foreshadowing leads nowhere, as nothing explicit is revealed, the point seems to be interpretation, and some of us are too dumb and would have never been close on our own anyway.
I don't like to think of stories as allegorical, i think its dumb, but to me the obvious implication of the story is as a reference to nostalgia, a feeling of solemnity that is easy to find in which one can delve in enlessly, as one is never going to be limited to one's settled past, but it can (and has to) always be interwoven with it. it's also really dumb to have a ritual for it.
by Osbre
9 Comments
Experiencing the book the way the character does is rewarding. I’m sorry you didn’t think that, but I certainly did.
Gonna be honest with you, I know all the words you used but your point is very unclear.
However painful you may have found reading Piranesi, I assure you that reading your incoherent post was much worse for us.
Your post doesn’t make sense at all lol
What do you mean?
I’m half way through it and kind of losing interest…is it worth it to finish it?
I didn’t enjoy the booke either, going in blind. I rarely DNF books, but Piranesi was certainly one of them. I get the theory behind it, but like, I also don’t want to dedicate that much time to it.
If you’re saying Piranesi sucked, then yeah, I agree.
Was this post written by Piranesi
I think you would love Frieda McFadden.