Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.29 AVERAGE
3.29 AVERAGE
The only reason this book even gets two stars is due to the fact I was able, after much moaning and groaning, to finish it. I was surprised at how vile this book was sometimes, even knowing it was an odd form of satire. I still found it repugnant and now understand why there were so many poor ratings. I really love Eco's other works so I was a little dismayed at how much I disliked this one. He does have his typical themes in there - they stories are layered, layers upon layers of memories, dialogue, storylines, events. and food. Eco loves his food, and I do like that about his works, his focus on food and how it revolves around the character and how they themselves revolve around it. The utter vileness of the central character, Simonini, just completely ruined this book for me. It's hard to really enjoy a book with a individual such as he as our main protagonist, no matter the amount of clever, dry witticisms that garnish the book throughout. His sole purpose seemed to just cheat and interfere and ruin the lives of others just for the sake of ruining those lives and hating on Masons and Hating on the French and Hating on Women and Hating on Catholics. He even admits to not even liking himself most of the time. And yes, I know, this is satire, the entire point of the novel is that he is unpleasant and we have this guy who saunters around lauding himself as the greatest Anti-Semite, wants to write oodles of pages of semitism literature, extrapolating on how awful they are when he himself is the most vilest of creatures and doing exactly all the terrible things he accuses these other groups of doing. But that still doesn't make this a pleasant reading experience and perhaps the nuance was lost on me and I feel like I wasted a good deal of time reading this book but I had to finish it because it was Eco, okay? Definitely not one of his better works, which is unfortunate.
It took me a long time to get into the spirit of the book. I've read several Eco books, but none approach The Name of the Rose, for me. The convolutions of intrigue were interesting, and I was especially interested in Eco's notes at the end where he claims that little of the book, apart from the exact dialog was invented. Hum, I'll read some other discussions of the Protocols before deciding how true that is. Clearly, however, the schizo narrator was an artistic liberty.
A remarkable read. Intricate and dark, at times a galavanting romp, at others a deep meditation on the real and the unreal, all set against the inevitable dramatic irony of the horrors of the 20th century. Simonini is a forger who is present at many key turning points throughout the 19th century, always making a lot of money, always out only for himself. He is a nasty, nasty character whose penchant for fine dining only makes him all the more human. He is a chilling protagonist who shares the text with the Abbé Dalla Piccola, a stolen pseudonym. This is a challenging but very rewarding read that is simultaneously horrifying and immense fun.
I got through about a 100 pages and was bored sick. I love Turin and reading about the Italian Unification but 100 pages in and no spark for me.
DNF at %50. This book is not for someone who isn't an expert on Europe's history. While I know the basics this book was way too complicated for me to understand it as a whole and I had to keep googling the names and I couldn't enjoy the book, in fact it started to feel like an obligation to finish this book... So I abandoned it. Because there was no way I would've finished this when every page felt like ten pages.
Ehhhhhh. I mean it's well-written, at least as far as I can tell in translation. The plotting is well-done and it kept me reading until the end. But - I started reading it the same day that an anti-Semite killed 11 Jewish people in Pittsburgh. Reading the blatant anti-Semitic bullshit and the disgusting descriptions of Jewish people in a modern novel, despite their historical accuracy (of which I was already well aware), didn't sit well with me. Was this novel so amazing, so revelatory, as to make having those vile phrases once again in a mainstream, respectable book, no matter how historical or detached or meta? For me, no. This book wasn't worth the bigotry it contained.
Good lord, this is a slog. But, it's often funny. Everything you always wanted to know about "The protocols of the Elders of Zion" told in a multi-voice, non-linear fashion. It's fiction, but a bibliography woulda been keen.
„Mă simt întru câtva încurcat apucându-mă de scris, de parcă mi-aș dezgoli sufletul, din porunca – nu, la naiba! să zicem că la sugestia – unui evreu neamț (sau austriac, dar tot aia e). Cine sunt eu? Cred că mai de folos ar fi să mă întreb despre patimile mele, de care poate sufăr și acum, decât despre faptele vieții mele. Pe cine iubesc? Nu-mi vin în minte chipuri îndrăgite. Știu că-mi place bucătăria de calitate: când aud rostindu-se numele „La Tour d’Argent” simt un freamăt prin tot trupul. Asta-i iubire?
Pe cine urăsc? Pe evrei, îmi vine să spun, dar faptul că aș ceda atât de supus instigărilor doctorului ăla austriac (sau neamț) îmi spune că n-am nimic împotriva blestemaților de evrei.
Despre evrei nu știu decât ce m-a învățat bunicul: – Sunt acel popor ateu prin excelență, mă instruia el. Pornesc de la concepția că binele trebuie realizat aici, nu dincolo de mormânt. Deci făptuiesc numai pentru cucerirea lumii acesteia.”
Pe cine urăsc? Pe evrei, îmi vine să spun, dar faptul că aș ceda atât de supus instigărilor doctorului ăla austriac (sau neamț) îmi spune că n-am nimic împotriva blestemaților de evrei.
Despre evrei nu știu decât ce m-a învățat bunicul: – Sunt acel popor ateu prin excelență, mă instruia el. Pornesc de la concepția că binele trebuie realizat aici, nu dincolo de mormânt. Deci făptuiesc numai pentru cucerirea lumii acesteia.”
Simonini is the Forest Gump of anti-Semitism. He is the only fictional character in the book, but everything he does has real consequences.
The question that first comes to mind when you meet a conspiracy theorist or other fanatic is "do they actually believe this stuff?" The answer is both yes and no, and the slipperiness between fact and fiction both in their minds and in the world of the novel provides the frame for this thrilling novel. It takes place in the time period usually skipped over in most history courses, at least in the U.S., between 1860s and the turn of the century.
Like with everything else I've read by Eco, I feel the need to pause every few pages to consult an encyclopedia. But that too is part of the fun.
The question that first comes to mind when you meet a conspiracy theorist or other fanatic is "do they actually believe this stuff?" The answer is both yes and no, and the slipperiness between fact and fiction both in their minds and in the world of the novel provides the frame for this thrilling novel. It takes place in the time period usually skipped over in most history courses, at least in the U.S., between 1860s and the turn of the century.
Like with everything else I've read by Eco, I feel the need to pause every few pages to consult an encyclopedia. But that too is part of the fun.
challenging
dark
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No