I guess it was for him one last game. Mind you, it's more for the principle of the thing than for the thing itself, because it's harmless unless you start going in salons flaunting your newly acquired knowledge as historical truth. Eco says the people in the book existed and said what he had them say, and yes I'm sure he was careful not to give them dialogue that misinterpret their "visions", and all but their mundane lines are inspired when not taken straight from their works, or other documents.

Even for the specific case I noticed and that I found a bit hard to reconcile with the note History is quite safe. Eco even has the charlatan pretend in the end this person never existed, that it was his invention, as history recorded this person never did exist. Harmless enough.



He does tend to paraphrase his note in interviews, and reviewers tend quote it. As I said, it's just the principle.



I wouldn't say it was painful. I read as bad or worse in books on Nazi propaganda, or in the history of the Pangerman League (where I met virtually all of Eco's French references.) The only aspect where it might be wise to tone down or deflect expectations is I find the book tends to be presented (back cover and all) a little too much like a very fun, feuilleton-like rocambolesque adventure, as if Eco had given us a some sort of new Monte-Cristo. That sure did create some wrong expectations for me, and it took me a while to adapt to the reality of the book. It's a much darker book than this, I guess because it's a little hard to "enjoy" villains like this, when you knwon the destruction people like this have wrought and still cause today.

But yeah, it's very, very much an Eco book - no fear there. There's just a bit less scholarly disgressions in this one, because while well-read the protagonist likes little beside gourmet cuisine and his obsessions. The vocabulary is also more simple, for this and because of the subject matter.



You're welcome.