Content Feed

Ten years ago today, the world lost a man who could explain why your uncle shares QAnon memes at Thanksgiving dinner — and do it in seven languages while quoting Thomas Aquinas. Umberto Eco died on February 19, 2016, and we've been slowly proving him right about everything ever since. The Italian semiotician, medieval scholar, and novelist didn't just write books — he built intellectual booby traps that keep detonating decades later.

Let's start with the obvious. "The Name of the Rose" (1980) is a murder mystery set in a 14th-century Benedictine monastery. Sounds like a tough sell, right? A book where monks argue about whether Jesus owned his sandals, packed with untranslated Latin passages and debates about Aristotelian poetics. It sold over 50 million copies worldwide. Fifty. Million. In an era when publishers said literary fiction was dying, Eco proved that people were starving for intelligence — they just needed it wrapped in a good whodunit. The Aristotelian text at the heart of the novel — the lost second book of Aristotle's Poetics, on comedy — is a MacGuffin so perfect that it makes every thriller writer since look lazy. Knowledge itself as the thing worth killing for. Not gold, not power, not revenge. A book about laughter.

But here's where it gets genuinely eerie. Pick up "Foucault's Pendulum" (1988) and try not to feel your skin crawl. The novel follows three bored editors at a Milan publishing house who, as a joke, invent an elaborate conspiracy theory connecting the Knights Templar, the Rosicrucians, the Freemasons, and basically every secret society ever. They feed random historical data into a computer — Eco called it "Abulafia," a nice Kabbalistic touch — and let it generate connections. The joke is that their invented conspiracy starts attracting real believers who are willing to kill for it. Sound familiar? Replace the computer with a YouTube algorithm, swap the publishing house for a subreddit, and you've got 2026 in a nutshell.

Eco essentially wrote the operating manual for the post-truth era thirty years before it arrived. He understood something fundamental: humans are pattern-seeking animals, and when you give them enough data without enough education, they'll connect anything to anything. The Plan — as the characters call their fake conspiracy — works precisely because it's flexible enough to absorb any fact. Every contradiction becomes proof of a deeper layer. Every debunking becomes evidence of a cover-up. If that doesn't describe the information landscape we're drowning in right now, I don't know what does.

What makes Eco's work so unsettling isn't his prescience — it's his diagnosis of why we fall for it. In his famous 1995 essay "Ur-Fascism," he outlined fourteen properties of fascist thinking, several of which revolve around conspiracy and the cult of tradition. He saw these patterns because he grew up in Mussolini's Italy, watched fascism collapse, and spent his entire academic career studying how signs and symbols manipulate us. He wasn't guessing. He was reading the source code of human gullibility.

And yet — and this is the part people miss — Eco was gloriously, unapologetically fun. The man collected over 50,000 books and reportedly had 1,200 volumes on the topic of false and fictitious languages alone. When asked about his massive library, he said the unread books were more important than the read ones because they represented everything he didn't know. His concept of the "antilibrary" has become a meme in self-help circles, which would have both delighted and horrified him in equal measure.

"The Name of the Rose" doesn't just hold up — it hits harder now. The blind librarian Jorge (a barely disguised nod to Borges, because Eco never met an intertextual joke he didn't love) who poisons anyone who might read the forbidden book? He's every content moderator, every algorithm, every authority deciding what you should and shouldn't access. The monastery's labyrinthine library, designed to confuse and exclude, is the internet itself — infinite knowledge arranged to maximize confusion. Eco built his novel as a semiotic funhouse where every symbol means three things at once, and he trusted his readers to keep up. Most of them did. Fifty million of them did.

Foucault's Pendulum deserves a renaissance right now. It's a harder read than "The Name of the Rose" — denser, angrier, more baroque. It demands you know something about Kabbalah, alchemy, and Brazilian Candomble rituals. It doesn't care if you're comfortable. But its central warning — that playing with conspiracy theories, even ironically, can conjure real monsters — is the most urgent idea in contemporary culture. Every podcast host who "just asks questions" about flat earth, every influencer who shares misinformation "for engagement," every politician who winks at extremists — they're all characters in Eco's novel, and they don't even know it.

Eco also gave us one of the great intellectual party tricks of the 20th century: the concept of the "open work." His 1962 book "Opera Aperta" argued that great art is inherently ambiguous, inviting multiple interpretations. This wasn't postmodern laziness — it was a rigorous theory about how meaning is co-created between text and reader. Every time you argue with someone about what a film "really means," you're working within Eco's framework. He gave us the vocabulary for how interpretation works, and then wrote novels that put the theory into practice.

Here's what I find most remarkable about his legacy: Eco never dumbed anything down, and the world met him where he was. He proved that the supposed gap between "popular" and "intellectual" is a lie told by lazy publishers and lazier critics. You can write a novel stuffed with medieval theology, Peircean semiotics, and Borges references, and it will sell fifty million copies — if you also give people a blind monk, a good labyrinth, and a fire. Intelligence is not the enemy of entertainment. It is entertainment, in the right hands.

Ten years after his death, Eco's work feels less like literature and more like prophecy. Not the mystical kind — the analytical kind. He looked at how humans process symbols, how they construct meaning from noise, how they'll believe anything if the narrative is seductive enough, and he turned those observations into novels that are simultaneously thrilling page-turners and graduate-level seminars. We don't have another one like him. We won't get another one. The best we can do is actually read the books he left us — especially the ones that make us uncomfortable — and hope we're smart enough to recognize ourselves in the fools he so lovingly, so ruthlessly, described.

Ten years ago today, on February 19, 2016, the world lost Umberto Eco — a man who wrote a medieval murder mystery so dense it required a dictionary and still sold fifty million copies. If that isn't the greatest intellectual prank of the twentieth century, I don't know what is.

But here's the thing about Eco that most obituaries got wrong: he wasn't primarily a novelist. He was a semiotician — a professional decoder of signs and symbols — who happened to write novels that read like the fever dreams of a librarian on absinthe. He published his first novel, The Name of the Rose, at the age of forty-eight. Before that, he'd spent decades writing about comic books, James Bond, and the structure of television — basically doing cultural criticism before it was a whole industry on YouTube.

Let's talk about The Name of the Rose for a moment, because its existence is borderline miraculous. Published in 1980, it's a murder mystery set in a fourteenth-century Benedictine monastery. The detective is a Franciscan friar named William of Baskerville — yes, that's a Sherlock Holmes reference, and no, Eco didn't care if you noticed. The book includes untranslated Latin passages, theological debates about whether Jesus laughed, and a labyrinthine library that functions as both a literal and metaphorical maze. It should have sold about three thousand copies to Italian medievalists. Instead, it sold over fifty million worldwide and got turned into a Sean Connery movie. Eco later said he wrote it because he "felt like poisoning a monk." That's the energy we've lost.

Then came Foucault's Pendulum in 1988, and this is where Eco becomes genuinely prophetic. The plot follows three bored editors at a vanity press who, as a joke, invent a grand conspiracy theory connecting the Knights Templar, the Rosicrucians, the Freemasons, and basically every secret society you've ever heard of. They feed random historical data into a computer and let it generate connections. The joke? People start believing it. The conspiracy takes on a life of its own and eventually devours its creators.

Read that paragraph again and tell me Eco didn't predict the internet. Specifically, he predicted QAnon, flat-earthers, and every rabbit hole algorithm that's ever sucked someone into believing the moon landing was filmed in Stanley Kubrick's garage. Foucault's Pendulum is essentially a novel about what happens when ironic people create content they don't believe in, and the content escapes into the wild. Sound familiar? Every satirical conspiracy meme that gets unironically shared on Facebook is living proof that Eco was right. He wrote the playbook for the post-truth era thirty years before anyone coined the term.

What made Eco different from your standard ivory-tower intellectual was his absolute refusal to be a snob. This was a man who collected sixty thousand books — his personal library was legendary — and simultaneously wrote serious academic essays about Superman. He analyzed the semiotics of blue jeans. He gave lectures on the philosophy of lists. He once wrote an essay arguing that the Mac was Catholic and the PC was Protestant, and honestly, he made it convincing. He believed that pop culture deserved the same analytical rigor as Dante, and he practiced what he preached.

His famous 2015 quote about social media — that it "gives legions of idiots the right to speak" — got him dragged online, which is exactly the kind of irony he would have appreciated. But people always cut the quote short. He wasn't saying people shouldn't speak. He was saying that before the internet, "the village idiot" spoke at the bar and was immediately corrected. Now, that corrective mechanism is gone. The village idiots found each other, formed communities, and started podcasts. Again: prophetic.

Eco's influence today isn't always visible on the surface, but it's everywhere underneath. Every novel that plays with layered narratives and unreliable narrators owes him a debt. Every TV show that trusts its audience to be smart — from True Detective's occult references to the labyrinthine plotting of Dark — is operating in territory Eco mapped. Dan Brown essentially built his entire career on a dumbed-down version of Foucault's Pendulum, something Eco handled with characteristic grace, saying he'd been told Brown was his reader. "My reader," Eco said, with the kind of pause that Italian professors have weaponized for centuries.

But maybe his most lasting contribution is as a model for what an intellectual can be. We live in an era that's deeply suspicious of experts, and for good reason — too many of them hide behind jargon and act as gatekeepers. Eco was the anti-gatekeeper. He wanted you to come inside the library. He just wanted you to understand that the library might be a labyrinth, and that the labyrinth might be on fire, and that the fire might be the point. He made difficulty seductive rather than exclusionary.

There's a scene near the end of The Name of the Rose where the great library burns. Everything — centuries of accumulated knowledge, irreplaceable manuscripts, the collected wisdom of the ancient world — goes up in flames because one fanatical monk decided that a single book by Aristotle on comedy was too dangerous for humanity to read. A book about laughter, destroyed by a man who couldn't tolerate laughter. If that's not the most Eco metaphor possible for every book ban, every censorship campaign, every attempt to control what people think by controlling what they can access, then I don't know what metaphor is.

Ten years after his death, Umberto Eco's central warning is more relevant than ever: beware of anyone who tells you there's a hidden pattern that explains everything. And simultaneously, beware of anyone who tells you that patterns don't exist at all. The truth, as William of Baskerville might say while adjusting his anachronistic reading glasses, is that the universe is full of patterns — it's just that most of the ones we see are ones we put there ourselves. That's not a comfortable thought. But comfort was never really Eco's department.

Umberto Eco Predicted the Post-Truth Era — And We Didn't Listen

Ten years ago today, the world lost Umberto Eco — a man who disguised philosophy as murder mysteries and turned conspiracy theories into literature before conspiracy theories became our daily news feed. We buried the prophet and kept scrolling. Now, a decade later, his novels read less like fiction and more like user manuals for surviving the information apocalypse. If you haven't read him yet, congratulations: you're living inside his plot.

Let's start with the elephant in the scriptorium. The Name of the Rose, published in 1980, is a medieval detective novel about monks getting murdered in a monastery. Sounds like something your weird uncle might pitch at Thanksgiving. But here's the trick Eco pulled: he wrote a book about the suppression of knowledge — about powerful institutions deciding what you're allowed to laugh at, think about, and read — and he wrapped it in a whodunit so compelling that it sold over 50 million copies worldwide. Fifty. Million. For a book where characters debate Aristotle's lost treatise on comedy. The man was a sorcerer.

But The Name of the Rose wasn't just a clever puzzle box. It was a warning shot. The central conflict — a blind librarian hoarding and poisoning a book because he fears laughter will undermine authority — is basically the plot of every culture war we've had since 2016. Replace the monastery with social media platforms, replace the poisoned pages with algorithmic suppression, and you've got a disturbingly accurate portrait of how information gatekeeping works today. Eco saw it coming forty years early, wearing a tweed jacket and probably smirking.

Then there's Foucault's Pendulum, published in 1988, which is — and I say this with deep affection — the most gloriously unhinged novel of the twentieth century. Three bored editors at a vanity press decide, as a joke, to invent a grand conspiracy theory connecting the Knights Templar, the Rosicrucians, the Freemasons, and basically every secret society that ever existed. They feed random historical facts into a computer, connect the dots with pure imagination, and create "The Plan" — a fake master narrative explaining all of history. The punchline? People start believing it. People kill for it.

Sound familiar? It should. Eco wrote QAnon thirty years before QAnon existed. He wrote the playbook for how internet rabbit holes work before the internet was in most people's homes. The novel's core insight is devastatingly simple: humans are pattern-seeking animals, and if you give them enough data points, they will connect them into a story — any story — and then die on that hill. Literally. The characters in Foucault's Pendulum learn this the hard way. So has the internet.

What makes Eco's legacy so uncomfortably relevant is that he wasn't just a novelist playing with ideas. He was a semiotician — a scholar of signs and meaning. He spent his academic career studying how humans interpret symbols, how meaning gets made and manipulated, how a simple image or word can be weaponized. His 1995 essay "Ur-Fascism" laid out fourteen features of fascist thinking with such surgical precision that it gets shared on social media every few months like clockwork. The man wrote the diagnostic checklist for authoritarianism, and we keep pulling it out of the drawer like, "Huh, this seems relevant again."

Here's what kills me about Eco's reputation, though. In literary circles, he's revered. In academic circles, he's canonical. But in popular culture? He's fading. Ask someone under thirty about Umberto Eco, and you'll likely get a blank stare. This is a tragedy bordering on farce, because his work has never been more applicable. We live in an era where misinformation spreads faster than truth, where people construct elaborate conspiracies from YouTube videos and Reddit threads, where the very concept of "what is real" is up for debate. Eco spent his entire career preparing us for this moment, and we collectively said, "Nah, too many pages."

To be fair, Eco didn't make it easy. The Name of the Rose opens with a hundred pages of medieval theological debate. Foucault's Pendulum requires a working knowledge of Kabbalah, alchemy, and Brazilian spiritualism. He once said, "I felt like poisoning a monk," when asked why he wrote The Name of the Rose, which is either the most honest or most terrifying answer any author has ever given. He didn't write for casual readers. He wrote for people willing to meet him halfway up a very steep intellectual mountain — and then rewarded them with a view that changed how they saw everything below.

But here's the secret Eco embedded in all his work, the one that makes him essential reading in 2036: the antidote to conspiracy thinking isn't ignorance — it's more knowledge. William of Baskerville, the Sherlock Holmes figure in The Name of the Rose, doesn't solve the mystery by being smarter than everyone else. He solves it by being more curious, more willing to question his own assumptions, more committed to following evidence wherever it leads — even when it leads somewhere uncomfortable. In an age when people cherry-pick facts to support predetermined conclusions, Eco's detective stands as a radical figure: someone who actually wants to know the truth, consequences be damned.

The irony of Eco's death in 2016 is almost too perfect to be real. He died on February 19th, just as the world was about to plunge into the post-truth era he'd spent decades warning about. Brexit, the American election circus, the explosion of fake news — all of it happened in the months after he left. It's as if the universe waited for the referee to leave the field before descending into chaos. Eco himself would have appreciated the narrative symmetry. He probably would have written an essay about it, dense with footnotes and devastatingly witty.

So what do we do with Eco's legacy ten years on? We read him. Not because it's easy or because it makes us feel smart at dinner parties — though it absolutely does both eventually — but because his books are the intellectual equivalent of a fire extinguisher behind glass. Break in case of emergency. And brother, the building has been on fire for a while now. Foucault's Pendulum should be required reading for anyone with an internet connection. The Name of the Rose should be handed out at every library card registration. Not because Eco had all the answers, but because he asked the right questions in the most entertaining way possible — disguised as murder, conspiracy, and monks arguing about whether Jesus laughed.

Ten years without Umberto Eco. The books remain. The warnings remain. The question is whether we'll finally crack them open — or keep proving him right.

Umberto Eco Predicted Your TikTok Feed — In 1980

Ten years ago today, the world lost Umberto Eco — a man who disguised a treatise on fake news as a medieval murder mystery and turned conspiracy theories into a 600-page literary weapon. You think misinformation is a modern problem? Eco was laughing at us from his typewriter decades before anyone coined the term 'post-truth.' His novels aren't relics; they're user manuals for surviving the information apocalypse we're drowning in right now.

Let's start with the obvious. The Name of the Rose, published in 1980, is technically a detective novel set in a 14th-century Benedictine monastery. A Franciscan friar named William of Baskerville — yes, the Sherlock Holmes nod is deliberate — investigates a series of murders among monks. Sounds like a cozy period piece, right? Except what Eco actually wrote was a philosophical bomb wrapped in a monk's habit. The murders revolve around a lost book — Aristotle's second volume of Poetics, the one about comedy. Monks are literally dying to suppress laughter. If that isn't a metaphor for every culture war about what people are 'allowed' to find funny, I don't know what is.

The novel sold over 50 million copies worldwide. Fifty. Million. For a book packed with Latin passages, semiotic theory, and debates about medieval heresy. That's not a typo. Eco proved something the publishing industry still refuses to accept: readers aren't stupid. They don't need everything pre-digested. Give them a labyrinth and they'll walk through it — provided the labyrinth is built by someone who actually knows what they're doing.

But here's where Eco gets genuinely prophetic. Foucault's Pendulum, published in 1988, is the novel that should be required reading in every media literacy class on the planet. The plot follows three bored editors at a vanity press who decide, as a joke, to invent a grand conspiracy theory connecting the Knights Templar, the Freemasons, the Rosicrucians, and basically every secret society ever imagined. They feed random historical data into a computer — they literally call it 'The Plan' — and stitch together a narrative that connects everything to everything. It's absurd. It's hilarious. And then people start believing it. And then people start dying because of it.

Sound familiar? Replace 'vanity press editors' with 'anonymous forum users' and 'The Plan' with 'QAnon' and you've got a disturbingly accurate description of the last decade of internet culture. Eco wrote the playbook for how conspiracy theories metastasize — how the human brain's hunger for patterns will devour any narrative that promises to make sense of chaos. He did this thirty-seven years before a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol partly fueled by exactly this kind of thinking. That's not literary analysis; that's prophecy.

What made Eco uniquely equipped for this kind of insight was his double life. He wasn't just a novelist. He was a semiotician — a scholar of signs and meaning — at the University of Bologna. His academic work on how meaning is constructed, interpreted, and distorted gave him X-ray vision into the mechanics of bullshit. His 1976 book A Theory of Semiotics is dense enough to use as a doorstop, but the core idea is simple: meaning is never fixed. Every sign can be used to lie. Language is a tool, and like all tools, it can be weaponized. His novels are just the entertaining version of the same argument.

And Eco was entertaining. People forget this. They see the 700-page novels, the footnotes, the medieval Latin, and assume he was some kind of academic bore. The man was genuinely funny. In Foucault's Pendulum, there's a scene where a character tries to move a filing cabinet and discovers it's been placed over a trapdoor — and Eco turns this into a five-page meditation on the nature of hidden knowledge that somehow reads like a comedy sketch. His collections of essays — like How to Travel with a Salmon — prove he could write a hilarious piece about the absurdity of modern life with the same ease he could dissect Thomas Aquinas.

Eco also had a talent for being infuriatingly right about technology. In a famous 2003 lecture, he warned that the internet would give 'the right to speak to legions of idiots who previously only spoke at the bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community.' He wasn't being elitist — or rather, he was, but he was also correct. The democratization of information didn't automatically create a more informed society. It created a society where signal and noise became indistinguishable. Every Eco novel, in one way or another, is about this problem: what happens when there's too much information and not enough wisdom.

His influence on contemporary culture runs deeper than most people realize. Dan Brown's entire career is essentially a simplified, mass-market remix of Foucault's Pendulum — secret societies, hidden codes, ancient mysteries. Eco himself acknowledged this with characteristic grace, saying Brown's readers were simply the kind who could enjoy his themes without the irony. The Name of the Rose spawned a 1986 Sean Connery film that's aged surprisingly well, a 2019 TV series, and an entire subgenre of intellectual mystery fiction. Writers like Carlos Ruiz Zafón, Arturo Pérez-Reverte, and Donna Tartt owe debts to Eco's demonstration that novels could be simultaneously cerebral and compulsively readable.

But the most important part of Eco's legacy isn't literary. It's practical. We live in an era defined by information warfare, deepfakes, algorithmic manipulation, and the collapse of shared reality. Eco spent his entire career — both academic and literary — mapping exactly these fault lines. He understood that the battle for truth isn't fought with facts alone. It's fought at the level of narrative, interpretation, and meaning. His villains aren't people who have wrong information. They're people who've built airtight stories from fragments of truth — and that's what makes them dangerous.

Ten years after his death, Umberto Eco's novels don't feel like historical fiction or postmodern experiments. They feel like dispatches from the front lines of a war we're still losing. If you haven't read him, start now. Not because he's a 'classic' — that word is a literary death sentence — but because he's the most useful writer of the 20th century. He didn't just predict the chaos of the information age. He handed us the tools to survive it. Whether we're smart enough to use them is another question entirely.