This "adapted" version is terrible. Save yourself! ( )

Eco presupposes whatever information available to a person at any point in time is open to multiple valid interpretations. This is true both of a small number of facts and an archive of complex detail. Certain characters evidently do not see the world quite the same way, leaving themselves vulnerable to all manner of conspiracy theory, and the consequences of treating such conspiracies as true. Perhaps more interesting, even characters who begin from Eco's cautionary position eventually prove vulnerable despite -- or because of -- their intent to manipulate their gullible peers.

Eco's byzantine plot explores conspiracy theories historically and psychologically through various machinations, diversions, and escalating fear of and among characters. Connections and confusion proliferate as more historical events are considered, by characters and reader. Eco further implicates the reader in employing various literary devices and historical allusions within his descriptions of character and plot. (LTer Grunin provides a succinct and vivid example, but instances are legion: "This book deliberately messes with your head.") The character of Gudrun seems to offer an alternative to the unfounded conspiracy and paranoia on display: along with hermeneutic intent, a person does well in bringing a certain psychological outlook to bear.

This re-reading was prompted both by fond (admittedly vague) memories of a solid historical summary of the Knights Templar, and curiosity as to whether Eco's theme would shed light on our prevailing culture of disinformation and antifoundationalism. I also held out hope Eco may have treated of esoteric traditions beyond the Templar, as well, which I had simply forgotten since my first reading: perhaps Freemasonry, Ordo Templi Orientis, Golden Dawn, Thelema? Foucault's Pendulum did not disappoint. ( )

Nobody appreciates a good literary hazing the way Umberto Ecco does. ( )

Bonkers. Great. ( )