well, I loved the book

I have heard quite a bit recently about the Da Vinci Code and can only say that if it's anything like Dan Brown's earlier attempt at occult fiction, Angels and Demons, it's quite inaccurate.

so Angels and Demons is inaccurate, then. I was beginning to wonder whether it was just me, and I was just ignorant of a lot of things that he knew.

Foucault's Pendulum, unlike the Dan Brown books, is frightening in its ability to make the reader, particular the reader acquainted with the occult, feel that perhaps there was something after all that he missed, that there might just be a master Templar Plan that Casaubon, Belbo and Diotallevi stumbled upon rather than invented.

indeed.

In fact, I have an interesting book that, when I referenced it, showed the inherent internal logic that Eco wove into his story. The book is entitled (get ready):

A TRUE AND FAITHFUL REVELATION OF What paffed for many Yeers Between Dr. JOHN DEE (A Mathematician of Great Fame in Q. Eliz. and King JAMES their Reignes) and SOME SPIRITS: TENDING (had it Succeeded) To a General Alteration of moft STATES and KINGDOMES in the World. His Private Conferences with RODOLPHE Emperor of Germany, STEPHEN K. of Poland, and divers other PRINCES about it. The Particulars of his Caufe, as it was agitated in the Emperors Court; By the POPES Intervention: His Banifhment, and Reftoration in part. AS ALSO The LETTERS of Sundry Great Men and PRINCES (fome whereof were prefent at fome of thefe Conferences and Apparitions of SPIRITS: ) to the faid D. DEE. OUT OF The Original Copy, written with Dr. DEES own Hand: Kept in the LIBRARY of Sir THO. COTTON, Kt. Baronet. WITH A PREFACE Confirming the Reality (as to the Point of SPIRITS) of this REVELATION: and fhewing the feveral good USES that a Sober Chriftian may make of All. By MERIC. CASAUBON, D.D. LONDON, Printed by D. Maxwell, for T. GARTHWAIT, and fold at the Little North door of S. Pauls, and by other Stationers. 1659.

where on earth did you get that book?! I want one too...

Upon opening the book and seeing on the frontspiece the same long-winded title, on the facing page are six portraits. The first is labelled "MAHOMET receives his Law by Infpiration", the second "APPOLONI. TYANEUS in Domitians tyme", the third "Edw. Kelly Prophet or Seer to Dr. Dee.", the fourth "Roger Bacon an Englifh man", the fifth "PARACELSUS Receits from the Infpiration of Spirits" and finally "Dr. Dee anouncheth his Stone is brought by Angelicall Miniftry".

It is curious. Why is Mohammed mentioned alongside the others at a time when Christianity is locked in mortal combat with the Islamic World? Why is Roger Bacon there, if he is nothing more than "an Englifh man" ? I found myself nearly believing Eco's Plan.

Eco is clearly a master of his genre. However, there were three things which I found lacking in the book, and I must touch on them now:

1. Eco has problems creating female characters. All of his females are ephemeral creatures that are either silly victims, cariactures or shrewish bitches, and in no case do any of them play a major role in the story. Amparo nearly made me stop reading the book she was drawn so negatively. Lia was a footnote. Lorenza Pellegrini, the most important female, was so negatively drawn I wasn't sad when she was sacrificed by the mad cultists. I noticed the same problems in The Name of the Rose (no heroines in sight) and Baudolino (women are definitely downplayed). Given everything Eco writes about women in the abstract, he has some very serious psychological issues to resolve. Regardless, his works suffer in my eyes because of this.

I agree that there are no interesting female characters, now that you mentioned it, but I really had not noticed it. I tend to find the men most interesting in his books, though, and I don't feel that the book is lacking for it. He should perhaps have kept them out of the book... I agree that Amparo was annoying.

2. Eco has diarrhea of the mouth. I found myself skimming entire chapters because they were boring, long-winded and uninteresting in general. This is another feature of an Eco book. He needs a good editor who will just tell him, "Umberto, this is SO boring and needless" or "Umberto, why does the reader want to read five pages about your associations of what motors look like?" This is another thing I found in other books of his I've read. He just DOESN'T KNOW WHEN TO STOP. He writes too much. The books are about 1/3 too long because of maudlin commentary that could and should have been cut.

I love this. Even in Island of the Day before, when he lost himself in the description of ships, I was somewhat put off at first, but then found myself just ...umm... savouring the words. It is like a hughe dish with lots of cream and good things, which you can only have so much of before oyu have to stop, but which tastes heavenly.

3. At a certain level, Eco denies the mystery that he seems so interested in creating. He destroys and ruins practically everything good in his books. Baudolino, for example, was a great book up until the time Baudolino starts talking about his travels in the land of eternal darkness and then the "Kingdom of Prester John" where people with one foot only, people with heads in their chests, etc., and the Hypatias abound. Up until that point, it was a far-fetched tale the reader was questioning but thinking, "This just might have happened, dammit." Then he puts in this absurdity and the reader says, "This is just dumb." Similarly, Eco, in destroying the facade of the Plan, attacks the idea that there is ANYTHING below the surface or that ANYTHING has any meaning.

I was quite disappointed at the ending at first. But I tend to be like that. I want the conspiracy to be true, and no common sense to enter it. But the more I think about it, I like the ending. It did not really fit the rest of the book, I agree, but it highlighted how ...ummm, I am not sure whether I can explain this... it showed how these people were desperate for something that was not there. And in a way it fit the rest of the book, in that you had begun to believe what it said, and hence reacted somewhat the same to the lack of a revelation as they would... hmmm. I may be talking nonsense here. It is hard to explain what I mean.

As a result, I'm not really sure what I think of Eco. He comes up with fantastic lines that make you really think, but at heart he is nothing more than a Robert Jordan. His works trivialize the commentary that they might provide on society, end up becoming nothing more than intricate mystery novels and leave the reader wondering whether the read was really worth his time or not.

blasphemy! You can't mention Jordan and Eco in the same sentence!!!

I was underwhelmed and let down by Foucault's Pendulum. However, I give Eco credit for really knowing his occult writers and being able to weave something as sublime as the Templar Plan. The parts I enjoyed all had to do with that.

true.


Magnus Alexander corpore parvus erat
Dissenting voice of wotmania
Frightfully stubborn pacifist

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent