Yeah, this sure sounds like an awesome argument to have.
I like him. I loved Rose and Foucault, tried and failed to get into Island, liked bits of Travels..., was bored to death by Kant..., and liked that little book where he was arguing with the Catholic Cardinal.
It is possible, you know, to be simultaneously a genius, a has-been, and a blowhard.
(My literary heroes? I admire David Foster Wallace, Vollman, and Pynchon. Who do you admire? Besides has-been blowhard Italian geniuses?)
What purpose do the ad hominems serve, except to illustrate your own arrogance? For very good reason, Eco has a large readership and following, and many people will be interested in his opinions on almost any subject. Why shouldn't he publicize his views if lots of people are interested?
> It is possible, you know, to be simultaneously a genius, a has-been, and a blowhard.
There has yet to be someone writing about wikileaks that was not attacked by you in a very loud voice, ad homimen or otherwise, you keep complaining about the volume of words that is 'wasted' on the subject and yet a large part of those words are yours.
The irony of you calling Umberto Eco a genius and a blowhard at the same time does not escape me, especially not after damning him with 'faint praise'.
I like Foucault's Pendulum too. It's the first Eco book I read! My friend Mike Tracy, then a CBOE trader, turned me onto it when I was in high school; gave me the impression it would be a difficult read. Mike needs to read more Pynchon. I'll tell him tomorrow (I've hired him at 4 different companies, including this one).
Rose is still my favorite; it resonates with my career, for obvious reasons.
Have you read many of his essays? He can get stuffy and pompous. Maybe I just don't understand him.
I think you have a good idea what I think of Umberto Eco at this point. Now, you really think I'm "damning him with faint praise"? Of course I'm not. Could I have written The Name of The Rose, or even Cognitive Types and Nuclear Content? No.
But he wrote a shitty article. It makes banal and, in at least one case, stupid points. It reads as beneath him; less an attempt to cast a lense on the mass-leaking phenomenon and more a chance for him to holler "I'm here! This is my milieu! Include me in the conversation!" I've heard more trenchant analysis of Assange's effort from blog posts, hell, from Megan McArdle.
You are, as always, welcome to disagree with me. But as I am not (in this instance) casting aspersions on your arguments, the "ad hom" label seems lazy. Hominus Eci conpetendus est.
˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚
By the way: Jack Schafer did a fine job sticking up for Wikileaks. And I'm normally inclined to think of him as a curmudgeonly contrarian. There's one.
And, oh, look! Here's Clay Shirky, an acquaintance of Assange's, sticking up for the "short run" value of WL as a corrective. I have a hard time finding anything to disagree with in this article:
I liked Foucault's Pendulum too, but didn't see it as anything more than an elaborate metaphor for kabbalism as intellectual cancer, although he was clearly having fun with the Holy Blood, Holy Grail stuff.
In contrast, Name of the Rose is brilliant on so many different levels, not the least being the way he pulls off the actual mystery. We can read it as a straight detective story, as a parable about faith versus reason, or on books-speaking-of-books (I remember him comparing the burning library to the burning bush as one point).
That said, have you read this essay of his on Casablanca? I've seen Passage to Marseille (the unofficial sequel to the film) and think this is one of the most fun things he has written. Not sure if it has been anthologized elsewhere:
The Name of the Rose is a remarkable book, so I'm with you there. But I smiled a little when I saw you mention Pynchon. Although I realise that appreciation of literature, like music, is a subjective thing, Pynchon could be the most overrated writer of the 20th century. Although it pains me to do so I can do no better than to quote Gore Vidal, someone certainly in a position to know: "Comparing Pynchon's prose with that of, say, Joyce, is like comparing a kindergartener with a graduate student."
I like puzzles. I like historical settings. I like the settings Pynchon chooses. I haven't really thought to building a coherent mental model of his prose style (unlike say DFW or Galeano or Eco, for whom I could do that rapidly).
What don't you like about him? I like criticisms of things I like.
Comments
Yeah, this sure sounds like an awesome argument to have.
I like him. I loved Rose and Foucault, tried and failed to get into Island, liked bits of Travels..., was bored to death by Kant..., and liked that little book where he was arguing with the Catholic Cardinal.
It is possible, you know, to be simultaneously a genius, a has-been, and a blowhard.
(My literary heroes? I admire David Foster Wallace, Vollman, and Pynchon. Who do you admire? Besides has-been blowhard Italian geniuses?)
What purpose do the ad hominems serve, except to illustrate your own arrogance? For very good reason, Eco has a large readership and following, and many people will be interested in his opinions on almost any subject. Why shouldn't he publicize his views if lots of people are interested?
I was just trying to be cute (well, in the one comment you replied to). I wasn't trying to be emphatic.
>"Why shouldn't he publicize his views if lots of people are interested?"
For the record, Eco has been writing for newspapers and magazines for many years. Travels in Hyper-Reality is a collection of such articles.
> It is possible, you know, to be simultaneously a genius, a has-been, and a blowhard.
There has yet to be someone writing about wikileaks that was not attacked by you in a very loud voice, ad homimen or otherwise, you keep complaining about the volume of words that is 'wasted' on the subject and yet a large part of those words are yours.
The irony of you calling Umberto Eco a genius and a blowhard at the same time does not escape me, especially not after damning him with 'faint praise'.
What's your favorite Eco book, Jacques? I listed mine at the top of the thread.
Foucaults pendulum
I like Foucault's Pendulum too. It's the first Eco book I read! My friend Mike Tracy, then a CBOE trader, turned me onto it when I was in high school; gave me the impression it would be a difficult read. Mike needs to read more Pynchon. I'll tell him tomorrow (I've hired him at 4 different companies, including this one).
Rose is still my favorite; it resonates with my career, for obvious reasons.
Have you read many of his essays? He can get stuffy and pompous. Maybe I just don't understand him.
I think you have a good idea what I think of Umberto Eco at this point. Now, you really think I'm "damning him with faint praise"? Of course I'm not. Could I have written The Name of The Rose, or even Cognitive Types and Nuclear Content? No.
But he wrote a shitty article. It makes banal and, in at least one case, stupid points. It reads as beneath him; less an attempt to cast a lense on the mass-leaking phenomenon and more a chance for him to holler "I'm here! This is my milieu! Include me in the conversation!" I've heard more trenchant analysis of Assange's effort from blog posts, hell, from Megan McArdle.
You are, as always, welcome to disagree with me. But as I am not (in this instance) casting aspersions on your arguments, the "ad hom" label seems lazy. Hominus Eci conpetendus est.
˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚
By the way: Jack Schafer did a fine job sticking up for Wikileaks. And I'm normally inclined to think of him as a curmudgeonly contrarian. There's one.
And, oh, look! Here's Clay Shirky, an acquaintance of Assange's, sticking up for the "short run" value of WL as a corrective. I have a hard time finding anything to disagree with in this article:
http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/12/wikileaks-and-the-long-...
Feel free to post that article to HN and collect the karma. I'd rather not add more fuel to the fire.
I liked Foucault's Pendulum too, but didn't see it as anything more than an elaborate metaphor for kabbalism as intellectual cancer, although he was clearly having fun with the Holy Blood, Holy Grail stuff.
In contrast, Name of the Rose is brilliant on so many different levels, not the least being the way he pulls off the actual mystery. We can read it as a straight detective story, as a parable about faith versus reason, or on books-speaking-of-books (I remember him comparing the burning library to the burning bush as one point).
That said, have you read this essay of his on Casablanca? I've seen Passage to Marseille (the unofficial sequel to the film) and think this is one of the most fun things he has written. Not sure if it has been anthologized elsewhere:
http://andrewswebsite.net/books/eco_casablanca.html
The Name of the Rose is a remarkable book, so I'm with you there. But I smiled a little when I saw you mention Pynchon. Although I realise that appreciation of literature, like music, is a subjective thing, Pynchon could be the most overrated writer of the 20th century. Although it pains me to do so I can do no better than to quote Gore Vidal, someone certainly in a position to know: "Comparing Pynchon's prose with that of, say, Joyce, is like comparing a kindergartener with a graduate student."
I like puzzles. I like historical settings. I like the settings Pynchon chooses. I haven't really thought to building a coherent mental model of his prose style (unlike say DFW or Galeano or Eco, for whom I could do that rapidly).
What don't you like about him? I like criticisms of things I like.
dunno what travels is ( I guess "Travels in Hyperreality"), but if you hadn't read baudolino, you should :)
I did and found it somewhat worse than Pendulum and Rose which were both excellent.
The essays in Travels in Hyper-Reality predate both novels.