But yet I know several history teachers who have done this - Edit 1
Before modification by Larry at 07/02/2010 10:40:45 AM
As a work of literature, it's a weak book. The style is a bit monotonous and character motives are poorly developed. The erratic way in which the absurd and fantastical is thrown in alongside the "realistic" leads to an uneven reading (to my mind). Perhaps that's why Eco wrote that travesty of a book, Baudolino. I have the same problems with it that I have with Cien años de soledad.
It could be a more interesting book if seen in the context of political turmoil in Latin America. However, to do that you'd have to combine a literature class with a history class, something that most schools don't generally do.
It could be a more interesting book if seen in the context of political turmoil in Latin America. However, to do that you'd have to combine a literature class with a history class, something that most schools don't generally do.
And as a work of literature, I believe it is a rather strong book, as the "monotony" is meant to be a symbolic representation of the Liberal/Conservative battles that still rage in a slightly altered form even today in the form of FARC and its right-wing paramilitary counterparts. The character motivations are closely tied to the historical mindsets of the time (the more I learned about Colombian history of the late 19th/early 20th century, the more sense the Arcadios and the Aurelianos made to me). The strange/fantastical I believe were meant to highlight the absurdity of the "real" events occurring at the edges of the narrative.
As for Baudolino, oddly enough, I received a copy of the Italian edition in the mail on Saturday. I happened to like that book precisely because of how Eco treats the issue of fabrication and exaggeration in medieval accounts.
Hrmm...perhaps either one of these two books ought to be considered for a future Book Club discussion?
