UmbertoEco is well known for his postmodern novels and literary theories, deeply delved
into the poststructuralist debate of representing an a multiple meanings. Post
structuralism hits the very base on which human certainties affix themselves;
it calls for reconsideration of what previously taken as real on part of it
resemblance to what happened in the past as it depends on evidences in the form
of material and historical accounts. Poststructuralists elude the distinction
between history and fiction and put the historical details in the realm of
fiction. Fiction and history are human construction with the help of signs. It
elucidates that signs do not end at one point or do not have a particular
ontological or epistemological meaning. They require signs to express their
inference and therefore do not give fixity to the meaning. The usage of signs
in the history makes the history as fluid and slippery as fiction owing to uncertain
meanings of signs.
The
linkage between history and fiction in Umberto Eco’s writing emerges from the
author’s intended description to inform the reader that the story is inspired
from a lost fourteenth century manuscript. The lost manuscript leaves the
reader in predicament to assume that is the true depiction of what already
scripted in the lost manuscript or the construction of human imagination
embedding both history and fiction together to give a perfect account of the human
hardships, conditions and other issues linked to medieval period. Since the
manuscript Eco discusses is lost, the ascertaining of true meaning of his text
and its authenticity about the history raises questions on it. Irrespective of
persistent references and claims of the true nature of lost manuscript, the
reader exhibits his suspicion on its meaning.
Introduction
For More
Information – visit

No comments:
Post a Comment