Talk:Foucault's Pendulum

message: Where is the evidence that it is a polemic against Michel Foucault????  Since both deal in the creation of meaning through discourses of power, aren't their works complementary?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.12.38 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   Michel Foucault 

message: A great deal of the first half of the book is devoted to the politics of the era.  I think that there are meant to be parallels between political ideologies and occultist believers.  There sould be some discussion of this, but obviously not original research.  Anyone know of material to include?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.247.147.125 (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics

message: I'm only about halfway through this book, but I think it makes it pretty clear that Belbo's publisher is not a vanity press. When Belbo talks to Colonel Ardenti, Ardenti offers to pay for the publishing himself so there would be no risk. I believe Belbo mentions that he could recommend a publisher that does that kind of work, implying that Garamond Publishing is not a vanity press.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.103.35 (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're only half way through the book.  There are, in fact, two publishers, both run by Garamond.  This first is not strictly a vanity press; the second, is wholly a vanity press.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.247.147.125 (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Vanity Publisher?

message: It seems incomplete, and was probably rushed through? Definitely needs a more thorough treatment. Maybe a character sketch? Prateek 10:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major themes needs revisal

message: Wasn't the name of the Kabalist Diotallevi? Levi resembles Hebrew, but it can also be read as Dio t'allevi, "God help you", an artificial surname for abandoned children.
*You are most likely right - it is the kind of mistake I'd make while reading it. The Land 11:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Diotallevi

message: "Candomblé" and "Umbanda" came from Africa. So I believe it would be better to change "Caribbean" and place "African" instead.  Both have nothing to do with "Voodoo", for instance, though the three came from the same source, Africa. Thanks.
Also, the instances in the book are in Brazil which is not Caribbean. Wouldn't a better word be afro-american syncretism?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.103.35 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Caribbean spiritualism" 

message: I added a Link to "The Illuminatus! Trilogy" in the "See Also"-section, but I feel the article desperately needs more reference. I am not competent enough to do it myself, since I havent read Foucault's Pendulum (yet), but to give you an idea: much said about Foucault's Pendulum in the article is also valid for Illuminatus! ("obscure esoteric facts",  "Kabbalah", "conspiracy theory", "divided into ten segments represented by the ten Sefiroth", "plan which stretches throughout history which combines elements from conspiracy theories", "an entirely new conspiracy theory", "Rosicrucians", "Freemasons", "Bavarian Illuminati", "Assassins", ...)
I don't know exactly when Illuminatus! was written, but the current edition was first published in 1975, so Eco could well have been influenced by it. (And since the Article mentions him: So could have Dan Brown...)
--BjKa 11:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Illuminatus! Trilogy"  was written between 1969 and 1971, and published in 1975. foucaults pendulum was published over a decade later (eco claimed he never read illuminatus - yeah right). da vinci code was published 25+ years later (and brown had read illuminatus). Zzzzz 22:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's probably telling the truth. Remember, Eco's Italian, and probably doesn't have time to read "trashy" American novels. --maru  (talk) contribs 04:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No way, that's totally not like Eco, he wouldn't dismiss popular literature on the basis of being popular literature - he would at least have studied it as a phenomenon (he did, off the top of my head, for '50s hero comics and contemporary TV advertising). Except that there has been no such phenomenon: the "Illuminatus!" trilogy, as far as I can tell, is completely unknown in Italy outside of the role-playing scene --KJK::Hyperion 21:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If it is unknown in Italy, why would you make that assumption? --maru   (talk)  contribs 23:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Illuminatus Trilogy is seminal.  It influenced the 3 famous books that came after it. I don't understand how people can call it trash.  Maybe they didn't read it? 201.29.233.27 16:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illuminatus! 

message: I have no doubt that Foucault's Pendulum has been called "A thinking person's Da Vinci Code," as the article states. Certainly, both books use a great deal of historical fact to construct intricate conspiracy theories. However, perhaps we should underline an important point of difference between the two books. While Dan Brown apparently takes the product of his research and whimsy at face value -- presumably, it's convincing enough to base a thriller on -- throughout Foucault's Pendulum, Eco holds up similar stories (including the one produced by his characters) to mockery. After all, Eco makes it clear that the main characters in Foucault's Pendulum are cynically lumping together every bit of conspiracy-history that they can lay their hands on, and the "diabolicals" are fools (albeit dangerous fools) for believing them. The Da Vinci Code is the sort of story that they might have produced (regardless of Brown's cynicism or lack thereof re. his material). Any thoughts on how to illustrate this difference in tone between the two authors? Docether 20:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, anonymous user 203.215.122.45. Your succinct addition to the first section resolves this nicely. Docether 20:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ironically, the very phrase used to relate Eco's book to Brown's logically implies that the latter is for persons who do not think." Priceless, but isn't it POV? ;-) 202.163.242.151 21:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No more POV than the original quote- it is a logical consequence of the phrasing, after all. --maru   (talk)  contribs 22:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with maru. Too bad we can't source the quote to a specific person or review (most mentions of this phrase use the same "has been called..." construction without attribution). But it's not as if the article is endorsing this quote per se, just providing some context for it. Docether 15:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I did search around, but all I found was "that some have called". I've still included it as a source, because although we're quoting from someone who is quoting from someone else, a citation basically shows that it isn't something that we thought up ourselves. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 02:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have called it that. I also said it was "like The Da Vinci Code only actually worth reading." You can quote me. ;-) cmadler (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A thinking person's Da Vinci Code"? 

message: Should we elaborate on Lorenza and other elements of the book? The page for "The Foucault's Pendulum for non-thinkers" (heh heh) is longer, mind. 202.163.242.198 18:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare this to The Illuminatus! Trilogy. Expansion on everything is good. :-) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Lorenza should be developed upon. In general, I think there is room for more talk of Belbo's literature, the phenomenon of "Sophia", Aglie/Amparo/Casaubon/Diotallevi . I don't have my copy of the book with me, or would have started on it.  Prateek 10:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd put it more strongly: the reference to 'Lorenza' (whatever or whomever that might be) makes no sense at all without a few words of explanation. --Air (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lorenza? 

message: but article text says first published in 1988. someone is wrong. Zzzzz 22:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my fault, sorry. I typed it incorrectly, it should've been 1989, not 1970. Thanks for pointing it out! Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pic says picador 1970 edition 

message: Who is Seven Seas Jim? He's mentioned what seems to be dozens of times in Belbo's fiction, but I cannot find him on Wikipedia or online (just mentions of Sinbad, which can't be right), or in the esoteric concepts list. --maru   (talk)  contribs 06:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No existence outside of Eco's novel, as far as I can tell. Rpresser 14:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Joseph Conrad's sailor, Lord Jim?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.181.58 (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seven Seas Jim? 

message: "the reader who knows French will hopefully understand the irony)"
Okay, but can you share the joke with the rest of the class, please? 128.122.253.229 05:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a place for in-jokes

message: Foucault's pendulum is a wonderful novel and any comparison to Da-Vinci Code is an insult to the genius of Eco. One has to agree that both are mystery novels, and pertain to certain obscure secrets of Grail,Christianity,Templar Knights etc but the writing styles and composition of the Novels clearly spell out the differences.
While Eco is exotic,esoteric and runs deep; Brown is more the typical deja-vu plot "Langdon is a Superman !", and quiet clearly Brown is shallow and hence "more commerical and less exotic". Both the authors target different sets of readers and Langdon wins more hearts than Casaubon.
Arkapravo Bhaumik 12:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right.  Foucault's Pendulum has no factual errors.  Brown's is full of them only to make his shitty plot less absurd and idiot. 201.29.233.27 16:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't Wikipedia have a no personal attacks policy?  Though I do agree that Foucault's Pendulum is spectacu-lar.  76.90.135.239 16:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Haha, but these are on the "comments" page, which is unconstrained by wikipedian policies.  Plus, these are attacks on the book, not the man :) 67.163.165.236 (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Arkapravo is totally right and not only for his POV opinions I gladly share, but also because of that NPOV question of literature genre. Eco is readable on rather much more interpretive levels than Brown. Eco's novel is not only a plot and some character and mystery. It is also a retrospective on how literature is created, how people think and what post-modernism is. I mean: his work is academic even if it is a novel. It shouldn't be compared just because it deals with an utterly different levels of sense.--MarcelloPapirio (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

text:  Wrong, friend-o.  There are freakshow editors who will gut you like a trout if you step on their particular obsessions.  Check out the Chad Dukes page, its Discussion page, and the History tab of the discussion page.  NeutralHomer is the name to look for.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.32.120 (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Eco should not be compared to Brown

message: There was a link to a List of Esoteric Subjects in Foucault's Pendulum.  Its not here anymore and i think the page has been deleted.  How do i find the deletion discussion if the page is already gone?  Furthermore, can I find the original page, even if its dead?  Someone please help me out here, cause I didn't back up any of that research. - ShadowyCabal 05:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of esoteric subjects in Foucault's Pendulum.  You can click on List of esoteric subjects in Foucault's Pendulum which will display the name of the administrator (Coredesat) who deleted the article.  Contact Coredesat on his talk page, and leave him a polite message asking for a backup copy of the article; I'm sure he will help you out.  For further information, see Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?.  —Viriditas | Talk 12:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Esoteric Subjects

message: "One unusual quote [...] describes the physics of a hanging victim as an approximation of a pendulum."
I don't have the book here, but I distinctly remember it was about the physics of motion of two material bodies (the pendulum and the man) suspended by independent ropes united a bit further up which is much more interesting than a single pendulum, as it might approach a chaotic system (another reference by Eco). Not really an important thing. Xyzt1234 21:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately, I do have it in front of me (pg 599 of my edition); I don't entirely understand it, but the first half seems to cover a hanging man as a pendulum with a single weight, and then it considers "a double pendulum, one with two weights attached to the same wire. . . .". --Gwern  (contribs) 20:04 1 September 2007 (GMT)
Initially, the pendulum itself is a very orderly system. With the addition of a Man, it becomes what seems a quite disordered system. (of course, we know that the seemingly chaotic motion is capable of being analyzed and understood). 
You don't think that is in anyway relevant to the text?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.95.2 (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single pendulum 

message: I've added a short paragraph on comparison's to Eco's own experiences and writings - the more of his writing I read, the more I notice, so this could certainly be expanded on. Or, if it's deemed not relevant, also fine!sb (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs to Eco's own writings/life

message: i am writing here, but dont know if editing is allowed here, because i dont make contibutions to wikipedia:
Belbo, one of the characters in the book is also name of a river in piemonte which frequently appears in the novels of cesare pavese, also a writer from piemonte like eco. The river appears primarly in the novels dealing with the partizan wars during the end of ww2 in northern italy . These partizan wars also play a role in Foucaults pendulum.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.105.185 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Another comment

message: Usually when there are books released by prominent authors, there is a section of the article that touches on the critical reception of the text. How were the reviews? Is it a highly regarded work? Was it a bestseller? Anyone have any sources for this information? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical reception? 

message: Is there any evidence of a connection between Jacopo Belbo and artist Jack Bilbo? Bilbo was, of course, not Piedmontese, but the names seem too similar to be coincidental. (Or maybe they are and there's no connection, and that's the point.) 192.91.171.36 (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belbo connection? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Foucault's Pendulum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229105632/http://sciwrite.org/glj/Illuminati.pdf to http://sciwrite.org/glj/Illuminati.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040718074854/http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_works_fiction.html to http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_works_fiction.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The last sentence in the second paragraph is ambiguous: 
"Some believe that it refers to Michel Foucault, noting Eco's friendship with the French philosopher, but the author "specifically rejects any intentional reference to Michel Foucault"—this is regarded as one of his subtle literary jokes." 
It is unclear whether the joke referred to here is A.) the book's reference to Foucault, or B.) Eco's denial. rowley (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is: both. The entire book is overloaded with references to Michel Foucault. The plot itself is Foucauldian. However, the title plays with the misunderstanding: pendulum by Léon Foucault, but the book could be as well about Michel Foucault's theories. Anyone who studied Foucault can tell it: it is not even original research---plain common sense. So here's your first joke: Léon Foucault or Michel Foucault? The book talks about the former but it is, in fact, a commentary to the latter. Now to the second joke: Eco's flat-out denial. This is typical of him: "I didn't do anything". So I guess the book ends with the date of death of Michel Foucault just "by sheer chance". But that's original research, so you cannot put it in Wikipedia: Eco knows very well correlation does not necessarily imply cause.MarcelloPapirio (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous sentence in second paragraph