The sketch would like to present Pirandell’s aesthetic as a finite heritage of ruin aesthetics, of which Giovanni Battista Piranesi was a great representative in Italian tradition. He writes about Umberto Eco’s aesthetics that we see in the Italian dramaturga: “it radically changes the concept of formal excellence and the fullness of the work of art”, what is more, “it is acceptable to find pleasure in the work of art despite (and may, as a result) represent destruction”. All of them summed up on the same page a quote from Diderota: “why is the beautiful sketch of us more than a finite image? Because more lives and less forms. When forms emerge, life disappears.” This French philosopher court could serve as an important interpretative route for Pirandell’s work. The institution of literature exercises authority over the form, that is to say, the language. However, as is apparent from Pirandella’s considerations, literature is a cold institution. The letter is not able to maintain the warm of life, its rationality does not deal with life’s ‘boots’. And since history is entrusted to a liter, stored and passed through it, life will always be left out of its jurisdiction. Pirandell’s work is an important episode in great Western history, highlighting that this history is making efforts, generally not very successful, to construct the world in line with the recommendations of rationality.