You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.29 AVERAGE
3.29 AVERAGE
I lost interest in this one quite awhile ago. Despite attempts to pay attention, I definitely got a bit lost. I didn't really mind, though, since it wasn't very interesting.
Nepochybuji o Ecových literárních kvalitách, ale tenhle román mě zkrátka nebavil.
The Prague Cemetery is the fifth book that I have read after Foucault’s pendulum, The Name of the Rose, Baudolino and The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana. While I loved the first three, I have been more than a little ambivalent about the latter two. Baudolino was not bad. It was, simply, in my mind not spectacular as the Name of the Rose or Foucault’s Pendulum. My real problem was with 'Queen Loana', which seemed to me to be an exercise in vanity. Therefore, I was eagerly looking forward to the Prague Cemetery, which seemed to have a plot reminiscent of the Focault's Pendulum. Therefore, when I found the book in the digital library I was thrilled and immediately picked it up.
The Prague Cemetery is about a half Piedmontese forger and mouchard named Simonini through who seems to have lost his memory and a mysterious Abbe Dalla Picola who lives in the same building as Simonini about whom Simonini was not aware of until recently and who may or may not be Simonini himself. Based on advice given by one Sigmund Froide, Simonini, starts putting his memories on paper to which the Abbe adds on to or clarifies. The Wikipedia page for the book boasts that all the characters except for Simonini are based on real characters and we get appearances from the famous personalities like the aforementioned Freud, Dreyfuss, and Dumas. The book tries to imagine what sort of person or what sort of circumstances would have created the reprehensible Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was responsible for so many atrocities against the Jews including the Holocaust. For a single book, like any other Eco Novel, The Prague Cemetery is chock full of brilliant ides. Yet, somehow, it is not the return to form neither I nor as I suspect the legions of Eco fans were expecting.
The problem with the Prague Cemetery is not that it has an unlikeable protagonist or that most of the issues presented in this book are not relevant today or even that there is not one decent human being in the many 'real' characters that are presented in this novel. The real problem is that it reads as if he author wanted to tick off everything that happened between the 1840s and the turn of the century. Yes, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are the thread that holds the entire narrative together, but there is just too much happening for a reader to really appreciate the impact of everything that is happening. Simonini just seems to flit from one thing to another. I think Eco missed a trick by placing the entire burden of the narrative on Simonini, who, surprisingly for his many neuroses and biases, is more or less a cipher. The first half with the story of Garibaldi and the unification of Italy and, what is essentially the second half, in Paris are so different they don't gel together except for 'Simonini' and less said about the central conceit the better. Suffice to say that it was unnecessary and poorly executed
The Prague Cemetery is about a half Piedmontese forger and mouchard named Simonini through who seems to have lost his memory and a mysterious Abbe Dalla Picola who lives in the same building as Simonini about whom Simonini was not aware of until recently and who may or may not be Simonini himself. Based on advice given by one Sigmund Froide, Simonini, starts putting his memories on paper to which the Abbe adds on to or clarifies. The Wikipedia page for the book boasts that all the characters except for Simonini are based on real characters and we get appearances from the famous personalities like the aforementioned Freud, Dreyfuss, and Dumas. The book tries to imagine what sort of person or what sort of circumstances would have created the reprehensible Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was responsible for so many atrocities against the Jews including the Holocaust. For a single book, like any other Eco Novel, The Prague Cemetery is chock full of brilliant ides. Yet, somehow, it is not the return to form neither I nor as I suspect the legions of Eco fans were expecting.
The problem with the Prague Cemetery is not that it has an unlikeable protagonist or that most of the issues presented in this book are not relevant today or even that there is not one decent human being in the many 'real' characters that are presented in this novel. The real problem is that it reads as if he author wanted to tick off everything that happened between the 1840s and the turn of the century. Yes, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are the thread that holds the entire narrative together, but there is just too much happening for a reader to really appreciate the impact of everything that is happening. Simonini just seems to flit from one thing to another. I think Eco missed a trick by placing the entire burden of the narrative on Simonini, who, surprisingly for his many neuroses and biases, is more or less a cipher. The first half with the story of Garibaldi and the unification of Italy and, what is essentially the second half, in Paris are so different they don't gel together except for 'Simonini' and less said about the central conceit the better. Suffice to say that it was unnecessary and poorly executed
For me this was abysmal. Almost nonexistent story. I felt mortified by the casual anti-semitism which littered most of the book. I found it incredibly difficult to read beyond those statements. I don't see why so many were needed.
Je ne sais pas pourquoi je me suis entêté à lire ce roman. Pour résumer le Cimetière de Prague, je dirais que c'est l'histoire de l'antisémitisme au XIXe siècle en Europe. Je ne l'ai pas aimé du tout. J'avais toujours l'impression qu'il allait y avoir quelque chose d'important qui arriverait. Malheureusement, il n'est rien arrivé. Tout était dans ce livre d'un ennuie total. C'est le pire livre que j'ai lu en 5 ans.
This was my first time reading anything by Umberto Eco and I can not claim to have enjoyed it. The whole process became a battle of wills, largely with myself flitting between being happy to stop and then on the other hand not wanting to have wasted all the time already given to trying to read it. (Ironic one might suggest). I was reading it for a book club and perhaps that also made me finish it.
The historical elements I found interesting but less than halfway through I found myself feeling it would have been better to read a non-fiction history book on the period.
The plot/conspiracy element was interesting and ultimately (in addition to the book club) I guess is what kept me going because I wanted to know what happened to the main character(s) but I did not enjoy the writing style nor the characterisations.
The historical elements I found interesting but less than halfway through I found myself feeling it would have been better to read a non-fiction history book on the period.
The plot/conspiracy element was interesting and ultimately (in addition to the book club) I guess is what kept me going because I wanted to know what happened to the main character(s) but I did not enjoy the writing style nor the characterisations.
challenging
informative
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
The only made up character is the main character. Everyone else is an actual historical figure that the character is interacting with. Eco does a lot of research into his work and it shows.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Racial slurs, Racism
Main components of this novel:
--19th century European history. Makes references to a lot of events of which I had no previous knowledge (e.g. the various "revolutions" and republicanism in France and Italy, Garibaldi and Napoleon III.) It would have probably been easier to follow if I'd had some idea, but eventually I just accepted that I wouldn't understand the historical context very well and moved past it. (Fortunately, I had recently read a book about the Dreyfus Affair, so I didn't really get lost in that section.) Eco winks at the reader from time to time from the future, e.g. a young Sigmund Freud says that he doesn't think that everything is about sex.
--Hate, particularly antisemitism. Yea, it's a book about a guy purported to be the author of the Protocols, but it is difficult to read and seems excessive. The writing is fine, but this part is an unpleasant chore.
--A multiple personalities angle that is interesting. A little clichéd, but with all the vitriol spewed by the characters, it is nice to have something fun.
--Eco's preoccupation with the way documents shape the world more than the objective truth, this time from the point of view of a professional forger who begins to somewhat believe the fiction he has created. A hate-mongering Baudolino, you might say.
So, stripping the hurtful diatribes from the equation, it is a moderately entertaining story, with plenty of intrigues and a protagonist who is literally trying to figure out who the hell he is. The plot is a little thin, but it is enjoyable nonetheless. However, there is a lot of vitriol and, although it is to some degree necessary to this story, it negates some of the enjoyment one might get from the rest of the book.
--19th century European history. Makes references to a lot of events of which I had no previous knowledge (e.g. the various "revolutions" and republicanism in France and Italy, Garibaldi and Napoleon III.) It would have probably been easier to follow if I'd had some idea, but eventually I just accepted that I wouldn't understand the historical context very well and moved past it. (Fortunately, I had recently read a book about the Dreyfus Affair, so I didn't really get lost in that section.) Eco winks at the reader from time to time from the future, e.g. a young Sigmund Freud says that he doesn't think that everything is about sex.
--Hate, particularly antisemitism. Yea, it's a book about a guy purported to be the author of the Protocols, but it is difficult to read and seems excessive. The writing is fine, but this part is an unpleasant chore.
--A multiple personalities angle that is interesting. A little clichéd, but with all the vitriol spewed by the characters, it is nice to have something fun.
--Eco's preoccupation with the way documents shape the world more than the objective truth, this time from the point of view of a professional forger who begins to somewhat believe the fiction he has created. A hate-mongering Baudolino, you might say.
So, stripping the hurtful diatribes from the equation, it is a moderately entertaining story, with plenty of intrigues and a protagonist who is literally trying to figure out who the hell he is. The plot is a little thin, but it is enjoyable nonetheless. However, there is a lot of vitriol and, although it is to some degree necessary to this story, it negates some of the enjoyment one might get from the rest of the book.
To be honest it's a long time to spend with dispicable characters with nasty attitudes and philosophies. What's worse is when you read the author's notes at the end you find out that the majority are all real characters! I really do not know how rate this book. As the writing is good but the subject and characters are so vile.
This is a book that I had to work to get through. I found myself counting the number of words in his sentences in the early pages. I constantly had to look up places, events, people, and words. I felt stupid with my lack of knowledge of Italian history. Frankly the first third was almost torture. The constant back and forth among the three narrators added another wrinkle to the challenge.
The second third grew more compelling, as it was a simpler and more linear explanation of what happened and the treachery and invented truths created intrigue. I found the introduction of Diana a fascinating touch. I guess I thought that Europeans in the 1860s were a tad more humane, but if they were, how would you explain Dickens?
The last part was again a labyrinth of twisted tales that kind of wrapped things up, but there were no surprises. I guess I expected a last-minute bombshell after working that hard.
All of the deception, lies, trickery and propaganda was terrifying, especially in light of the 2016 presidential campaign in the US. It's no great leap to wonder what is behind the vitriol being spewed by candidates and the fear-mongering of the apparently uninformed electorate. Are we being manipulated? I never realized that Martin Luther was such an anti-Semitic. I still have no idea what i the scoop on the Freemasons. Are they really awful? Are they a cult? Is the Scottish Rite satanic? He raises questions but gives me no answers.
Eco is an incredible researcher and a brilliant thinker. Perhaps I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to follow his words and discern his meaning. I have read The Name of the Rose and Foucault's Pendulum and was left equally unsettled. But I am glad to have attempted them.
The second third grew more compelling, as it was a simpler and more linear explanation of what happened and the treachery and invented truths created intrigue. I found the introduction of Diana a fascinating touch. I guess I thought that Europeans in the 1860s were a tad more humane, but if they were, how would you explain Dickens?
The last part was again a labyrinth of twisted tales that kind of wrapped things up, but there were no surprises. I guess I expected a last-minute bombshell after working that hard.
All of the deception, lies, trickery and propaganda was terrifying, especially in light of the 2016 presidential campaign in the US. It's no great leap to wonder what is behind the vitriol being spewed by candidates and the fear-mongering of the apparently uninformed electorate. Are we being manipulated? I never realized that Martin Luther was such an anti-Semitic. I still have no idea what i the scoop on the Freemasons. Are they really awful? Are they a cult? Is the Scottish Rite satanic? He raises questions but gives me no answers.
Eco is an incredible researcher and a brilliant thinker. Perhaps I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to follow his words and discern his meaning. I have read The Name of the Rose and Foucault's Pendulum and was left equally unsettled. But I am glad to have attempted them.