 |
 |
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. >> >> >> >>