Pretty self-explanatory. Is anybody else a fan of the works of the brilliant semiotician/philosopher/novelist that is Umberto Eco?

I know everyone at one time or another thinks casuall to themselves "Oh, I think I'll read 'The Name of the Rose' today" at their local library, but I've found that a lot of people give up on Eco before they even get halfway through one of his books. Of course, Eco has in the past made it clear that he builds up barriers to the quick, casual read, and so he makes the reader stick with him through chapters like "Adso admires a door."

It all traces back to a lot of speculation about ideal readers and so forth. But the thrust of my argument remains the question: any fans of Eco out there?

For me, he's easily one of my top five favorite writers. Gaiman's up there too, surprisingly.

I read Baudalino.

Quite frankly, I really liked the first 3/4 and then the last 1/4 was just crap.

I haven't read anything else since.

I just bought On Beauty, which isn't a novel, but it's still an Eco book, but I haven't started reading it yet. I think it'll be interesting though

I really really liked Foucault's Pendulum.
I also read some of his short essays and his newest book - the one about the man who loses his memory and then goes through his entire attick looking at childhood stuff.
Didn't like that one so much.

quote:

Originally posted by silly punk:
I read Baudalino.

Quite frankly, I really liked the first 3/4 and then the last 1/4 was just crap.

I haven't read anything else since.

Yeah, that was the first book I read of his, and I had somewhat similar opinions. Then when my professors started mentioning the guy, I thought I should give him another chance, and I'm glad I did. Baudolino is... uneven, to say the least.

I think he's brilliant.

One of my favorite lines from the "catalogue" sections of Name of the Rose, sorting through a storage room of reliquaries, etc: "and here's the skull of John the Baptist at the age of twelve"...

I have begun using that quote to sort out who among my acquaintances is quick on the uptake, or not--good tool to decide on the kind of conversation we'll have.

I've read Name of the Rose, Foucault's Pendulum, Baudolino, How to Travel with a Salmon and Other Essays.

I think he's absolutely brilliant, one of my favorite writers.

Name of the Rose, Focault's Pendulum, How to Travel with a Salmon, browsed through The Island of the Day Before. Good but not great, not wow.

I'd like to go with the ideal reader thing. How accessible or obscure should a writer be? Caitlin Kiernan's posted a lot on her blog about how she writes for herself and the reader can take it or leave it, and Poppy Brite shares her dislike of plot.

I believe that a story should have a beginning, middle, and end (not necessarily in that order, I like medias res) and that it should be about something. And that ideally stories should work on multiple levels, even if it has a lot of obscure references for the crossword puzzle/Jeopardy crowd, it should be a good story for Joe Blow.

I think beginning, middle, and end are such reductionist terms that virtually every story has to possess them; they're incredibly difficult to avoid:

"There was a man who, over a course of several diverse experiences, learned something of life."

That is a story, in one sentence. "The fish died," is not really a story, because it lacks any context; is it the story of the fish, or a story that somehow relates to the fish? It could be a beginning, middle, or end, but I don't know if it can be all three. My point is the basic working definition of a story almost necessitates what we consider a "beginning," "middle," and "end."

Multiple levels? I can see the appeal in that, to a point. What I don't want to read is dime-store trash that throws in cultural references and hopes to massage my ego to the point that I don't recognize the inferiority of the writing. It's not that I can't read dime-store trash or don't think it's valuable, but I can't stand when it dresses up and somebody mistakes it for "literature." To avoid that, I'm willing to read stories that I know won't appeal to Joe Blow. Of course, with books like The Historian becoming best sellers, the subgenre that I consider "erudite fiction" is merging more and more with mainstream "literature."

I meant narrative causality, consequences. There's a process, such as a character's learning to deal with death, or a bank heist, that more or less starts at some point and ends at some point.

Neil's Sandman has a beginning and an end. Lots of other things happened to Nuala, Jack, etc, before and after the graphic series, but those are different stories. Morpheus starts as something and ends as something else.

I don't know if Seinfeld has a story, but they say they don't. By nature, a story doesn't work backwards, but I suppose you could watch Seinfeld episodes in reverse or random order and it wouldn't make much difference.

quote:

Originally posted by themachraven:
My point is the basic working definition of a story almost necessitates what we consider a "beginning," "middle," and "end."

I agree, but some people don't, or they want to go against the flow. I think Poppy Brite said that she wanted to write a book where the characters just sat around and painted their toenails, but that no one would buy it. Doesn't that say something about the nature of story?

The man who learned something of life, sure, that's a story, same way that Boy Meets Girl is a story. What did he learn? How did he change? Maybe he started as an agoraphobic shut-in and ended up as a mountain climber.

I like the guy, so since I am a compulsive reader, I have read nearly everything I could lay my hands on (that includes all his novels, a lot of his press articles but not his numerous essays).

The only book I did not like was "The Island of the Day Before", though I am not sure as to why I did not, since the story has great potentials.
I have mixed feelings about Baudolino: possibly I was disturbed by the fact that the style of story changed completely after 3/4 of the book.
I quite liked "The mysterious Flame of Queen Loana", which is the last one I have read. It is a nice record of a not so nice period.

He has writen loads of stuff. If anyone is interested, I have found a list there:
http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_works.html

Foucault's Pendulum has to be my favourite of the ones I've read. Love his writing style.

Love Foucault's Pendulum. Love his essays in 'Travels in Hyperreality'

He also shares much of my literary tastes, so he's a great resource for English essays-- he's written smart, readable stuff on Joyce, Borges, Dante, and Milton...

I like Umberto Eco. I cannot remember the name of the collection his of fairy tales, but I really loved his descriptions of the characters, like The Boy With The Skin Condition. I also always remember a story where the main character was a man who had a tiny tiny waist, and because of that everyone loved him, and his life was easier.