A demonstration of dark arts. Ellipses are mine, to remove unnecessary amplification.
The laundry list, for us, had been a crossword puzzle with the squares empty and no definitions. The squares had to be filled in such a way that everything would fit. But perhaps that metaphor isn’t precise. In a crossword puzzle the words, intersecting, have to have letters in common. In our game we crossed not words but concepts, events, so the rules were different. Basically there were three rules.
Rule One: Concepts are connected by analogy. …
Rule Two says that if tout se tient [“everything hangs together”] in the end, the connecting works. …
Rule Three: The connections must not be original. They must have been made before, and the more often the better, by others. Only then do the crossings seem true, because they are obvious.
This, after all, was Signor Garamond’s idea. The books of the Diabolicals must not innovate; they must repeat what has already been said. Otherwise what becomes of the authority of Tradition?
And this is what we did. We didn’t invent anything; we only arranged the pieces. Colonel Ardenti hadn’t invented anything either, but his arrangement of the pieces was clumsy. Furthermore, he was much less educated than we, so he had fewer pieces.
They had all the pieces, but They didn’t know the design of the crossword. We—once again—were smarter.
I remembered something Lia said to me in the mountains, when she was scolding me for having played the nasty game that was our Plan: “People are starved for plans. If you offer them one, they fall on it like a pack of wolves. You invent, and they’ll believe. It’s wrong to add to the inventings that already exist.”
A demonstration of dark arts. Ellipses are mine, to remove unnecessary amplification.
Umberto Eco, Foucault’s Pendulum.
See also “The Danger of Stories” and “Tyler Cowen on Stories”. Of course, the quote itself is excerpted from an explicitly fictional story.
Is all of Foucault’s Pendulum like this? I’ve read a summary before, but this is much better than the writing I would have expected from it.
The quoted section is fairly representative. Foucault’s Pendulum is quite a good novel, IMO, and worth reading.
Seconded.
No. That’s one of the few parts with content. It’s not worth the hundreds of pages of tedium that come before.