Is there any annotated version of pic related? It's really

You figuratively have google and a notebook, something people in the 80s did not. Get to work like our better members did. There are notes in Italian, but I'm guessing...

>>8434446
Ok. I'm on it. It's my oeuvre

Frack, I made detailed notes for this, Name of the Rose, and Baudolino a while back when I was in university. They were unfortunately damaged beyond salvaging, after they were left on and it rained on my parents' front porch.

If not for that, I would have gladly scanned and uploaded them by now in a pdf. For lack of a professionally published companion, I covered vocabulary, scene summaries, foreign language passages, themes, and some historical, et al, context when Eco was being distant about a topic. It wasn't completely systematic (pages long hallucinations I merely noted the chapter/page number), but I pared exceedingly little of what would be considered excruciatingly dense detail.

If I reread them, I'll be sure to revamp the notes digitally and post them here (and then get annoyed when it gets reposted on Reddit without proper credit).

>>8434593
The loss seems great,sorry for that. I'd like to see anything you write on Eco

>>8434429
Really? Post something you've struggled with

>>8434593
don't do this, it would mainly bolster the pseud potential of /lit/

>>8434815
To each memorable image you attach a thought, a label, a category, a piece of the cosmic furniture, syllogisms, an enormous sorties, chains of apothem so, strings of hypallages, rosters of zeugmas, dances of hysteria porter on, apophantic logoi, hierarchical stoic he's, processions of equinoxes and parallaxes,herbaria, genealogies of gymnosophists--and so on, to infinity.

This required a dictionary.

>>8434896
Fair point. Similar reason why Goethe is hard pressed to be talked about seriously here.

>>8434960
Do not trust Eco entirely, the man is a spider weaving a web. The first sections of the book are intentionally difficult, meant to weed out readers he insecurely doesn't consider worthy to share his studies with.

Among other terms, the novel includes the word prehensile, which is a common enough word, but in distinct converging contexts, refers to a mind being able to grasp an object, as well as to a prehensile limb that can not only grab its target, but also maneuver around things blocking its path. We can learn from both meanings. If you feel like you're going to burn out, focus on what's clear in the narrative, since it's your first read. Nothing wrong with sweeping away crazy ass words that don't make much sense.

I did go full autism with notes and such, but with the benefit of hindsight, much of the book's lexemes can be regarded as pedantic fragments, without a core to relate to, and don't require your critical attention for now. In fact, I did not learn a single thing about Kabbalah on my initial read, only scribbling down that subject's terms in my note's margins to expand with definitions later. And if it helps, I used a slightly modified Cornell system.

>actually wanting to descend in madness by Belbo's same path
You fools, this novel should have been a warning, not a bait

Read the main Greeks, the Bible, Plotinus, the Hermetica, the main Kabbalah texts, the main alchemical texts, Aleister Crowley, the Picatrix and the Key of Solomon.