Talk:Foucault's Pendulum

Michel Foucault

Where is the evidence that it is a polemic against Michel Foucault???? Since both deal in the creation of meaning through discourses of power, aren't their works complementary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.12.38 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Politics

A great deal of the first half of the book is devoted to the politics of the era. I think that there are meant to be parallels between political ideologies and occultist believers. There sould be some discussion of this, but obviously not original research. Anyone know of material to include? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.247.147.125 (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Vanity Publisher?

I'm only about halfway through this book, but I think it makes it pretty clear that Belbo's publisher is not a vanity press. When Belbo talks to Colonel Ardenti, Ardenti offers to pay for the publishing himself so there would be no risk. I believe Belbo mentions that he could recommend a publisher that does that kind of work, implying that Garamond Publishing is not a vanity press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.103.35 (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You're only half way through the book. There are, in fact, two publishers, both run by Garamond. This first is not strictly a vanity press; the second, is wholly a vanity press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.247.147.125 (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

188.220.247.78 (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)I think you need to read on....

Major themes needs revisal

It seems incomplete, and was probably rushed through? Definitely needs a more thorough treatment. Maybe a character sketch? Prateek 10:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, it reads like a review of the book. The first sentence is unsourced opinion about an unnamed genre of literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.67.2 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Foucault's Pendulum Index

My user profile features a cool list of subjects in Foucault's Pendulum. I went through and highlit everything I thought was esoteric, out came this list: Foucault's Pendulum Index

Diotallevi

Wasn't the name of the Kabalist Diotallevi? Levi resembles Hebrew, but it can also be read as Dio t'allevi, "God help you", an artificial surname for abandoned children.

• You are most likely right - it is the kind of mistake I'd make while reading it. The Land 11:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Abulafia

The name of the computer of some character is Abulafia.

• Abulafia is the name Belbo gives to his computer. Contrary to the main article's description of it as "massive", Abulafia is apparently a small personal computer/word processor, mainly used for Belbo's often-rambling personal writings. It apparently shipped with a small program which would rearrange any typed-in lines of text, such as those of a poem, as a game/diversion. This is the program they use to create the "connections" which inspire their Plan. 68.159.165.160 03:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

While reading the book, a question came to my mind: could Abulafia be some kind of portable computer (not a laptop, the plot is obviously set too early for that, but maybe a luggable)? Belbo seems to be moving it around a bit (from his office in Milan to his cottage, at least, where Casaubon finds it near the beginning of the novel) and also regrets not bringing it with him the first time the three colleagues visit his family cottage. The most probable explanation would be that it simply is a desktop PC Belbo moves around in his car trunk. Still, ... --Toredid (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I had the impression that it was a sort of luggable/laptop too. The reason why is that it gets described as a "word processor" by Casaubon - not as a general-purpose computer which has a word processor program on it ("He took the word processor with him", IIRC, which also fits in with Gudrun the secretary's resentment of it). (You may remember such things used to be pretty common before laptops became capable enough to compete weight-wise.) And word processors were almost always intended to be appropriate for a lap or desk, which would certainly make it portable. --Gwern (contribs) 23:22 23 June 2008 (GMT)

Colonel Ardenti

Should Colonel Ardenti be linked to Clovis Dardentor?

• What do you mean? The Land 15:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A novel by Jules Verne, that, I read, mentioned the treasure of Rennes-le-Chateau.

There is no page currently for Clovis Dardentor. If you want to create one and link to it then go ahead! Don't know if it's one of Eco's many ironies or not. By the way it helps people a lto if you sing your ccontributions in duiscussions like this one. You can do it by putting three or four tildes (~) after your name and it signs your name and/or date automatically. The Land 18:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Caribbean spiritualism"

"Candomblé" and "Umbanda" came from Africa. So I believe it would be better to change "Caribbean" and place "African" instead. Both have nothing to do with "Voodoo", for instance, though the three came from the same source, Africa. Thanks.

Also, the instances in the book are in Brazil which is not Caribbean. Wouldn't a better word be afro-american syncretism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.103.35 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Vocab

I made a list of most of the difficult vocab in this book, is there a way to make a wiki-glossary link? I only ask because I saw there was an index for Hitchhikers Guide.

• I made it anyway. List of Words from Foucault's Pendulum.
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Concordances don't belong here. Wiktionary is a dictionary. And it takes concordances. See Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Concordances. Uncle G 05:49, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Illuminatus!

I added a Link to "The Illuminatus! Trilogy" in the "See Also"-section, but I feel the article desperately needs more reference. I am not competent enough to do it myself, since I havent read Foucault's Pendulum (yet), but to give you an idea: much said about Foucault's Pendulum in the article is also valid for Illuminatus! ("obscure esoteric facts", "Kabbalah", "conspiracy theory", "divided into ten segments represented by the ten Sefiroth", "plan which stretches throughout history which combines elements from conspiracy theories", "an entirely new conspiracy theory", "Rosicrucians", "Freemasons", "Bavarian Illuminati", "Assassins", ...)
I don't know exactly when Illuminatus! was written, but the current edition was first published in 1975, so Eco could well have been influenced by it. (And since the Article mentions him: So could have Dan Brown...)
--BjKa 11:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"The Illuminatus! Trilogy" was written between 1969 and 1971, and published in 1975. foucaults pendulum was published over a decade later (eco claimed he never read illuminatus - yeah right). da vinci code was published 25+ years later (and brown had read illuminatus). Zzzzz 22:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

He's probably telling the truth. Remember, Eco's Italian, and probably doesn't have time to read "trashy" American novels. --maru (talk) contribs 04:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No way, that's totally not like Eco, he wouldn't dismiss popular literature on the basis of being popular literature - he would at least have studied it as a phenomenon (he did, off the top of my head, for '50s hero comics and contemporary TV advertising). Except that there has been no such phenomenon: the "Illuminatus!" trilogy, as far as I can tell, is completely unknown in Italy outside of the role-playing scene --KJK::Hyperion 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is unknown in Italy, nevertheless I assume that Professor Eco is aware of that work. Brian W 21:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is unknown in Italy, why would you make that assumption? --maru (talk) contribs 23:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A link to the Illuminatus! trilogy in the "See Also" section is reasonable, since both books share certain similarities of content (distinctively, both draw on a wide range of factual materials to build a fictional "false history"). These similarities are sufficient to justify the "see also" link. However, as the discussion above points out, there is no verifiable evidence that Eco drew any inspiration from the Illuminatus! trilogy, and in any case the differences between the books certainly outweigh their similarities (particularly in tone, structure, and the comparative rigour of their scholarship). So the "See Also" link is fine, but a section comparing the two works would be overreaching and unnecessary. Best, Docether 12:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Illuminatus Trilogy is seminal. It influenced the 3 famous books that came after it. I don't understand how people can call it trash. Maybe they didn't read it? 201.29.233.27 16:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"A thinking person's Da Vinci Code"?

I have no doubt that Foucault's Pendulum has been called "A thinking person's Da Vinci Code," as the article states. Certainly, both books use a great deal of historical fact to construct intricate conspiracy theories. However, perhaps we should underline an important point of difference between the two books. While Dan Brown apparently takes the product of his research and whimsy at face value -- presumably, it's convincing enough to base a thriller on -- throughout Foucault's Pendulum, Eco holds up similar stories (including the one produced by his characters) to mockery. After all, Eco makes it clear that the main characters in Foucault's Pendulum are cynically lumping together every bit of conspiracy-history that they can lay their hands on, and the "diabolicals" are fools (albeit dangerous fools) for believing them. The Da Vinci Code is the sort of story that they might have produced (regardless of Brown's cynicism or lack thereof re. his material). Any thoughts on how to illustrate this difference in tone between the two authors? Docether 20:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, anonymous user 203.215.122.45. Your succinct addition to the first section resolves this nicely. Docether 20:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Ironically, the very phrase used to relate Eco's book to Brown's logically implies that the latter is for persons who do not think." Priceless, but isn't it POV? ;-) 202.163.242.151 21:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No more POV than the original quote- it is a logical consequence of the phrasing, after all. --maru (talk) contribs 22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with maru. Too bad we can't source the quote to a specific person or review (most mentions of this phrase use the same "has been called..." construction without attribution). But it's not as if the article is endorsing this quote per se, just providing some context for it. Docether 15:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I did search around, but all I found was "that some have called". I've still included it as a source, because although we're quoting from someone who is quoting from someone else, a citation basically shows that it isn't something that we thought up ourselves. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 02:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I have called it that. I also said it was "like The Da Vinci Code only actually worth reading." You can quote me. ;-) cmadler (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Lorenza?

Should we elaborate on Lorenza and other elements of the book? The page for "The Foucault's Pendulum for non-thinkers" (heh heh) is longer, mind. 202.163.242.198 18:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Compare this to The Illuminatus! Trilogy. Expansion on everything is good. :-) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Lorenza should be developed upon. In general, I think there is room for more talk of Belbo's literature, the phenomenon of "Sophia", Aglie/Amparo/Casaubon/Diotallevi . I don't have my copy of the book with me, or would have started on it. Prateek 10:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd put it more strongly: the reference to 'Lorenza' (whatever or whomever that might be) makes no sense at all without a few words of explanation. --Air (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Casaubon's name

Though the article cites Meric Casaubon, isn't his father Isaac Casaubon more likely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.158.229 (talk • contribs)

While neither of them really strikes me as all that similar to Casaubon, I'd agree with you that Isaac seems more likely. --maru (talk) contribs 17:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I was reading my new copy of FP, and in the early chapters, Casaubon mentions that there was a "Renaissance philologist" of the same name, but there was no relation. Of course, this is merely true for the in-book reality. I leave it to you what to make of it. Another thing I've noticed is a mention on the John Dee page:

"About ten years after Dee's death, the antiquarian Robert Cotton purchased land around Dee's house and began digging in search of papers and artifacts. He discovered several manuscripts, mainly records of Dee's angelic communications. Cotton's son gave these manuscripts to the scholar Méric Casaubon, who published them in 1659, together with a long introduction critical of their author, as A True & Faithful Relation of What passed for many Yeers between Dr. John Dee (A Mathematician of Great Fame in Q. Eliz. and King James their Reignes) and some spirits."

--maru (talk) contribs 01:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The article says "his name refers to classical scholar Meric Casaubon, and as an example of Eco's beloved intertextuality, to the main character in George Eliot's Middlemarch, also a scholar"

In his book On Literature, Eco says that he was thinking of Isaac Casaubon when he named FP's hero Casaubon. He also says that before he finished writing the novel, he saw that there was a character named Casaubon in Middlemarch, but that he had no intention of there being any link between his Casaubon and Middlemarch's, and that he actually tried to steer people away from interpreting Causabon's name as a reference to the Causabon in Middlemarch. He says this in the chapter Intertextual Irony and Levels of Reading. Some of the chapter there is based on this lecture I believe: http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_author.html

Eco does give credit to those who have seen intriguing parallels between FP's Causabon and Middlemarch's, though he states clearly that it was not his intention for there to be any.

--JackMcJiggins 12:46 GMT 5th May 2006

The link above is clear and this Casaubon is likely Isaac, but it is also very interesting that Meric wrote(maybe edited?) a book about Dee, and that the book contained the half of Dee's magickcal system(Enochian Magic). Later this book was read by Mathers, and he inserted Enochian materials to the famous Order of the Golden Dawn.(and this occult order appears in FP) With them, this Enochian System became famous. Some people remember Dee only because of this... Eco knows a lot of Occult materials, I bet he had delved into almost every printed material available, and into original manuscripts in Latin, Greek, Hebrew.(A luxury I can't even dream of!) He surely knew who Meric was, and would have considered the implication when he named the characters. And it is interesting, this contrast between Isaac and Meric, one who criticized Corpus Hermetica, and one who edited and published occult diary... SouthPark135 (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

pic says picador 1970 edition

but article text says first published in 1988. someone is wrong. Zzzzz 22:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's my fault, sorry. I typed it incorrectly, it should've been 1989, not 1970. Thanks for pointing it out! Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Seven Seas Jim?

Who is Seven Seas Jim? He's mentioned what seems to be dozens of times in Belbo's fiction, but I cannot find him on Wikipedia or online (just mentions of Sinbad, which can't be right), or in the esoteric concepts list. --maru (talk) contribs 06:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No existence outside of Eco's novel, as far as I can tell. Rpresser 14:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What about Joseph Conrad's sailor, Lord Jim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.181.58 (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for in-jokes

"the reader who knows French will hopefully understand the irony)"

Okay, but can you share the joke with the rest of the class, please? 128.122.253.229 05:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• The user above is correct; the line is unnecessarily enigmatic, and I've replaced it. The situation with the text of the "plan" is not truly ironic, either. Basically, the point here is that both Lia's and Ardenti's translations are equally plausible -- Eco has actually written a text which can be translated either way, and a reader fluent in French can recognize this (a lesser author might have "handwaved" and not actually given the source text, but Eco is hardcore enough that he actually -does- it, and makes it work). In the context of the plot, Lia doesn't have any real interest in the text; she's just showing up Ardenti as a fool whose desire to find conspiracies and hidden truths has blinded him to the more likely, if prosaic, alternatives. Lia herself recognizes that both translations are equally plausible, meaning that Ardenti's "discovery" is just as worthy (and more importantly, as worthless) as hers. This fits in nicely both with the book's overarching themes of constructed histories and multiple perspectives, and also with Eco's more general interest in the vagaries of translation. -- Docether 15:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Eco should not be compared to Brown

Foucault's pendulum is a wonderful novel and any comparison to Da-Vinci Code is an insult to the genius of Eco. One has to agree that both are mystery novels, and pertain to certain obscure secrets of Grail,Christianity,Templar Knights etc but the writing styles and composition of the Novels clearly spell out the differences.

While Eco is exotic,esoteric and runs deep; Brown is more the typical deja-vu plot "Langdon is a Superman !", and quiet clearly Brown is shallow and hence "more commerical and less exotic". Both the authors target different sets of readers and Langdon wins more hearts than Casaubon.

Arkapravo Bhaumik 12:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Foucault's Pendulum has no factual errors. Brown's is full of them only to make his shitty plot less absurd and idiot. 201.29.233.27 16:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia have a no personal attacks policy? Though I do agree that Foucault's Pendulum is spectacu-lar. 76.90.135.239 16:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, but these are on the "comments" page, which is unconstrained by wikipedian policies. Plus, these are attacks on the book, not the man :) 67.163.165.236 (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Arkapravo is totally right and not only for his POV opinions I gladly share, but also because of that NPOV question of literature genre. Eco is readable on rather much more interpretive levels than Brown. Eco's novel is not only a plot and some character and mystery. It is also a retrospective on how literature is created, how people think and what post-modernism is. I mean: his work is academic even if it is a novel. It shouldn't be compared just because it deals with an utterly different levels of sense.--MarcelloPapirio (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, friend-o. There are freakshow editors who will gut you like a trout if you step on their particular obsessions. Check out the Chad Dukes page, its Discussion page, and the History tab of the discussion page. NeutralHomer is the name to look for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.32.120 (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Esoteric Subjects

There was a link to a List of Esoteric Subjects in Foucault's Pendulum. Its not here anymore and i think the page has been deleted. How do i find the deletion discussion if the page is already gone? Furthermore, can I find the original page, even if its dead? Someone please help me out here, cause I didn't back up any of that research. - ShadowyCabal 05:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of esoteric subjects in Foucault's Pendulum. You can click on List of esoteric subjects in Foucault's Pendulum which will display the name of the administrator (Coredesat) who deleted the article. Contact Coredesat on his talk page, and leave him a polite message asking for a backup copy of the article; I'm sure he will help you out. For further information, see Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. —Viriditas | Talk 12:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Single pendulum

"One unusual quote [...] describes the physics of a hanging victim as an approximation of a pendulum."

I don't have the book here, but I distinctly remember it was about the physics of motion of two material bodies (the pendulum and the man) suspended by independent ropes united a bit further up which is much more interesting than a single pendulum, as it might approach a chaotic system (another reference by Eco). Not really an important thing. Xyzt1234 21:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, I do have it in front of me (pg 599 of my edition); I don't entirely understand it, but the first half seems to cover a hanging man as a pendulum with a single weight, and then it considers "a double pendulum, one with two weights attached to the same wire. . . .". --Gwern (contribs) 20:04 1 September 2007 (GMT)

Initially, the pendulum itself is a very orderly system. With the addition of a Man, it becomes what seems a quite disordered system. (of course, we know that the seemingly chaotic motion is capable of being analyzed and understood). You don't think that is in anyway relevant to the text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.95.2 (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Refs to Eco's own writings/life

I've added a short paragraph on comparison's to Eco's own experiences and writings - the more of his writing I read, the more I notice, so this could certainly be expanded on. Or, if it's deemed not relevant, also fine!sb (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Long summary

I think the plot summary here is inordinately long. If nobody objects I would like to revise it down to about 2/3 of its current length.64.61.29.102 (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It's a complex, plot-driven, novel and a critically important one at that. The formatting as one section makes it harder to read, I agree, but I think if it were divided into sections it would be much more readable. --Gwern (contribs) 15:17 21 January 2009 (GMT)

References to Michel Foucault and the Years of Lead

Two themes that I think were important to the unfolding of this text that I do not see discussed here are the connection to the theories of knowledge propounded by Eco's contemporary, the French philosopher Michel Foucault, and the paranoid atmosphere of 1970's Italy during the so-called "Years of Lead" (1969-1983).

While Eco has denied that he was referencing Michel Foucault, this would be the sort of false lead in which he delights, both in the book and in his own work. Eco would be perfectly aware, from his work on semiotics, that the Foucault of the title, referring to the 18th century inventor of the pendulum,

Foucault didn't live in the 18th century and didn't invent the pendulum.

would be conflated with the more contemporary and well-known philosopher. Within the plot of the story, there seem to be resonances between the unfolding of The Plan, and Foucault's writings on the links between power and knowledge. It seems that this avenue might be worth exploring. I'm aware of at least one article on the subject: Robert Phiddian, "'Foucault's Pendulum' and the Text of Theory" in Contemporary Literature Vol. 38, nº 3 (Autumn 1997), p. 534-557.

Another major theme seems to be the paranoid atmosphere of the 1970's and 1980's in Italy, during and immediately following the "Years of Lead." There are a number of direct references to the three-way conflict between left-wing terrorist organizations like the Red Brigades, right-wing neo-fascist terrorist organization like Ordine Nuovo, and the government and its secret services in the novel. The editors, particularly Belbo, move in radical circles and patronize bars and cafés connected to leftist circles. Further, when Belbo is framed by Agliè for the bombing, it is referring to a number of well-known bombings of trains that occurred in those years, including the bombing of the Bologna train station in 1980. In general, in the novel as in those years, there is confusion as to who you should trust, as one figure after another, including Mr. Garamond and De Angelis, end up being compromised by the Diabolicals. Further, Belbo's forced confession bears more than a striking resemblance to the persecution of Italian left-wing radicals, accused by the government of terrorist activities on the word of penitenti (police informants and snitches), who were jailed but were later revealed to be innocent of any crimes.

These are some suggestions for further lines of inquiry that might be opened into this magisterial work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadanarchist (talk • contribs) 04:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I read the comment before and that is my opinion.

• First of all, someone put a line in the middle of the above comment saying "Foucault didn't live in the 18th century and didn't invent the pendulum". This is a gross way to object to someone's opinions. One should argument his reasons. He should learn how to behave and fortunately there are wikipedia rules there to teach him how to.
• Second point. It is utterly clear Eco refers to Foucault. Just think at (spoiler!!!) novel's ending: 23rd-27th June 1984. Nice. Eco said he didn't mean a reference to Foucault. What a misleading sentence! He obviously meant to do so, since his personal friend Foucault (check out Foucault's Dits et Ecrits!) died the 25th June 1984 -- the very ending of the plot! Indeed, the novel itself is filled of foucaultian references... such as a certain way to create statements and their own effect on a positivity -- but maybe I am getting too technical and the death date reference is the clearest one. --MarcelloPapirio (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Another comment

i am writing here, but dont know if editing is allowed here, because i dont make contibutions to wikipedia:

Belbo, one of the characters in the book is also name of a river in piemonte which frequently appears in the novels of cesare pavese, also a writer from piemonte like eco. The river appears primarly in the novels dealing with the partizan wars during the end of ww2 in northern italy . These partizan wars also play a role in Foucaults pendulum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.105.185 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Critical reception?

Usually when there are books released by prominent authors, there is a section of the article that touches on the critical reception of the text. How were the reviews? Is it a highly regarded work? Was it a bestseller? Anyone have any sources for this information? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Belbo connection?

Is there any evidence of a connection between Jacopo Belbo and artist Jack Bilbo? Bilbo was, of course, not Piedmontese, but the names seem too similar to be coincidental. (Or maybe they are and there's no connection, and that's the point.) 192.91.171.36 (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed

I am absolutely sure this game series needs to be mentioned, as it is one of the most popular works, deeply interconnected with the book's underlying plot device. Orionsyndrome (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Foucault's Pendulum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229105632/http://sciwrite.org/glj/Illuminati.pdf to http://sciwrite.org/glj/Illuminati.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040718074854/http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_works_fiction.html to http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_works_fiction.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence in second paragraph

The last sentence in the second paragraph is ambiguous:

"Some believe that it refers to Michel Foucault, noting Eco's friendship with the French philosopher, but the author "specifically rejects any intentional reference to Michel Foucault"—this is regarded as one of his subtle literary jokes."

It is unclear whether the joke referred to here is A.) the book's reference to Foucault, or B.) Eco's denial. rowley (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The answer is: both. The entire book is overloaded with references to Michel Foucault. The plot itself is Foucauldian. However, the title plays with the misunderstanding: pendulum by Léon Foucault, but the book could be as well about Michel Foucault's theories. Anyone who studied Foucault can tell it: it is not even original research---plain common sense. So here's your first joke: Léon Foucault or Michel Foucault? The book talks about the former but it is, in fact, a commentary to the latter. Now to the second joke: Eco's flat-out denial. This is typical of him: "I didn't do anything". So I guess the book ends with the date of death of Michel Foucault just "by sheer chance". But that's original research, so you cannot put it in Wikipedia: Eco knows very well correlation does not necessarily imply cause.MarcelloPapirio (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)