Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco

[PeterL]

This is a sort of a detective story in which some book editors become involved in the underground world of cults, especially cults that involve Templars, the Holy Grail, and various related matters. As The Name of the Rose involved signs because it was written at the same time as Eco's Theory of Semiotics, this novel was written while he was writing The Limits of Interpretation, so it is about interpretation and misinterpretation. This is a much better read that The Name of the Rose; the ferretting out of information is great; and the characters are pretty darned good. I believe that Eco modelled Belbo on himself, but that is uncertain, because I have never met Eco.

[Jozanny]

This is a sort of a detective story in which some book editors become involved in the underground world of cults, especially cults that involve Templars, the Holy Grail, and various related matters. As The Name of the Rose involved signs because it was written at the same time as Eco's Theory of Semiotics, this novel was written while he was writing The Limits of Interpretation, so it is about interpretation and misinterpretation. This is a much better read that The Name of the Rose.

I'd quibble: Rose is the better novel, but Foucault's is more difficult to understand. If Hermeneutics is roughly solving for mysticism through the interpretation of design (re, the symmetry of the human body) Eco goes out of his way to send in the clowns against it rather than creating a suspenseful plot that truly makes any sense, much like Ken Olin did with his super agent Sydney. At some point it is ridiculous, especially when the object of that ridicule is a bit quaint.

[PeterL]

I'd quibble: Rose is the better novel, but Foucault's is more difficult to understand. If Hermeneutics is roughly solving for mysticism through the interpretation of design (re, the symmetry of the human body) Eco goes out of his way to send in the clowns against it rather than creating a suspenseful plot that truly makes any sense, much like Ken Olin did with his super agent Sydney. At some point it is ridiculous, especially when the object of that ridicule is a bit quaint.

I would contend that the plot is quite suspenseful, and that it makes sense. I will admit that some parts don't make much sense until the ending. I am rereading it now, and some parts that I was uncertain about when I first read it make perfect sense now, but I have also read The Limits of Interpretation and other books about which he was making comments since I initially read FP. Remember that everything in the book hinges on interpretation.

Hermeneutics is the study of theories of interpretation; it can also mean the study of interpretation.

[curlyqlink]

I read this a few years ago (twice) and enjoyed it immensely. It is lighthearted while at the same time it is erudite and packed with historical minutia. This seems to me a very difficult thing to accomplish, and something that Umberto Eco is masterful at.

What I remember most about Pendulum is the way fiction-- absurd, far-fetched fiction in the form of nutty Hermetic theories-- begins to merge with reality. The "reality" in this case being also fiction, that is, the "reality" of the editors, who are themselves fictional characters. Delightfully convoluted!

I have a strong suspicion that Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is a ripoff of Foucault's Pendulum, dumbed down for the masses. There are many obvious parallels.

[Jozanny]

I read this a few years ago (twice) and enjoyed it immensely. It is lighthearted while at the same time it is erudite and packed with historical minutia. This seems to me a very difficult thing to accomplish, and something that Umberto Eco is masterful at.

What I remember most about Pendulum is the way fiction-- absurd, far-fetched fiction in the form of nutty Hermetic theories-- begins to merge with reality. The "reality" in this case being also fiction, that is, the "reality" of the editors, who are themselves fictional characters. Delightfully convoluted!

I have a strong suspicion that Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is a ripoff of Foucault's Pendulum, dumbed down for the masses. There are many obvious parallels.

If so Curly, it is Eco's fault!

I am fond of Eco. He is the intellient reader's academican, but I am not so fond of FP. There are difficult novels which work, and difficult novels which don't, and FP, IMO, falls into the latter.

Why?

I am going to put on my New Republic cap and say, if Eco's novel is against Hermeneutics, which I defined thus for an old literary theory list: A method of interpretation, first of texts, then the world as is constituted through history and culture. Originally important to Christian theology and spiritual truth, in general terms it is concerned with human action (what we say and do).

Then Eco should have written a nice thirty page essay bashing conspiracy theorists who get lost in making connections. The book is a torturous read, for what? So Belbo can come to his senses and die in a silly fashion against ludicrous villains who are the inept standard bearers of what people in the Middle Ages believed was the stairway to heaven?

Maybe he got to be Ken Olin's technical adviser for Alias, which I did not remember in my first post, but disliked for many of the same reasons. The Name of The Rose worked much better, in plot, thought, and passion, and I should reread it.

[PeterL]

I read this a few years ago (twice) and enjoyed it immensely. It is lighthearted while at the same time it is erudite and packed with historical minutia. This seems to me a very difficult thing to accomplish, and something that Umberto Eco is masterful at.

What I remember most about Pendulum is the way fiction-- absurd, far-fetched fiction in the form of nutty Hermetic theories-- begins to merge with reality. The "reality" in this case being also fiction, that is, the "reality" of the editors, who are themselves fictional characters. Delightfully convoluted!

I have a strong suspicion that Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is a ripoff of Foucault's Pendulum, dumbed down for the masses. There are many obvious parallels.

Delightfully convoluted! That's a great way to put it.

When I heard about the daVinci Code, it sounded like Brown was doing something like what you suggest, then I thought a little more about it, and realized that, if he was doing a take-off of Foucault's Pendulumm then he didn't understand the book; but it's also possible that he decided to take the side of the occultists.

If so Curly, it is Eco's fault!

I am fond of Eco. He is the intellient reader's academican, but I am not so fond of FP. There are difficult novels which work, and difficult novels which don't, and FP, IMO, falls into the latter.

Why?

I am going to put on my New Republic cap and say, if Eco's novel is against Hermeneutics, which I defined thus for an old literary theory list: A method of interpretation, first of texts, then the world as is constituted through history and culture. Originally important to Christian theology and spiritual truth, in general terms it is concerned with human action (what we say and do).

Then Eco should have written a nice thirty page essay bashing conspiracy theorists who get lost in making connections. The book is a torturous read, for what? So Belbo can come to his senses and die in a silly fashion against ludicrous villains who are the inept standard bearers of what people in the Middle Ages believed was the stairway to heaven?

Maybe he got to be Ken Olin's technical adviser for Alias, which I did not remember in my first post, but disliked for many of the same reasons. The Name of The Rose worked much better, in plot, thought, and passion, and I should reread it.

I think that you missed what FP is about. Perhaps it was too convoluted. Belbo didn't come to his senses; he knew too much, and he was in a position to make it clear that the occultists were simply deluded. The pieces of the novel may seem torturous and barely connected, but everything comes together beautifully at an certain understated point.

[Nossa]

Thanks for the review. I've been planning on buying and reading this book for some time now.

[PeterL]

Thanks for the review. I've been planning on buying and reading this book for some time now.

Yes, read it. There aren't many novels that are as worthy of being read as FP.

[Uberzensch]

I read this a few years ago (twice) and enjoyed it immensely. It is lighthearted while at the same time it is erudite and packed with historical minutia. This seems to me a very difficult thing to accomplish, and something that Umberto Eco is masterful at.

What I remember most about Pendulum is the way fiction-- absurd, far-fetched fiction in the form of nutty Hermetic theories-- begins to merge with reality. The "reality" in this case being also fiction, that is, the "reality" of the editors, who are themselves fictional characters. Delightfully convoluted!

I have a strong suspicion that Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is a ripoff of Foucault's Pendulum, dumbed down for the masses. There are many obvious parallels.

Great points! I love this quote - found on Wikipedia - from Eco about Dan Brown:

"I was obliged to read it because everybody was asking me about it. My answer is that Dan Brown is one of the characters in my novel Foucault’s Pendulum, which is about people who start believing in occult stuff.
- But you yourself seem interested in the kabbalah, alchemy and other occult practices explored in the novel.
No. In Foucault’s Pendulum I wrote the grotesque representation of these kind of people. So Dan Brown is one of my creatures."

So perfect!

Incidentally, I read Foucault's Pendulum, loved it, and started In the Name of the Rose, which I gave up on halfway through. It wasn't bad, I just got distracted away... I do think Pendulum was the more interesting novel with more interesting characters, though, I realize this is personal preference.

In addition, the merging of fiction and reality - and the connection to our own ideologies and beliefes - is wondeful!

[PeterL]

This is a lengthened and improved review, in which I provide more and better information about this great novel.

Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco is a sort of an intellectual detective story in which three book editors at the Garamond publishing company (Garamond is a typeface) become involved in the underground world of occultists as part of a project to produce a series of books on the various aspects of occultism. Belbo is an experience and rather cynical senior editor. Diotallevi is another editor, who wants to convert to Judaism and is acquainted with Caballism and the Talmud. Casaubon is somewhat younger and is a contract researcher on the project. The plot is delightfully convoluted, so I won't even try to summarize it. As part of the project they become involved with a large number of occultists, some quite peculiar and some they had met before, but especially those that were involved with Templars, Rosicrucians, and related cults. The three take to calling the cultists collectively Diabolicals.

One item that is central to the plot is a message that was found in a tunnel near Provins, France and the interpretation of that message. Interpretation is central to this novel. Umberto Eco is one of the world's foremost experts on semiotics and literary interpretation; and he wrote novels together with his professional books. "The Name of the Rose" involved signs because it was written at the same time as Eco's Theory of Semiotics, this novel was written while he was writing The Limits of Interpretation, so Foucault's Pendulum is about interpretation and misinterpretation. Eventually, Casaubon's wife figures out what the message really meant, and it is vastly different from any of the occult interpretations, but everyone interprets the world as they wish.

Knowing the truth isn't important to the Diabolicals, who take Belbo prisoner and hang him from Foucault's Pendulum in Paris, but that had ceased to be important.

The characters are pretty darned good. Eco knows how to show a character through dialogue. I believe that Eco modelled Belbo on himself, but that is uncertain, because I have never met Eco. Belbo and Eco were Milanese whose families owned a house in the Piedmont countryside where they had spent Summers and most of WWII. Eco also used that large farmhouse for his main character in The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana. As the point of view character, Casaubon was very well defined, as a pleasant and intelligent expert on literature and history. Diotavallevi was slightly flat; that isn't to say that he was not a good character, but as a representation of a person, the person was one sided. Other major characters included: Amparo, a girlfriend of Casaubon with whom he went to Brazil for a few years before she became involved in a local cult and left him. Lia, girlfriend and wife of Casaubon, who correctly interpreted the message and a number of other things. Lia was the kind of woman that every man should find, but there are exceedingly few of them. Agli, one of the Diabolicals and maybe le Comte Saint Germain. And there were many others.

The plot development is at a slow and measured pace; but that doesn't mean that it is difficult to read. Every word is well chosen, but there is no great dramatic revelation. Even Lia's interpretation is calm and rather understated. It wasn't immediately clear that she was right, and even though she was, that made no difference to anyone else. Many parts of the development seem irrelevant at first glance, but everything eventually comes together.

One interesting thing in the novel is the outline of what came to be the plot of The Da Vinci Code in chapter 65. Belbo tossed it out as a possible use for all the information that they had collected. Casaubon commented that no one would buy it. Belbo retorted that it would sell 200,000 copies. Apparently Mr Brown noticed that no one else had taken the hint, so he wrote his book. In effect, The Da Vinci Code is a tribute to Eco, who happens to be the world's top semioticist (expert in symbols).

FP was written in Italian and translated into English by William Weaver, who translated Eco's other books into English, and the translation was approved and edited (as I understand the matter) by Eco, who is completely fluent in English and has written books and articles in English, so I expect that the translation did not hurt the book at all.


Some people have complained that this is not as good as The Name of the Rose. I can't imagine why anyone would think that. NOR was a simple detective story with all of the signs (clues) laid out in early on. Anyone who knows anything about Symbology immediately knew who the killer was as soon as he was described. FP takes that to a higher level by making it necessary to interpret a written thing in light of history and culture. Even Belbo had trouble with the interpretation. FP, and Eco's more recent novels, may not be for everyone, because they are about the nature of consciousness and interpretation, while NOR is simply about overt symbols. For a reader who doesn't want to read "The Limits of Interpretation", this novel says that same things but in a more pleasant way. It says in essence that signs are there; if you see them and interpret them correctly, then you will learn from the signs, but most people see only what they want to see. I have read most of Eco's books, both fiction and non-fiction, and I think that FP is the most useful and most approachable. In this book he shows the reader what kinds of signs are in the world and how to approach interpreting them.

[Dark Muse]

I aboslutely loved this book. I thought it was quite fabulous and truly fascinating, from the very start of it I was sucked in. The ending I found quite meaning, and to hold a very deep meaning. Eco is an amzing writer.

I agree that I personally found it to be better then Name of the Rose, though I did throughly enjoy NOR and found it to be a wonderful story, Foucault's Pendulum was completely gripping, and really right up my alley.

[PeterL]

Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco
This is a lengthened and improved review, in which I provide more and better information about this great novel.

Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco is a sort of an intellectual detective story in which three book editors at the Garamond publishing company (Garamond is a typeface) become involved in the underground world of occultists as part of a project to produce a series of books on the various aspects of occultism. Belbo is an experience and rather cynical senior editor. Diotallevi is another editor, who wants to convert to Judaism and is acquainted with Caballism and the Talmud. Casaubon is somewhat younger and is a contract researcher on the project. The plot is delightfully convoluted, so I won't even try to summarize it. As part of the project they become involved with a large number of occultists, some quite peculiar and some they had met before, but especially those that were involved with Templars, Rosicrucians, and related cults. The three take to calling the cultists collectively Diabolicals.

One item that is central to the plot is a message that was found in a tunnel near Provins, France and the interpretation of that message. Interpretation is central to this novel. Umberto Eco is one of the world's foremost experts on semiotics and literary interpretation; and he wrote novels together with his professional books. "The Name of the Rose" involved signs because it was written at the same time as Eco's Theory of Semiotics, this novel was written while he was writing The Limits of Interpretation, so Foucault's Pendulum is about interpretation and misinterpretation. Eventually, Casaubon's wife figures out what the message really meant, and it is vastly different from any of the occult interpretations, but everyone interprets the world as they wish.

Knowing the truth isn't important to the Diabolicals, who take Belbo prisoner and hang him from Foucault's Pendulum in Paris, but that had ceased to be important.

The characters are pretty darned good. Eco knows how to show a character through dialogue. I believe that Eco modelled Belbo on himself, but that is uncertain, because I have never met Eco. Belbo and Eco were Milanese whose families owned a house in the Piedmont countryside where they had spent Summers and most of WWII. Eco also used that large farmhouse for his main character in The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana. As the point of view character, Casaubon was very well defined, as a pleasant and intelligent expert on literature and history. Diotavallevi was slightly flat; that isn't to say that he was not a good character, but as a representation of a person, the person was one sided. Other major characters included: Amparo, a girlfriend of Casaubon with whom he went to Brazil for a few years before she became involved in a local cult and left him. Lia, girlfriend and wife of Casaubon, who correctly interpreted the message and a number of other things. Lia was the kind of woman that every man should find, but there are exceedingly few of them. Agli, one of the Diabolicals and maybe le Comte Saint Germain. And there were many others.

The plot development is at a slow and measured pace; but that doesn't mean that it is difficult to read. Every word is well chosen, but there is no great dramatic revelation. Even Lia's interpretation is calm and rather understated. It wasn't immediately clear that she was right, and even though she was, that made no difference to anyone else. Many parts of the development seem irrelevant at first glance, but everything eventually comes together.

One interesting thing in the novel is the outline of what came to be the plot of The Da Vinci Code in chapter 65. Belbo tossed it out as a possible use for all the information that they had collected. Casaubon commented that no one would buy it. Belbo retorted that it would sell 200,000 copies. Apparently Mr Brown noticed that no one else had taken the hint, so he wrote his book. In effect, The Da Vinci Code is a tribute to Eco, who happens to be the world's top semioticist (expert in symbols).

FP was written in Italian and translated into English by William Weaver, who translated Eco's other books into English, and the translation was approved and edited (as I understand the matter) by Eco, who is completely fluent in English and has written books and articles in English, so I expect that the translation did not hurt the book at all.


Some people have complained that this is not as good as The Name of the Rose. I can't imagine why anyone would think that. NOR was a simple detective story with all of the signs (clues) laid out in early on. Anyone who knows anything about Symbology immediately knew who the killer was as soon as he was described. FP takes that to a higher level by making it necessary to interpret a written thing in light of history and culture. Even Belbo had trouble with the interpretation. FP, and Eco's more recent novels, may not be for everyone, because they are about the nature of consciousness and interpretation, while NOR is simply about overt symbols. For a reader who doesn't want to read "The Limits of Interpretation", this novel says that same things but in a more pleasant way. It says in essence that signs are there; if you see them and interpret them correctly, then you will learn from the signs, but most people see only what they want to see. I have read most of Eco's books, both fiction and non-fiction, and I think that FP is the most useful and most approachable. In this book he shows the reader what kinds of signs are in the world and how to approach interpreting them.

[TheFifthElement]

Interesting review Peter; I just read The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana and am interested in reading more of Eco's work. From the sounds of your review, Foucault's Pendulum seems like a good choice.

Interesting your comments on Dan Brown. Eco was once asked whether he had read The Da Vinci code and answered as follows:

I am wondering if you read Dan Brown’s “Da Vinci Code,” which some critics see as the pop version of your “Name of the Rose.” I was obliged to read it because everybody was asking me about it. My answer is that Dan Brown is one of the characters in my novel, “Foucault’s Pendulum,” which is about people who start believing in occult stuff.

You can read the full interview here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/ma...wwln-Q4-t.html

[PeterL]

Interesting review Peter; I just read The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana and am interested in reading more of Eco's work. From the sounds of your review, Foucault's Pendulum seems like a good choice.

Interesting your comments on Dan Brown. Eco was once asked whether he had read The Da Vinci code and answered as follows:


You can read the full interview here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/ma...wwln-Q4-t.html

I've seen that quote before. I was laughing out loud when I got to that place in FP when I recently reread it. Brown is one of the Diabolicals.

I have read all of Eco's fiction, FP is definitely the best. In addition to being well written, it has a clear plot, good characters, and all of the other characteristics of good literature. I enjoyed The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana, and I liked the concept of self-hood that he put forth, but it doesn't have as good a plot, and it is more overtly about ideas rather than being about people.

[crystalmoonshin]

I became interested in Eco after reading 'Foucault's Pendulum". Haven't read all of his works but I like his "Serendipities" and "Granita" (a parody of Nabokov's Lolita) in "Misreadings". I was amused with "Baudolino". NOR gave me headaches because of the Latin phrases. (Read it before I took a course on Latin.)