by Susanna Clarke
Yes I finished this at 1:45 in the a.m. and yes I will be talking about it all damn day tomorrow. Instant classic. A story told through documents, an abundance of unreliable narrators, and an endlessly debatable and never totally explained setting are all strong pluses for me.
EDIT: I can see the merit of arguments this is meant as christian apologia, but honestly fuck that shit. In my humble atheist jewish naturalist nerd opinion Piranesi's "anti-progress" "innocence" is scientific inquiry and appreciation of the intense beauty and complexity of the natural world. The closer we look the more we see and understand how stereotyped and oversimplified the stories we tell ourselves about it, which center us and our personal concerns, are. Obsessing about who created the House and whether They/It care about us personally is yet another limiting, self-centered story that has less than nothing to do with appreciating and striving to understand Its wonders. See also: [b:Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead|51648276|Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead|Olga Tokarczuk|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1565725457l/51648276.SX50_SY75.jpg|8099373].
EDIT: Now I've discussed it with Sam and we both agreed that while it was partly responding to C.S. Lewis, it was definitely not agreeing with him. Piranesi's "innocence" is a reaction to trauma that was inflicted on him.
Also, could the memory loss be unrelated to the House and more about the circumstances? It seems like only two people suffered memory loss, and they were both unwilling visitors.