Scan barcode
A review by steveatwaywords
On Literature by Umberto Eco
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.75
First, I admit that the topics of this work--Eco's brand of literary criticism--is a great interest of mine. If it is not of yours, your mileage will differ!
However, as a worthy collection of essays and talks from his career into various topics (from the origins of unusual figures of speech to close analyses of uncommon texts, and from astute observations upon the value of the act of reading to his own anecdotes on his process of writing), I could have asked for little more (except for, as ever, more still!). His own style through the readings is openly modest though clearly sarcastic and even political in several asides, and--more importantly--structured as a process of inquiry. As his own professor said to him during his graduate studies, Eco proceeds from a hypothesis to a problem, then documents his research and revisions along the way, reserving any conclusions to the very end. In other words, Eco's form of scholarship is itself "narrative," which I wish he had said more about.
It may also be important to note that several of his essays here (on Marx, Dante, Nerval, and others) will require some familiarity with these works to appreciate at all. I read Nerval's "Sylvie" before his essay on the work, and discovered a delightful and amazing story, made so much more powerful by his erudition.
Mostly, though, for those who may have encountered more opaque writers in lit crit, Eco is refreshingly lucid and approachable. Yes, his references are many, his vocabulary extensive, but his discussion welcoming. So many know his <i>The Name of the Rose,</i> and perhaps some of his other novels, but this book makes me wish to return to his other more formal essay collections on semiotics and culture criticism.
Finally, it's worth noting that Eco's area of study (a mid-20th-century Italian) is filled almost exclusively with European males (with the occasional American). This is a worthy point on the career and breadth of his scholarship. This is unfortunate, but what he does offer through his structuralist lens is a particular depth to writers he does examine, and a method for thinking any of us might emulate as we expand the field.
However, as a worthy collection of essays and talks from his career into various topics (from the origins of unusual figures of speech to close analyses of uncommon texts, and from astute observations upon the value of the act of reading to his own anecdotes on his process of writing), I could have asked for little more (except for, as ever, more still!). His own style through the readings is openly modest though clearly sarcastic and even political in several asides, and--more importantly--structured as a process of inquiry. As his own professor said to him during his graduate studies, Eco proceeds from a hypothesis to a problem, then documents his research and revisions along the way, reserving any conclusions to the very end. In other words, Eco's form of scholarship is itself "narrative," which I wish he had said more about.
It may also be important to note that several of his essays here (on Marx, Dante, Nerval, and others) will require some familiarity with these works to appreciate at all. I read Nerval's "Sylvie" before his essay on the work, and discovered a delightful and amazing story, made so much more powerful by his erudition.
Mostly, though, for those who may have encountered more opaque writers in lit crit, Eco is refreshingly lucid and approachable. Yes, his references are many, his vocabulary extensive, but his discussion welcoming. So many know his <i>The Name of the Rose,</i> and perhaps some of his other novels, but this book makes me wish to return to his other more formal essay collections on semiotics and culture criticism.
Finally, it's worth noting that Eco's area of study (a mid-20th-century Italian) is filled almost exclusively with European males (with the occasional American). This is a worthy point on the career and breadth of his scholarship. This is unfortunate, but what he does offer through his structuralist lens is a particular depth to writers he does examine, and a method for thinking any of us might emulate as we expand the field.