>>24572907 (OP)I didn't think this was very good, definitely not a recommended read. Having already read Name of the Rose, which is better, I decided I'm done with Eco‘s fiction after this
>>24573113People who say this appear to think having heard of the Risorgimento or Rosicrucianism requires some impossible command of esoteric knowledge. I think the book is more entertaining if you don't know going in and it introduces those things to you, so you look them up and do research while reading. That drive for knowledge outside of the novel is what Eco aims to inspire in the reader I think
At any rate if you go in expecting an interesting conspiracy to unravel you definitely will not get that. The personal relationships and more mundane aspects of the novel are uninteresting, embarassing, lame. Boomerslop