Foucaults Pendulum by Umberto Eco
This book is The Da Vinci Code on steroids. Nevermind that The Da Vinci Code was written in 2003 and this first in 1988, Im gonna postulate that Ecos documented jealousy of other writers stealing his genius comes from Dan Browns novel. He puts himself in league with whomever supposedly ghost wrote for Shakespeare. Trust me, Umberto, youre no Shakespeare!
As it is, Umberto Eco, a Professor of Semiotics [Huh? It is the study of cultural sign processes (semiosis), analogy, metaphor, signification and communication, signs and symbols] cannot help himself--he must associate this with that, this with that until it borders on mental illness. The Dan Brown book features a symbologist professorvery similar. Aha! Ive found yet another connection! That is the kind of twisted logic this book is all about.
But Professor Eco is also a literary critic, and as such, should know what constitutes good novels. Each part needs to contribute something to whole or it shouldnt be included. Two-thirds of this 641-page book could and should have been edited out so that it actually was a compelling mystery. But Eco cant do that. I think some consider this a classic because they are afraid to admit they didnt follow much of what the novel drivels on about.
So why did I chose this book? I understand the impulse of the mind to make connectionsbetween all kinds of things. Often, its difficult for me to find others who are similarly interestedor care-- about the connections that I constantly see between this behavior and that, this theory and current events. I thought Umberto Eco sounded like a kindred spirit. But the book is an extended metaphor for Six Degrees of Separation (or Kevin Bacon. however you chose to play it).
I had heard many theories about Knights Templar / Masons, / the Illuminati, Rosicrucians and other organizations ruling the world. I had just recently gained a rudimentary understanding of Kaballah and cabalists,which is a major theme the idea that the knowledge of the Universe can be gained by rewriting the Torah into all its permutations by reorganizing the words (?letters). Its the old 100 monkeys writing the classic novels of the world theory. And I think thats how he decided to write this one! I thought with a little French and Latin, Id be OK.
The beginning images of the huge Foucaults Pendulum, which swings based on some intangible point out in space, with no width and depth, and traces the lines of evidence of a rotating Earth were compelling, so I continued.
There are portions of the novel that contribute to the plot, but massive portions are erudition about obscure topics which no one would care about after the first 25 side tangents. Here is a typical paragraph from the 641 dense pages of the book:
I knew nothing at all about Trithemeius, but in Paris I found an edition of his Steganographia, hoc est ars per occultam scripturam animi sui voluntatem absentibus aperiendi cert, published in Frankfurt in 1606. The art of using secret writing in order to bare your soul to a distant persons. A fascinating man, this Trithemius. A Benedictive abbot of Spannheim, late fifteenth early sixteenth centuries, a scholar who knew Hebrew and Chaldrea, Oriental languages like Tartar. He corresponded with theologians, cabalists, alchemists, most certainly with the great Corenelius Agreppa of Nettesheim and perhaps with Paracelsus
Other than to reinforce the theme that Everything is related it serves very little purpose. But there are unending sections like this, usually untranslated Latin or French or Italian. To say finishing this book was a slog is a gross understatement.
What I did find a little interesting was the man behind the book. He does seem to have a mistrust of his own writing skills as well as a resentment of others who do write. All main characters are essentially the same one. Never in real life would you find three people who loved the pursuit of endless minutia for its own sake the way the three main characters do. You could interchange any one of them for the other. It is not by accident that one of the publishing companies is called Manutian (minutia). [Eco also apparently hates publishers and considers them stupid.]
He inserted unfinished sections of things he had written before, as the writings of another character. It is sprinkled as well with personal memories that had some impact on him. But the as to the discipline of including only what contributes to the storyline of a novel, he is incapable.
I will say that I probably picked up some new vocabulary, and perhaps some new information about Nazis or cabalists or almost everything else. But probably not since I was never sure if he was exaggerating the information and connections like some grand Tin Hat Theory.
I remember reading someone elses review of this book saying she finally made it through with a dictionary in hand. But no one would ever finish this book if they looked up each obscure reference he makes.
But, whos the fool here? I finished the damn thing!
This book is The Da Vinci Code on steroids. Nevermind that The Da Vinci Code was written in 2003 and this first in 1988, Im gonna postulate that Ecos documented jealousy of other writers stealing his genius comes from Dan Browns novel. He puts himself in league with whomever supposedly ghost wrote for Shakespeare. Trust me, Umberto, youre no Shakespeare!
As it is, Umberto Eco, a Professor of Semiotics [Huh? It is the study of cultural sign processes (semiosis), analogy, metaphor, signification and communication, signs and symbols] cannot help himself--he must associate this with that, this with that until it borders on mental illness. The Dan Brown book features a symbologist professorvery similar. Aha! Ive found yet another connection! That is the kind of twisted logic this book is all about.
But Professor Eco is also a literary critic, and as such, should know what constitutes good novels. Each part needs to contribute something to whole or it shouldnt be included. Two-thirds of this 641-page book could and should have been edited out so that it actually was a compelling mystery. But Eco cant do that. I think some consider this a classic because they are afraid to admit they didnt follow much of what the novel drivels on about.
So why did I chose this book? I understand the impulse of the mind to make connectionsbetween all kinds of things. Often, its difficult for me to find others who are similarly interestedor care-- about the connections that I constantly see between this behavior and that, this theory and current events. I thought Umberto Eco sounded like a kindred spirit. But the book is an extended metaphor for Six Degrees of Separation (or Kevin Bacon. however you chose to play it).
I had heard many theories about Knights Templar / Masons, / the Illuminati, Rosicrucians and other organizations ruling the world. I had just recently gained a rudimentary understanding of Kaballah and cabalists,which is a major theme the idea that the knowledge of the Universe can be gained by rewriting the Torah into all its permutations by reorganizing the words (?letters). Its the old 100 monkeys writing the classic novels of the world theory. And I think thats how he decided to write this one! I thought with a little French and Latin, Id be OK.
The beginning images of the huge Foucaults Pendulum, which swings based on some intangible point out in space, with no width and depth, and traces the lines of evidence of a rotating Earth were compelling, so I continued.
There are portions of the novel that contribute to the plot, but massive portions are erudition about obscure topics which no one would care about after the first 25 side tangents. Here is a typical paragraph from the 641 dense pages of the book:
I knew nothing at all about Trithemeius, but in Paris I found an edition of his Steganographia, hoc est ars per occultam scripturam animi sui voluntatem absentibus aperiendi cert, published in Frankfurt in 1606. The art of using secret writing in order to bare your soul to a distant persons. A fascinating man, this Trithemius. A Benedictive abbot of Spannheim, late fifteenth early sixteenth centuries, a scholar who knew Hebrew and Chaldrea, Oriental languages like Tartar. He corresponded with theologians, cabalists, alchemists, most certainly with the great Corenelius Agreppa of Nettesheim and perhaps with Paracelsus
Other than to reinforce the theme that Everything is related it serves very little purpose. But there are unending sections like this, usually untranslated Latin or French or Italian. To say finishing this book was a slog is a gross understatement.
What I did find a little interesting was the man behind the book. He does seem to have a mistrust of his own writing skills as well as a resentment of others who do write. All main characters are essentially the same one. Never in real life would you find three people who loved the pursuit of endless minutia for its own sake the way the three main characters do. You could interchange any one of them for the other. It is not by accident that one of the publishing companies is called Manutian (minutia). [Eco also apparently hates publishers and considers them stupid.]
He inserted unfinished sections of things he had written before, as the writings of another character. It is sprinkled as well with personal memories that had some impact on him. But the as to the discipline of including only what contributes to the storyline of a novel, he is incapable.
I will say that I probably picked up some new vocabulary, and perhaps some new information about Nazis or cabalists or almost everything else. But probably not since I was never sure if he was exaggerating the information and connections like some grand Tin Hat Theory.
I remember reading someone elses review of this book saying she finally made it through with a dictionary in hand. But no one would ever finish this book if they looked up each obscure reference he makes.
But, whos the fool here? I finished the damn thing!
Back to all reviews by this member
Back to all reviews of this book
Back to Book Reviews
Back to Book Details
Back to all reviews of this book
Back to Book Reviews
Back to Book Details
