[leijggigf]

I've read it, a lot. I first read in in 2002, when I was seventeen, and haven't come across a more impressive novel since (even after reading all of Eco's other novels).

It's true that Umberto Eco isn't for the lazy readers, but I have never found his erudition too much. His books require a bit of attention from its readers, but are never too difficult or erudite. They're simply novels written by one of the greatest living intellects in the world, trying to teach us a valuable lesson through a great story.

Eco is a semiotician, a master of words and signs. People have said that his first novel, The Name of the Rose can be used to explain the principles of semiotics, and it's hard to argue. It's a great novel; intellectual, deep, rich in atmosphere but above all: a wonderfully written story. Most of his imitators fail in matching the greatness of the Rose because they just follow the general blueprint that Eco laid down in his first novel: historical setting, labyrinthine plot, erudite dialogues and a shitload of pretentions. The ultimate recipe for intellectual recognition, and in many cases, for a surprisingly dull, bloated novel. They fail because they fail to recognize Eco most underappreciated asset as a writer: he's not only an intellectual, semiotician, philosopher and scarily accurate historian; he's also a masterful storyteller. That's why The Name of the Rose is so great, and why so many other are so dull.

As good as that novel is, even The Rose falls short in comparison to Foucault's Pendulum, which is the single most impressive thing I've ever read. It has everything that made Eco's first novel so great blown up to the extreme; every single character is at least highly intelligent (with Lia being arguably the most impressively rational character ever written), the plot is constructed like a swiss watch, Belbo is Eco's most dramatically relevant character yet, and the ending is an eye opener that'll change the way you'll view, not only conspiracy theories, but reality in general.

Readers of Eco have generally been divided into two groups; the ones who love him and the ones who hate him. In my experience, the ones that hate him are almost always the ones who don't understand him. They flame him for trying too hard to be difficult. While I can see why readers who are used to reading books by Dan Brown can see some truth in this statement, anyone who's read Eco's nonfiction will appreciate how his novels are simple Eco relaxing and having a good time. One doesn't even need to go so far as to read his semiotic works (which ARE very daunting); just compare Foucault's Pendulum to Gravity's Rainbow or Finnegan's Wake, and the argument of Eco being unjustly difficult goes right out the window. Eco's novels are simply as difficult and as deep as they need to be to get his point across. Nothing more, nothing less.

Foucault's Pendulum has received the most of this kind of criticism, mostly because of the many, many conspiracy theories and passages in latin Eco throws at his reader. People get lost when they try to follow every single bit of information Eco gives them, when they should simply continue reading, and let the endless flow of information and conspiracies overwhelm them. The overall reading experience will be so much the better for it, and the ending will hit a lot harder when one tries to stay 'in the flow' of reading.