Rating: 
Summary: Enjoyable, but difficult
Review: Being an avid reader, a friend of mine recommended this book after I told him I had recently read The Illuminatus Trilogy. He called it the "ultimate conspiracy theory" novel. Having never read Eco's work, but having enjoyed the movie version of Name of the Rose, I decided to give it a go.Althought I think of myself as somewhat of an intellectual, Mr. Eco puts me to shame. The story, other than the beginning and the end, took constant thought to follow. The quotes from other sources were largely in foreign languages, which I didn't take the time to look up. I was able to follow what was happening, but this is definitely not what you might consider light reading. The plot was complex with all the interweaving of history, religion, and philosophy, and the characters were just as complex, although a bit flat. The humor was subtle, in many places, but enjoyable nonetheless, particularly the references to vanity press and its customers. In comparing this to The Illuminatus Trilogy, the writing was much more straight forward, but the concepts and connections were deeper. Ultimately, I liked the ending of the book, although rather dark (or maybe because of it), and Eco's point rang through loud and clear. I learned many things throughout my read, but I wouldn't recommend this to the average reader. If Amazon.com let me put in half-stars, this would get 3-1/2.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting subject matter with wit
Review: I found this book very entertaining. I rather like the esoteric subject matter, and I quite enjoyed the humour in regards to the publishing industry the characters work in. After seeing the others' reviews, I think the reason I alone seemed to totally enjoy the book is that I had absolutely no idea what the book was about; therefore, I had no pre-conceived expectations. If you can do this, I highly recommend it. Umberto Eco is quite a good write, as I found after reading other works by him, after reading Foucalt's Pendulum. Before readint his work, I had not heard of him.
Rating: 
Summary: thumbs down
Review: Yes, there were Portuguese, Latin, and Hebrew terms here I didn't know-and still don't know; I wasn't about to read Foucalt's Pendulum in a library. I do own a Latin dictionary, but I didn't consult it; the Portuguese, Latin, and Hebrew bits are of no particular account anyway. As for the English: Well, it just so happens *I* don't remember encountering any unfamiliar English terms. I wouldn't think much of this-some people have smaller vocabularies than I, some people have larger vocabularies than I; so what?-except for this sort of remark: "[This is] one of the few books that absolutely necessitates having a dictionary at hand to really absorb it, and it better be the OED because Webster's doesn't have all the words. Seriously." I can't account for this sort of remark. (By the bye, "Webster's" is a meaningless term. Any dictionary can legally call itself "Webster's", and many disparate disreputable dictionaries published by unaffiliated companies do.) I also have to wonder about reviewers who maintain that Foucalt's Pendulum "was the first work of fiction [they] had ever read that made [them] think about the nature of reality". There are thousands of books, at least, that probe this problem (though Foucalt's Pendulum happens not to be one of them). Even cheap science fiction will do. (Read Fred Hoyle's "October the First is Too Late", for a more-or-less random example.) Ad rem, however: Foucalt's Pendulum hits you on the head with its obvious "message" like a sledgehammer. It is anything but subtle. It is anything but artful. Despite the book's disavowal of the occult, I think you have to be fascinated with the occult, especially its more sinister, brutal, and perverse aspects, to really enjoy the book. On the other hand, many of its passages, lengthy passages, resemble nothing so much as the telephone book. I can ethically divulge, I suppose, that it ends unhappily (Foucalt's Pendulum, that is, not the telephone book), more unhappily than its narrator and author seem to realize: Lia and child are likely to meet the same fate as Pelligrini.
Rating:
Summary: insipid, clumsy, unrewarding
Review: Relinquish the notion that this is either a) intellectually invigorating or b) intellectually intimidating. Its great swaths of seemingly interminable lists may try a reader's patience; they will not exercise his mind. It helps a bit if you've studied French, but if you haven't you won't miss much. Similarly, toward the beginning we are confronted with the source code in the BASIC computer language for a small, crude, inelegant permutation algorithm. If you know BASIC, you'll immediately recognize how the algorithm works; if you don't know BASIC, it doesn't matter; the algorithm has nothing to do with the story. A more, shall we say, seasoned writer would have omitted it. Let's cut to the chase. What is this bloated tome saying? It's saying that people have a tendency to see connections among unconnected things. It doesn't tell us why that is or shed any particular light on that tendency in any way. If the subject interests you, I suggest you read Carl Sagan's "The Dragons of Eden". "The Dragons of Eden" does tell us why that is, and it tells us how we can guard against it. ("The Dragons of Eden" is also much better written, more engaging, and more intellectually stimulating than "Foucalt's Pendulum".) Why is "Foucalt's Pendulum" saying this? Possibly because its author, a structuralist, wants to satirize the philological contention that connotation and etymology matter. If so, he is presenting us with a grotesque caricature of a straw man. What is the moral? In general, don't tempt fate. In particular, don't associate with grisly, squalid, thoroughly repulsive satanic cults. But you knew that already --I hope.
Rating: 
Summary: superb
Review: Novels do not get any better then this. This makes Dan
Brown's Davinvi code appear juvenile.
Rating: 
Summary: Semiotic regurgitation
Review: While I do not profess to be a scholar of semiotics or theology, I do comprehend and appreciate discussions on both topics. Within reason. However Foucault's Pendulum took factual data on these topics to an almost intolerable level. I waded through the muck and mire of this novel, chopping away at the dense overgrowth of symbolistic frondescence with a mental chainsaw only to arrive at nowhere.
While many would state that Mr. Eco is an extremely well educated man, especially in the realm of semiotics, he seems to be seriously lacking in the art of character and plot development. Eco exploits the format of a novel to expel the vast stores of knowledge he has gained over the years while taking the reader on a dizzying journey of little consequence. It seems that his underlying intent, in this novel, is to impress the reader with his expertise.
Many fellow thinkers who delve into similar subject matter have praised this work with the passion of frightenlingly devout fan. They are sometimes willing to overlook the faults in a particular work just because it is of the genre that they are fervent for. Quantity begins to outweigh quality and faults are easily overlooked and/or accepted.
It is probably needless to say that by the time I was done with this novel I was resentful of Eco's attempted use of storyline for the sake of, what to me seems to be, intellectual "showing off". I could have easily done without it and would probably have had a more pleasant time reading an encylopedia to aquire the knowledge that Eco tries to force down the reader's throat.
Rating:
Summary: Needs action figures
Review: If you have an appropriate sense of chaos and mischief, you will appreciate the characters in FP. If there were action figures I would buy them. They are brilliant and out of control- weaving from the world they are adeptly creating into their clumsy reality and back again. I laughed out loud several times in inappropriate places while reading this book. YES there will be things that you do not understand, and plot points you will miss because you weren't taking notes, but that's not really the goal. Is that how you live your life? Is it? That's pathetic. Go watch a movie, they make sense.
That being said, a suggestion for future editions: TRANSLATE those huge blocks of french, hebrew, etc. They look interesting.
Rating:
Summary: funny and complex
Review: I must admit, that I would not have liked Foucault's Pendulum this much if I read it 3 years ago. But now, with a knowledge of math, logic, philosophy beyond general knowledge it is really fun to read and not hard at all. If ypi think you don't have that knowledge don't bother to still get this book together with the dictionary to this book. It is certainly worth it!
Rating:
Summary: Foucault's Pendelum
Review: It has been many years since I have read this book, but while at the site to add it to my wish list, I dipped into the reader reviews and was surprised to find that so many people found it so boring or only accessible to those with "higher education."
I had been told about this book by my 14 year old brother, who adored it, and while spending my 18th year in Madrid as an exchange student came across a copy in Spanish. It was the only novel (besides required texts for school) that I read in Spanish that entire year, not being extremely fluent in the language. I absolutely loved it! I remember being swept away by the mysterious possibilities that the book suggests. Mind you, I had at this point only a high school education and very little knowledge of the people/places/things that Eco was writting about. I was, however, familiar with Eco having read the Name of the Rose so many times I had to buy a second copy as the first was dog-eared and loosing pages. I would opine that if you have a good imagination and are open minded to not knowing about absolutely EVERYTHING Eco discusses, you might really enjoy this novel, and perhaps even learn something (although you won't know if its real information or that created by Eco). Just let it take you where it wants to take you. Don't resist it for want of your perception of reason or likelihood or history.
Rating:
Summary: It works better as a doorstop
Review: This book is my standard for absolute impenetrable dreadfulness. I hated it so much. In the words of Monty Python, Dull! Dull! dreadfully Dull!
|
