William of Baskerville Vs Sherlock Holmes

When we study the book in the context of postmodernist theories of history and fiction, we find that Eco prioritizes certain concerns. to the bone of content between the Roman church and emperor. The name of the monastery, factions, and dates resemble to the historical facts, but they have been presented to us in the fiction format. This blending of history and fiction create suspicion in the mind of reader whether he should consider it as real or human constructed because history is taken as the depiction of past events corroborating to verifiable facts that have been passed on to us from our ancestors. History does not confine to the representation of past but it also helps to associate with myths. Myths create our knowledge of culture, beliefs, certitudes, and faith. However, the advent of postmodern theories put the certitude of history in the domain of suspicion since it incorporates into fiction. Fiction grounds on imagination that helps in the construction of plots, subplots, characters, situations and other essential elements that collectively formulate a narrative picture. Fiction infiltrates into the territory of facts with the presentation of verified data in the form of names, factions, dates, and incidents. This crossing of the boundary blurs the demarcation of history and fiction as the reader finds himself incapable to treat the content fact or imaginatively constructed. Linda Hutcheon argues that postmodernist writing is best represented by those works of historiographic metafiction which self consciously distort history. This distortion of history could be accomplished through various means such as blending of “history and fantasy.”  Postmodern historical novels incorporate historical documents, events and historical personages into the fictional worlds of their works, drawing attention at the same time to this process. Linda Hutcheon in her Poetics of Postmodernism labels postmodern historical novels as “historiographic metafictions” since they thematize the theory of contemporary historiography and problematize the distinction between history and fiction. She explains her reason for such a label thus: “[historiographic metafiction] puts into question, at the same time as it exploits, the grounding of historical knowledge in the real past. This is why I have been calling this historiographic metafiction.” [1]

We also find that it resembles to the model of Sherlock Holmes stories wherein Holmes and his assistant Dr. Watson penetrate the root of the crime. Here William takes the role of Holmes and Adso assists him in his endeavor to search for the cause of the deaths. This qualifies the text for a significant postmodern element categorized as ‘Intertextuality.’

---

[1] Linda Hutcheon, The Poetics of Postmodernism. London: Routledge. 1989 p. 92.

                              Umberto Eco: Rethinking History and Fiction

 Umberto Eco to many of us is a known name who gives a new dimension to Postmodern fiction through The Name of the Rose that has received huge appreciation across the world. For me, Umberto Eco was an unidentified personality overshadow by Dan Brown who astonished the popular fiction readers with The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. Being deeply impressed by Brown’s writing, I had made up my mind that I would critically study his work. The kind of complex curiosity Brown created through the Preface of TheDa Vinci Code by claiming that some organizations and secret bodies exist even now.

 Umberto Eco seemingly is one of the first torch bearers that sparked the discourse on the relationship between history and fiction. Eco informs in the Preface of The Name of the Rose that the roots of the story exist in a manuscript about a real incident occurred in the fourteenth century. The incident was a result of much debated issue then – “Whether the Church should give away its wealth?” The Franciscans debated on the Poverty of Christ and definition of heretics whereas the Dominicans opposed them vehemently. Umberto Eco has not articulated these issues rather tried to represent them through his works. I was of course guided by my own current interests but the starting point of these reflections on history and fiction to excavate deeply was usually a feeling of impatience. Precisely, I was greatly resented that the two distinctive disciplines infiltrate into each other territories without cognizance to the damage cause to the prestige. Right from the beginning, I was engaged to find the common ground between history and fiction and confident that the two only produce knowledge or provide information. Language provides the apparatus on which the scaffolding of knowledge erected. The book is a philosophical interpretation of Eco’s fiction and does not bound the reader with its assertions.

Umberto Eco

                                                              Content

I)                        Chapter 1– History and Fiction

II)                     Chapter 2 – The Name of the Rose: A Study of History and Fiction

III)            Chapter 3 – The Name of the Rose: Knowledge, Detection, Threats, Institutionalization and Interpretation

IV)           Chapter 4 - Foucault’s Pendulum: The Creation of Multiple Histories

V)                   Chapter 5 - “Towards of New Middle Ages”: Resurrection of Past in Present

VI)           Conclusion – Eco’ Fictional History and Sensational Fiction

Bibliography  

for more information visit -

http://www.abebooks.com/Umberto-Eco-Rethinking-History-Fiction-Chetan/15482167674/bd

---

[1] Linda Hutcheon, The Poetics of Postmodernism. London: Routledge. 1989 p. 92.

Umberto Eco: Rethinking History and Fiction

ABSTRACT

History give an access to unknown past through narrative structure scaffolding on facts and manuscripts drawn from achieves. These manuscripts and detailed accounts corroborate with ruined archeological sites with inscriptions and arts. Thus, history represents rational and objective truth that answers to all the queries of people about the past.  What happens when a fiction writer chooses stories and characters from history? If a fictional story is based on a historical incident and characters, what is the difference between fiction and history? Does the reader not find himself cheated? What stand does the reader take with respect to fiction and history? These questions inform about the substitutive nature of history and fiction that have infiltrated into each other territories. Does it really obliterate the difference?   The questions become easier to answer if we define history and fiction in their respective territories. In fact, neither history is fictitious nor fiction is history; they do not pose a challenge to each other only inform about narrative structure and their representation through language.

 The debate on the substitutive nature of history and fiction becomes important when I read Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose, which is drawn from a manuscript, narrating a story of monastery from the fourteenth century. The manuscript is based on a real incident and Eco employs its content to write the book incorporating real characters and organizations. He sheds light on the problems people faced owing to their religious positions, and how science proved detrimental to religion.  The book exhibits the significance of rational thinking and theory of deduction (primarily used by Sherlock Holmes) to access knowledge. The study has discovered that history is a source of knowledge about the past which uses scientific methods as a detective employs to solve a mystery.  The study also takes into account the theories of history and fiction with a specific reference to borrowing of content and characters from other sources without acknowledgment. Foucault’s Pendulum is a story of three editors who develop a PLAN from second rate manuscripts on historical incidents. A secret organization considers the fictitious PLAN to be real and kills the three editors. They borrow their content on the Templars and other secret organizations from the manuscripts. The study shows that history emerges through multiple texts. Each text has its own significance and essence; each text oozes from the other. The production of text questions the authenticity from which it has evolved. In Foucault’s Pendulum, Eco sets a conversation between past and present then move to the borrowing from the past and its articulation in new framework.

 Lastly, the study tries to find answers to important questions – how history resurrects in the present? How past is always present?  What are the mediums of past re-emergence in the present?  These questions are significant in view of the fact that history is written in the present. It lacks the pastness of past rather a present of the past. We get the answers to all these questions in Umberto Eco’s essay – “Towards a New Middle Ages” that explains the past never dies; it revisits the present though in different form. 

                                                 ABOUT THE BOOK

Umberto Eco to many of us is a known name who gives a new dimension to Postmodern fiction through The Name of the Rose that has received huge appreciation across the world. For me, Umberto Eco was an unidentified personality overshadow by Dan Brown who astonished the popular fiction readers with The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. Being deeply impressed by Brown’s writing, I had made up my mind that I would critically study his work. The kind of complex curiosity Brown created through the Preface of The Da Vinci Code by claiming that some organizations and secret bodies exist even now.

Umberto Eco seemingly is one of the first torch bearers that sparked the discourse on the relationship between history and fiction. Eco informs in the Preface of The Name of the Rose that the roots of the story exist in a manuscript about a real incident occurred in the fourteenth century. The incident was a result of much debated issue then – “Whether the Church should give away its wealth?” The Franciscans debated on the Poverty of Christ and definition of heretics whereas the Dominicans opposed them vehemently. Umberto Eco has not articulated these issues rather tried to represent them through his works. I was of course guided by my own current interests but the starting point of these reflections on history and fiction to excavate deeply was usually a feeling of impatience. Precisely,

 I was greatly resented that the two distinctive disciplines infiltrate into each other territories without cognizance to the damage cause to the prestige. Right from the beginning, I was engaged to find the common ground between history and fiction and confident that the two only produce knowledge or provide information. Language provides the apparatus on which the scaffolding of knowledge erected. The book is a philosophical interpretation of Eco’s fiction and does not bound the reader with its assertions.

 

Contents

 I)                        Chapter 1– History and Fiction

 II)                     Chapter 2 – The Name of the Rose: A Study of History and Fiction

 III)            Chapter 3 – The Name of the Rose: Knowledge, Detection, Threats, Institutionalization and Interpretation

 IV)           Chapter 4 - Foucault’s Pendulum: The Creation of Multiple Histories

 V)                   Chapter 5 - “Towards of New Middle Ages”: Resurrection of Past in Present

 VI)           Conclusion – Eco’ Fictional History and Sensational Fiction

 Bibliography

                                                 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

 The author works in the capacity of an Assistant Professor (Adhoc) at Bharati College University of Delhi, India. His research interest areas are – Postmodernism, History and Fiction, Cultural Studies, and Crime and Detection.

 For More Information – visit

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?ltrec=t&isbn=9788188132539&bi=