I have that but haven't gotten around to reading it.
Not that I recall.
He mentionned it in Lector in Fabula (or at least in the same book this essay was from, in the edition I have), and IRRC in a late 90s essay I only know as Six Promenades dans les bois du roman, and again in his recent essay on translation, Eco elaborates on the idea that attempting to abridge Monte Cristo, cut down all its disgressions and redundancies would deprieve it of devices meant to slow things down, intrisically necessary to the very concept of revenge, following the saying that it's a dish best eaten cold.
He's mentionned Monte Cristo in several interviews over the years, though essentially he reprises the same core ideas from his original essay each time : "One of the most fascinating novels of all times/one of the most badly written novels of all literatures and times". He discussed it in one of his "three musketeers" conferences with Salman Rushdie and Vargas Llosa too - they debated his claim that it was a "bad novel" for a while.
At the time of Foucault's Pendulum, he had spoken of its influence (and in a more general way, Dumas's) on that novel, thought that's so long ago I don't remember what he said about that.
Once, he spoke of the likes of Dantès and D'Artagnan in comparison to Emma Bovary and Julien Sorel, but I don't remember in which of his books that was. Essentially, he was fascinated with the fact that you can take Dantès and D'Artagnan out of Dumas, that these characters were myth and had a life of their own outside the novels they come from, and can exist in other stories (and Monte Cristo and D'Artagnan have inspired many other novels), but that in comparison without Flaubert's words, Emma Bovary was just another boring provincial adultress and Sorel just another ridiculous fool never doing what he should do. That Monte Cristo and similar popular literature (which for him is a return to Homer or Sophocles) was fascinating for its power to generate a myth independent of the artistic quality of its vehicle, while works like Stendhal's Le Rouge et le Noir, or Madame Bovary, were "solely" works of art.
He speaks of Monte Cristo in 'The Art of Creating a Legend" piece e he wrote for the Guardian a few years back.
This message last edited by DomA on 11/01/2010 at 07:25:36 PM
The Count of Monte Cristo was a terrible choice for a book discussion.
- 09/01/2010 07:41:01 PM
1664 Views
Hey, now (copy/paste)
- 09/01/2010 07:48:56 PM
1218 Views
People should think about these things before recommending books.
- 09/01/2010 08:13:10 PM
1267 Views
Which is why I voted for Bulgakov's M & M.
- 09/01/2010 10:56:00 PM
1310 Views
I disagree slightly
- 09/01/2010 09:07:12 PM
1115 Views
Well, by that standard a Jackie Collins novel is worthy of debate.
- 10/01/2010 01:08:04 AM
1166 Views
- 10/01/2010 01:08:04 AM
1166 Views
Oh, I almost forgot
- 10/01/2010 01:11:50 AM
1152 Views
Ooh...I'd love to hear them!!! What did Eco say to trash Dumas? *NM*
- 10/01/2010 01:19:43 AM
456 Views
Here's the French translation from Eco's work on supermen
- 10/01/2010 01:39:28 AM
1237 Views
I love it. Strangely enough, though, he wrote an introduction to the book.
- 10/01/2010 01:54:24 AM
1101 Views
Not really strange as Eco has long been fascinated by this book
- 11/01/2010 05:01:56 PM
1109 Views
Did he mention it in his book on ugliness?
- 11/01/2010 05:12:55 PM
1011 Views
Re: Did he mention it in his book on ugliness?
- 11/01/2010 05:52:29 PM
1358 Views
Re: Here's the French translation from Eco's work on supermen
- 11/01/2010 03:49:15 PM
1237 Views
That's fascinating. Of course, I disagree with Eco's praise.
- 11/01/2010 05:12:25 PM
1023 Views
Re: That's fascinating. Of course, I disagree with Eco's praise.
- 11/01/2010 06:22:24 PM
1316 Views
I agree that abridging it would not work well.
- 12/01/2010 04:06:26 PM
1207 Views
I think there are plenty of things that can be discussed.
- 09/01/2010 10:00:06 PM
1370 Views
Discussed and put to rest in 5 minutes or less, perhaps.
- 10/01/2010 01:17:02 AM
1236 Views
Depends on who you are, one would imagine.
- 10/01/2010 08:16:11 AM
1263 Views
<pretentious>Well, why should we cater to the lowest common denominator?
- 11/01/2010 02:17:03 AM
1176 Views
I'd laugh...
- 11/01/2010 07:21:38 PM
960 Views
I don't get that. Well, of course I do from Tom, but let's put him aside for this discussion.
- 12/01/2010 03:35:21 AM
1287 Views
It's frustrating though...
- 12/01/2010 04:18:37 AM
1266 Views
I think if you posted that (or something like it) people would reply to it.
- 12/01/2010 05:08:53 AM
1244 Views
Perhaps.
- 12/01/2010 05:26:38 AM
973 Views
Given the people who have read the Kushiel books, I think you'd be pleasantly surprised.
- 12/01/2010 05:58:33 AM
1024 Views
You're not.
- 12/01/2010 02:16:09 PM
1073 Views
Her next series sounds interesting
- 12/01/2010 02:20:17 PM
949 Views
It does, but the reviews I've seen aren't too enthusiastic.
- 12/01/2010 02:29:26 PM
1010 Views
Yes, but how so?
- 12/01/2010 02:39:59 PM
1089 Views
Well...
- 13/01/2010 07:03:08 PM
1176 Views
Honestly...
- 13/01/2010 07:51:14 PM
1175 Views
Absolutely.
- 14/01/2010 12:55:00 PM
1313 Views
Re: Absolutely.
- 14/01/2010 01:57:47 PM
1096 Views
In short, not a good name for a daughter. At least not one with an interest in Classics.
- 15/01/2010 05:32:35 AM
1085 Views
I'm staying far, far away from Seneca.
- 15/01/2010 02:01:49 PM
1349 Views
Ah, yes. The Apocolocyntosis. Possibly the least amusing humor ever penned. I hate Seneca. *NM*
- 16/01/2010 02:14:32 AM
423 Views
I really don't think it would.
- 12/01/2010 07:49:32 AM
1151 Views
I have tried before.
- 12/01/2010 01:59:24 PM
1051 Views
If it is well-written and defends the value of the book, I don't see why you shouldn't post it.
- 12/01/2010 05:12:58 PM
1229 Views
I'm quite enjoying it.
- 09/01/2010 10:40:30 PM
1184 Views
A kid's book of adventure doesn't translate into a good book club discussion.
- 10/01/2010 01:21:11 AM
1055 Views
I have to agree
- 11/01/2010 12:36:55 AM
1183 Views
How did you find deeper meaning (pun intended) in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? *NM*
- 11/01/2010 02:17:55 AM
458 Views

True, true.