I know quite a few very learned, smart people who find Foucault's Pendulum impenetrably dull. Personally, though, I loved it when I first read it some years back, and I've found since that it greatly rewards re-reading... as you might expect, given Eco's densely-woven style.

I actually have more problems with Brown's prose than I do with his potted esoteric history, but that's a different kind of discussion (and Eco is far from impervious to criticism about prose, so best not to go there!)

All the best,

Ben

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 15:34:47 +1100, Caroline Tully <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I keep meaning to read Eco's 'Foucault's Pendulum', but never seem to get
>around to it. (When am I ever going to read it? I don't know).
>
>~Caroline.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ben McDonald
>Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2011 12:12 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] 'History'
>
>The works of H. P. Lovecraft come to mind as similarly adopted, not to
>mention the mixture of imagination and erudite scholarship behind such
>popular motifs as Atlantis, Lemuria, Merlin, and Hermes Trismegistus. I
>agree with David that there's an often murky relationship between fiction,
>reality, history, and myth. Accordingly, I suspect that many people would
>"believe" in a Dan Brown potboiler even if he put a disclaimer on every
>page.
>
>And on the topic of Brown, Holy Blood etc., I personally enjoy Eco's take
>the most!
>
>All the best,
>
>Ben
>
>On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 11:09:53 +1100, David Mattichak <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>There are also many neo-pagan people that believe in Tolkien- such as the
>Trolls in Melbourne who went by the name Clan Olag Hai for quite some time.
>Often the lines between fiction and reality are very blurry or driven for a
>desire to escape from an unpleasant reality.
>>
>>Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 10:55:43 +1100
>>From: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] 'History'
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Yes, but Murray wasn�t writing it as fiction. She was an
>>Egyptologist doing �Witch Trial History� (for some reason). So while
>she was
>>purportedly doing academic writing (although she did tamper with trial
>records
>>to make the witches activities look less weird than they actually did which
>is
>>a big no-no) she wasn�t deliberately writing fiction. 
>>
>> 
>>
>>So� although her work _turned out to be_ fiction� in the
>>end, it wasn�t intended to be. 
>>
>> 
>>
>>~C.
>>
>> 
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>From: Society for The
>>Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>>Behalf Of David Mattichak
>>
>>Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2011 10:51 AM
>>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Mark Benyon 'historian'
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>It occurs to me that much of the
>>pagan/Wiccan world still believes a similar style of believable fiction re
>>Margaret Murray's interpretation of history that has since been shown to be
>off
>>track. Even though this is so there are still many witches that hold to
>that
>>particular fiction as believable. People are gullible, nothing will ever
>change
>>that. The genius of great fiction writers isn't in their accuracy or their
>>perfect use of English Grammar, but their ability to tell a story that
>holds
>>the reader to the end. Criticizing them for their talent and their ability
>to
>>market their work is almost a misinterpretation of what they are all about.
>>
>>
>>
>>