Foucault's Pendulum

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I just finished reading Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco, and really enjoyed it. I was curious as to get some thoughts from others on the novel.

I found it a fascinating read, even if it was difficult. Eco made my head spin sometimes with the historical references, but keeping with it payed off in the end. I found how the group of friends essentially became what they were parodying with their "plan," and how it showed how this obsession effected each one of them.

I went into reading this hearing it was like The Da Vince Code (which I enjoyed), but better. I would agree that the latter is true, but beyond its involvement with history and mentionings of different Grail theories, I didn't see much similarities. Definitely superiorly written, and a much more interesting narrative.

On top of that, I learned a lot. Always a good thing.

SPOILERS:










I also liked the ending, how it basically ended admitting that there was no conspiracy, no hidden map, no "naval of the world"; that, essentially, none of the Plan was true, and that they ended up dealing with a bunch of occultist nuts. I'm glad Eco didn't feel the need to resort to a supernatural surprise ending (sure, there was that stuff in the conservatoire, but it was pretty clear none of the could be confirmed as actually happening, and was most likely hallucination) like Brown did with The Da Vinci Code. While I'm sure this was a let down to many, I found it refreshing.

[Uberzensch]

There is a great quote from Eco about the Da Vinci Code:

Asked whether he had read the Brown novel, Eco replied:

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.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That's awesome. I'm glad he didn't trash Dan Brown (at least, directly).

What did you think of Foucault's Pendulum?

[TacoButt]

PSEUDO SPOILERS:crash::crash::crash::crash::crash::crash: :crash::crash::crash::crash::crash::crash:

I agree with you about the ending. I found it very uplifting! Basically, Belbo was able to say to himself that TRUTH (spiritual or historical) does not need secret codes, maji, conspiracies, handshakes, etc. And he HAD the secret, which was this TRUTH.

What a challenging book though.

[Lokasenna]

I rather enjoyed it, which is unusual for me with modern texts. I enjoy reading about conspiracy theories (the modern myth-making), and this was admirable.

However, almost everyone I have talked to about it has said that The Name of the Rose is a better novel.

[PeterL]

Foucault's Pendulum is one of my favorite novels. I have a few minor complaints about it, but they might be with the translation. I really loved the way that Liacasually elucidated the alleged mystery.

At one point the plot of The Da Vinci Code was outlined in a brief paragraph. Caslabon said it wouldn't sell. Belbo replied that it would sell hundred of thousands. Belbo underestimated.

I wrote a pretty good review of Foucault's Pendulum, and it was online, but I don't remember where.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

SPOILERS

I don't know of I would describe the ending as uplifting for me personally. I think it was more bitter-sweet. I felt bad for Casaubon, who pretty much resigned himself to his death, and Diotallevi's death was just tragic. I was glad to see Belbo redeem himself, though, by finally not backing down.

And that's odd, Lokasenna. Browsing old threads about this book, I've heard the opposite. In any case, I plan to read The Name of the Rose.

[JBI]

SPOILERS

I don't know of I would describe the ending as uplifting for me personally. I think it was more bitter-sweet. I felt bad for Casaubon, who pretty much resigned himself to his death, and Diotallevi's death was just tragic. I was glad to see Belbo redeem himself, though, by finally not backing down.

And that's odd, Lokasenna. Browsing old threads about this book, I've heard the opposite. In any case, I plan to read The Name of the Rose.

Casaubon is not even surely going to die - he is trapped in his own web, so he perhaps can be imagining just as much of the story - his death could just be his planning again, and not actually an inevitable soon to happen event like he imagines.

[TacoButt]

I can't believe that people routinely invoke "The DaVinci Code" in the same conversation as "Foucault's Pendulum."

Reading DaVinci was like watching a skit with cardboard cutout characters scotch taped to popsicle sticks. "Oh no! We're being shot at!" "Let's run now...did I ever tell you the origin of the word, 'grail?'"

:rolleyes5:

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

About The Name of the Rose vs Foucault's Pendulum, to me Rose is a lot more straightforward a read. Eco uses misdirection in it, but it's nothing compared to the obfuscation in FP. In that one, to be honest, he lost me at points - which I assume was the point. You've got these characters piecmealing tangentially related information on a subject that is, for me, really esoteric to begin with without having to sort through outright lies. For me, Rose was a more enjoyable/relaxing read but had less of a payoff.

Also, on the subject of Dan Brown, on the cover of his latest, The Lost Symbol, a quote on the back says something to the effect of "this is Umberto Eco on steroids." I think it may have been a misprint though.

[TacoButt]

Also, on the subject of Dan Brown, on the cover of his latest, The Lost Symbol, a quote on the back says something to the effect of "this is Umberto Eco on steroids." I think it may have been a misprint though.

I think this metaphor is apropos. Steroid use can turn an intelligent person into a simplistic idiot. :hand:

[PeterL]

About The Name of the Rose vs Foucault's Pendulum, to me Rose is a lot more straightforward a read. Eco uses misdirection in it, but it's nothing compared to the obfuscation in FP. In that one, to be honest, he lost me at points - which I assume was the point. You've got these characters piecmealing tangentially related information on a subject that is, for me, really esoteric to begin with without having to sort through outright lies. For me, Rose was a more enjoyable/relaxing read but had less of a payoff.

I agree that Name of the Rose is more straightforward. Eco wrote it while he was working on his theory of Semiotics, and that was about things being shown. FO was written while he was working on The Limits of Interpretation, which is relates to misinterpretations, and FP is all about misinterpretations, and there are many more possible misinterpretations than valid interpretations.


Also, on the subject of Dan Brown, on the cover of his latest, The Lost Symbol, a quote on the back says something to the effect of "this is Umberto Eco on steroids." I think it may have been a misprint though.

<ore like Eco after a lobotomy.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Casaubon is not even surely going to die - he is trapped in his own web, so he perhaps can be imagining just as much of the story - his death could just be his planning again, and not actually an inevitable soon to happen event like he imagines.

Very true, but even if this is the case, the fact that he is now in this state of paranoia/insanity is tragic enough in itself.


About The Name of the Rose vs Foucault's Pendulum, to me Rose is a lot more straightforward a read. Eco uses misdirection in it, but it's nothing compared to the obfuscation in FP. In that one, to be honest, he lost me at points - which I assume was the point. You've got these characters piecmealing tangentially related information on a subject that is, for me, really esoteric to begin with without having to sort through outright lies. For me, Rose was a more enjoyable/relaxing read but had less of a payoff.

Trust me, I know how you feel. FP had my head spinning at points, and I was continuously looking up different references (just for my own knowledge). But, I enjoyed this, for some reason. I usually don't. Maybe it's because I found the whole occult/history/hermetic theme interesting.

[TacoButt]

I wonder if part of the point of FP is to purposefully make the reader's head spin. All of the complicated historical and obscure references kind of reached a fevered pitch in parallel with the building of the plot and the character's experience.

It is like a piece of music which becomes gradually more cacophonous as it reaches its climax and then becomes a perfectly simple hymn at the highest point.

Could this interpretation have merit?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think that was definitely Eco's intent. Unless you are a historical scholar already familiar with the subjects the novel deals with, I doubt anyone could read this book (at least, if one is reading immersively) and not find themselves lost within the endless names and sects, unless you have a photographic memory. Even on top of the pilings of history he gives he, he gives it to us with more-complex-than-usual language and vocabulary.

I definitely think the interpretation of intended confusion has merit. Plus, it mirrors how the three friends ravel themselves deeper and deeper within their own convoluted "plan." At least, that's how I looked at it.

P.S. Welcome to Litnet forums, TacoButt. Awesome name, gives me a chuckle.

[TacoButt]

P.S. Welcome to Litnet forums, TacoButt. Awesome name, gives me a chuckle.

Thank you for the welcome. I wanted a screen name that exudes "heavyweight literary scholar with serious academic cred."

[PeterL]

I wonder if part of the point of FP is to purposefully make the reader's head spin. All of the complicated historical and obscure references kind of reached a fevered pitch in parallel with the building of the plot and the character's experience.

It is like a piece of music which becomes gradually more cacophonous as it reaches its climax and then becomes a perfectly simple hymn at the highest point.

Could this interpretation have merit?

It did not make my head spin, but it had me thinking about the many possible interpretations of a single thing, and that most of those would have ot be wrong. FP is a detective nov3elin which everything leads to the ending. The significance of much of the evidence is not imediately apparent, and it becomes clear that most of the information was misleading when Lia cleared up the mystery. Unfortunately, that onlly helped Casaubon, but he was the important one.

[PeterL]

Another interesting item is that the three main characters Belbo, Diotallevi, and Casaubon are all facets of Eco's personality and have different parts of is personal history. I didn't realize that when I read it the first time, but it became clear when I read more by and about Eco. All authors use themselves as models for the characters, but Eco really put himself into this book.

[baaaaadgoatjoke]

I wonder if part of the point of FP is to purposefully make the reader's head spin. All of the complicated historical and obscure references kind of reached a fevered pitch in parallel with the building of the plot and the character's experience.

It is like a piece of music which becomes gradually more cacophonous as it reaches its climax and then becomes a perfectly simple hymn at the highest point.

Could this interpretation have merit?

I can get behind that, TacoButt.

He may also have been mirroring conspiracy theories themselves which are often made up of little skimmed bits of information or simply ignore truths that contradict them.

[Dark Muse]

I absolutely loved this book and thought it was just about one of the most fascinating things which I have ever read. It was one of those books of which I became completely obsessed with and could not wait until I could pick it up again and start reading.

It was my 2nd Eco novel, the first being "The Name of the Rose" and I have to say that Foucault's Pendulum was the better of the two for me. primarily being that the subject matter of Foucault's Pendulum was more right up my alley, and it was just such a faster moving and more intense book.

I loved the style in which it was written as well.

I thought the book was truly genius.