Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: CS!!! (slightly off-topic)

Expand Messages
  • still_in_the_funhouse
    ... Oh yes. And I found FP s ending enormously irritating, the more so since I rather expected it to be enormously irritating. After several hundred pages of a
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > but in my humble opinion hardly on par with Pynchon's Rainbow
      > as has been suggested here & there.

      Oh yes. And I found FP's ending enormously irritating, the more so since I rather expected it to be enormously irritating. After several hundred pages of a well written story that endlessly and entertainingly plays with shifting "signs" and deferred "meanings," the "sustained sound" in the last chapter suddenly gives us Eco's semiotic "truth" as a final reference in a nutshell. As expected. And as vastly different to Pynchon's GR as anything.

      I love to read Eco's fiction, but I beg to differ on his theories... especially when the theory as inconsistently as in FP decapitates an otherwise great story.

      Anyways--to quote Jonathan Culler:
      ("In Defense of Overinterpretation"; in: Umberto Eco, _Interpretation and Overinterpretation_, with Richard Rorty, Jonathan Culler and Christine Brooke-Rose, ed. Stefan Collini, Cambridge University Press 1992, pp. 110-111)
      >>
      Let me add here that, whatever Umberto Eco may say, what he does in these three lectures, as well as what he has written in his novels and his works of semiotic theory, convinces me that deep down, in his hermetical soul which draws him to those whom he calls the "followers of the veil," he too believes that overinterpretation is more interesting and intellectually valuable than "sound," moderate interpretation. No one who was not deeply attracted to "overinterpretation" could create the characters and the interpretive obsessions that animate his novels. He spends no time in the lectures collected here telling us what a sound, proper, moderate interpretation of Dante would say but a good deal of time reviving, breathing life into an outrageous nineteenth-century Rosicrucian interpretation of Dante--an interpretation which, as he said, had had no impact on literary criticism and had been completely ignored until Eco uncovered it and set his students to work on this interesting semiotic practice.
      <<
      Right--and that's why I love to read Eco, trumpets of truth notwithstanding! But definitely no match to Pynchon.

      Everything IMHO, of course...
      j^.^m
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.