Umberto Eco

Umberto Eco
	Umberto Eco, Italian philosopher, semiotician, and novelist
Tradition	Semiotics, Literary theory, Medieval studies, Postmodern philosophy
Influenced by	Thomas Aquinas, Ferdinand de Saussure, Charles Sanders Peirce, Roland Barthes
Lifespan	1932–2016
Notable ideas	Theory of semiotics; open work (opera aperta); interpretation and overinterpretation; intersections of philosophy, media, and literature
Occupation	Philosopher, Semiotician, Novelist
Influenced	Jean Baudrillard, Media theory, Contemporary semiotics, Literary criticism
Wikidata	Q12807

Umberto Eco (1932–2016) was an Italian philosopher, medievalist, and prolific scholar best known both for his academic work in semiotics (the study of signs and meaning) and for his popular novels that blend intellectual ideas with intricate storytelling. Eco’s academic career spanned decades, establishing him as a leading semiotician who explored how culture and knowledge shape interpretation. At the same time he became widely acclaimed as a novelist whose historical mysteries weave together philosophy, theology, and literary theory. Throughout his life Eco emphasized that texts and meanings are created through a complex interaction between author, text, and reader, a perspective sometimes called interpretive semiotics or interpretive hermeneutics. His contributions to theories of interpretation, culture, and literature have made him one of the most influential public intellectuals of the late twentieth century, with a legacy that continues to inform literary studies, philosophy, and popular understanding of meaning.

Early Life and Education

Umberto Eco was born in Alessandria, a city in the Piedmont region of northern Italy, on January 5, 1932. Growing up during World War II and the rise of Fascism in Italy had a formative influence on him. As a child during the war, he witnessed the turmoil of fascist propaganda and later the liberation by Allied forces, experiences that would shape his lifelong interest in ideology and signs. Eco received a Salesian Catholic education in his youth and was deeply influenced by stories and culture of the era – for example, exposure to American comic books after 1945 fascinated him. Although raised in a traditional Catholic setting, Eco later described himself as skeptical about religious belief and moved away from the Church in his adult life.

Academically, Eco was the first in his family to attend university. He studied philosophy at the University of Turin, Italy’s oldest university. At Turin he became a student of Luigi Pareyson, a noted Italian philosopher and aesthete. Under Pareyson’s guidance, Eco wrote a doctoral thesis on medieval aesthetics, focusing on the 13th-century theologian Thomas Aquinas. This thesis was later published as Eco’s first book, The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas (1956). The topic reflected Eco’s early interest in medieval thought and how meaning is structured in art and texts – an interest that would carry on through his later career. In 1954, Eco graduated from Turin with a Laurea degree in philosophy, the Italian equivalent of a combined bachelor’s and master’s degree.

Following graduation, Eco held academic appointments in several Italian universities. By the early 1960s he was lecturing on aesthetics and communication, moving between Turin and the Politecnico in Milan. He achieved his Libera Docenza (a habilitation-like qualification) in 1961, which allowed him to teach at the university level. In 1966 Eco became professor of visual communication at the University of Florence, bridging architecture and semiotics. In 1968 he published La struttura assente (usually translated as The Absent Structure: Introduction to the Study of Semiotics), his first major work explicitly on signs and meaning, which began to establish him as a serious scholar of semiotics. By 1969 he returned to Milan to become a professor of semiotics at the Politecnico di Milano (the architecture school), and shortly afterwards in the early 1970s he moved to the University of Bologna as professor of semiotics. Eco taught at Bologna for the rest of his academic career, eventually becoming Professor Emeritus.

Academic Career and Semiotic Theory

Umberto Eco’s career as a scholar focused on understanding how communication and interpretation work in culture. Semiotics – broadly, the study of signs, symbols, and how they create meaning – was his chosen framework. Eco described his approach to semiotics as interpretive semiotics, meaning he saw meaning as arising from an interpretive process rather than fixed by an author alone. He was deeply influenced by earlier thinkers such as the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce and the French structuralists (e.g. Roland Barthes and Claude Lévi-Strauss), but developed his own distinct perspective. His work often argued for a middle ground between rigid structural rules and extreme relativism; he believed that texts could invite many possible interpretations but not infinitely many.

A central idea in Eco’s theory is that of the text as a code. He argued that any message – whether a novel, a film, a painting, or an advertisement – involves a kind of code that connects an expression (the medium or form) with a content (an idea or meaning). For example, in language, the written word “rose” is the expression of a concept; in painting, a rose could be an icon that resembles a flower. The code includes both literal (denotative) meaning and symbolic (connotative) meaning. Eco noted that codes are learned by cultural or social consensus, and that different cultures or times may have different codes. This means the meaning of a sign is not in the object alone but in how it is used by people who share the code. He cautioned against the “referential fallacy” – the idea that a word directly points to one real object – instead insisting that a sign (e.g. the word “table”) refers to a concept shared in language, meaning “any table of that kind,” not an individual artifact.

Eco went further in describing how signs are created and evolve. He introduced the concept of unlimited semiosis, drawing on Peirce. This is the idea that signs lead to other signs in a chain: a word may evoke an image, that image suggests another concept, and so on, creating a potentially limitless depth of meaning. However, Eco insisted on limits of interpretation: even though new meanings can arise, not every interpretation is equally valid. His view was that texts and signs are open to many readings, but only those consistent with the text’s structure and the communal code count as meaningful. In A Theory of Semiotics (original Italian edition 1975), Eco explained that meaning is established “with reference to conditions of possibility” – a phrase echoing philosopher Immanuel Kant’s usage. In practice, this means a text sets boundaries that a reasonable reader would not cross.

A key development in Eco’s thought was distinguishing two levels of codes, often called the S-code and the Q-code. The S-code (from a Latin word structure) represents the conventional organization of a language or sign system, comparable to Ferdinand de Saussure’s idea of langue (the social grammar of language). The Q-code (from quasi, meaning “as if”) involves creative expansion of the code. Under the Q-model, a code can grow and adapt: readers can invent new associations or applications for signs that were not originally codified. For example, Eco would call a novel use of a word an invention or an ostension, if it prompts others to update the code. This idea shows Eco’s belief in the flexibility of meaning and language over time.

Another important concept in Eco’s semiotics is the “encyclopedia” versus the “dictionary.” In A Theory of Semiotics, Eco argued that understanding a sign depends not only on dictionary definitions but on a vast store of cultural knowledge. He called this accumulated background information an encyclopedia or model of the world. When we encounter a word or image, we draw on what Eco called “our encyclopedia” – our memories, cultural context, and experiences – to interpret it. He used the example of the word “pork”: beyond being a meat, it often connotes something “unclean” in some cultural contexts because of religious or cultural codes. Thus, a translator or interpreter needs to know much more than words; they must know how people think about those things. This encyclopedic aspect of interpretation underscores Eco’s point that meaning is not in signs themselves but in the social and cultural web that signs inhabit.

Eco also emphasized the active role of the reader. He saw reading (and interpretation broadly) as a cooperative effort. In essays like those collected in The Role of the Reader (1979), Eco describes the reader as a participant who helps complete the meaning of an “open work.” Here opera aperta (1962, published in English as The Open Work in 1989) introduced a famous idea: an open work of art or literature is one that does not dictate a single meaning but leaves space for the audience’s response. For example, in modern art or avant-garde literature, the artist may give only suggestions or fragments, and it is up to the audience to fill in the gaps. Eco contrasted this with “closed” works, such as certain classical tragedies with tight plots, where interpretation is more constrained. Practically, this means an author (or artist) encodes possible interpretations in a text, and readers (or viewers) decode them based on their own perspectives. Eco coined the term “model reader” to refer to an ideal reader who grasps a text’s clues as intended, while the “model author” is a theoretical author who embeds meaning in the text. He even spoke of intentions: the actual author’s intentions (intentio auctoris), the text’s inherent message (intentio operis), and the reader’s approach (intentio lectoris). This framework shows Eco’s nuanced view that neither the author’s mind nor the reader’s imagination holds all meaning; rather, meaning emerges between text and reader.

In scholarly work, Eco contributed original terminology and methodologies for analyzing signs and texts. He outlined sign typologies, including categories like icon, index, and symbol (a nod to Peirce) and new ideas like “ratio faciens” and “ratio difficilis” in the creation of signs, dealing with how easily a sign can fit into existing codes. He explored ostension (pointing out examples) and replication (how uncommon signs become conventional through repeated use). While these technical points are found in his theoretical writings, the broad picture was that Eco’s semiotics was both systematic and pragmatic: it tried to explain how meaning actually operates in culture, media, literature, and art, rather than prescribing rules for language use.

Novels and Intellectual Fiction

Starting in 1980, Eco became an international best-selling novelist. His novels are renowned for blending narrative suspense with dense interwoven ideas about philosophy, theology, history, and semiotics. In these works he did not abandon his scholarly background; instead, he channeled it into richly textured stories. The hallmark of Eco’s fiction is factual or historical detail used for intellectual effect. Each novel is set in a vividly depicted past era – medieval Europe, Renaissance science, or early 20th-century conspiracy – and the plot hinges on themes like truth-seeking, interpretation, and the power of ideas. Readers who appreciate literary puzzles or “mysteries of meaning” find his novels especially rewarding.

His first and most famous novel, The Name of the Rose (1980; English translation 1983), is set in a 14th-century Italian monastery where a Franciscan friar, William of Baskerville (an allusion to Sherlock Holmes and William of Ockham), investigates a series of murders. At the same time, the characters debate faith, heresy, and knowledge in the shadow of the Inquisition. The title comes from a Latin epigram “Stat rosa pristina nomine: nomina nuda tenemus” (“The primal rose stands only in name: we hold only naked names”), suggesting the elusiveness of truth. Eco uses the medieval mystery to illustrate larger ideas: the labyrinth of the monastery library symbolizes the intricate layers of interpretation; Latin manuscripts and debates about Aristotle show the tension between reason and dogma; and William’s rational detective work contrasts with blind authority. The novel’s combination of a detective story with a meditation on how we derive meaning won it a wide readership. It earned Italy’s prestigious Premio Strega (1981) and later France’s Prix Médicis. The English edition became a bestseller, demonstrating Eco’s rare ability to popularize complex thought. (The book was later adapted into a major film starring Sean Connery, though the movie simplified many of the novel’s dense debates.)

His second novel, Foucault’s Pendulum (1988; English 1989), moves into the 20th century and satirizes conspiracy theories and obsessive interpretation. The protagonists are three editors at a small Milan publishing house who joke by inventing a fictional “Plan” that connects various secret societies (like the Templars and Rosicrucians) across history via a complex code. They start organizing historical tidbits and coincidences into a grand narrative, essentially fabricating a meaning that appeals to pattern-seeking instincts. The joke backfires when true believers use the invented Plan as if it were reality, leading to dramatic consequences. Through this plot, Eco explores how people create meaning by assembling symbols even where none originally existed, and how interpretation can spin out of control. The novel is rich with jousting intellectual references (the Knights Templar, Freemasonry, medieval maps, etc.) but it is also a thriller about obsession. It shows Eco’s view of interpretation: while constructing a story like this is human, it can become dangerous when fiction begins to be mistaken for truth.

Eco went on to write several more novels, each continuing to engage with philosophical questions: The Island of the Day Before (1994) is a 17th-century maritime adventure where a marooned man wonders if there is another world just across the International Date Line, prompting metaphysical reflections on time and knowledge. Baudolino (2000) mixes historical and fantastical elements around the Crusades, narrated by a cunning trickster who influences history’s secrets. The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana (2004) is partly a love letter to books and memory: a book dealer from Milan suffers amnesia and recalls his past only through the stories and images he loved as a child. The Prague Cemetery (2010) dives into 19th-century Europe’s underground of forgeries and anti-Semitic conspiracies, exploring the role of fabricated “fake news” in history. His final novel, Numero Zero (2015), is set in 1992 and follows a journalist working on a doomed newspaper, again touching on media, journalism, and power.

Across all these novels, Eco’s style blends erudition with accessibility. He layers clues and puzzles in the narrative, often inviting the reader to play detective. For example, recurring symbols or references may hint at deeper philosophical issues. His stories are “work of fiction within fiction,” demonstrating his belief in interpretive cooperation: the reader pieces together meanings from text just as he did in his academic theories. At the same time, he enjoyed injecting humor, wordplay, and even parody of detective or horror tropes. His narrative method can be seen as a practical application of his semiotic ideas: a fictional text itself engages with signs – secret codes in the library, a pendulum’s motion, or newspaper headlines – showing how readers seek patterns.

In interviews and essays, Eco noted that he saw his popular writing as an extension of his academic interests, not a separate venture. The encyclopedic detail in his novels reflects what he described as a struggle against oversimplification: he wanted to show how historical and cultural knowledge can enrich a story. At the same time, he was careful to critique the theme of conspiracy and disinformation through fiction. In Foucault’s Pendulum, for instance, the humor ultimately underscores a warning: readers should question conspiratorial narratives and appreciate how easily context can be manipulated. Many critics and scholars have remarked that Eco’s novels serve a dual purpose: they are entertaining historical mysteries on the surface, but underneath they dramatize ideas about how people make meaning of events and texts.

Key Ideas: Interpretation and Culture

Beyond individual books, Umberto Eco’s overarching legacy lies in the theories and ideas he developed about interpretation, culture, and communication. Throughout his career he tackled questions like: How do we agree on meanings? Can a text mean anything the reader wants? How much freedom does an author have in encoding meaning? His answers drew on semiotics but ventured into philosophy of language, literary theory, and even sociology.

One theme Eco often addressed is the tension between “unlimited interpretation” and “closed interpretation.” On one hand, he acknowledged the postmodern insight that readers inevitably bring new perspectives, so a text’s meaning is not fixed once and for all. This idea of unlimited semiosis suggests an open-ended process: a novel can invite countless readings, especially as readers from different times or cultures approach it. On the other hand, Eco insisted there must be some limits. He disliked what he called interpretive anarchism (the notion that “anything goes” in interpretation) as well as interpretive fundamentalism (the idea that only the author’s explicit opinion matters). Instead, he advocated for a balanced view: a text is an artifact with structures that guide possible interpretations, and a reader’s task is to make sense of those structures using signs that most people recognize. In practice, this means he expected at least one interpretation to be the “correct” or intended one, particularly when a text gives clear clues, while still allowing alternative readings that do not contradict the text. Eco’s essays The Limits of Interpretation (1990) and Interpretation and Overinterpretation (1992) elaborate these points.

For example, Eco argued that simply because a sentence can be rephrased in many ways, it does not follow that any paraphrase is equally meaningful. He analogized interpretation to playing a cooperative board game where the text provides rules; players (readers) use skill and knowledge to follow those rules and reach intended goals, but cannot break the rules at will. Eco famously used the metaphor of a telephone game or a library of Babel: while one person’s interpretation might differ slightly, extreme distortions break the agreement. He coined the phrase intentio operis (the intention of the work) to point to the idea that the text itself wants certain meanings to be drawn out, independent of just the author or reader. In this way, Eco framed interpretation as a kind of dialogue across time: the author and text set a framework, and the reader, with their encyclopedia of knowledge, must cooperate by selecting possibilities that the text can plausibly support.

Additionally, Eco explored how ideology and culture shape understanding. Later in his career he wrote essays on topics like fascism and media, showing how language use reflects and influences society. His famous essay “Ur-Fascism” (1995) lists features of proto-fascist (or neo-fascist) thinking, highlighting how word games and symbols contribute to political mythologies. Similarly, in books like Travels in Hyperreality (1986) and Faith in Fakes (1986), he examined how modern culture creates “simulacra” – copies or representations mistaken for original truth, as in theme park reproductions of Venice or copied antiques. These works extend his semiotic thought: for Eco, propaganda, advertising, pop culture and even mass media obey semiotic laws, producing signs that people interpret as realities. He was particularly interested in the semiotics of media – how newspapers, cinema, and magazines deliver messages that readers must decode. In fact, in 1988 he founded a Department of Communication Studies at the University of Bologna in part to study these very phenomena.

Influence and Reception

Umberto Eco’s wide-ranging work has had a large impact on both academic fields and popular culture. In literary theory and cultural studies, he is regarded as one of the great twentieth-century semioticians. Italian scholars often call him a visionary who brought analytic clarity to the humanities. Internationally, his books are read in departments of literature, philosophy, anthropology, media studies, and beyond. For example, French philosopher Gilles Deleuze praised Eco’s concept of the open work, and some point out echoes of Eco’s ideas in the writings of Jacques Derrida and other poststructuralists, although Eco himself sometimes disagreed with the most radical views of postmodernism. Eco’s insistence that interpretation has limits offered a counterpoint to the more extreme deconstructionist trends.

In the broader public, Eco’s influence is also vast. His novels have been translated into dozens of languages, making him one of the most read Italian authors worldwide. The Name of the Rose in particular became a cultural phenomenon, helping to ignite interest in medieval mystery novels and bringing scholarly ideas to a mass audience. Unlike many academics, Eco interacted with a wide readership through his fiction and journalism (he was a columnist for the newsmagazine L’Espresso for many years). Through these columns and public lectures, he commented on politics, media, and everyday culture, becoming a familiar intellectual figure. Even after his death in 2016, retrospectives and conferences continue to be held in his honor. A volume in the Library of Living Philosophers series (2017) was dedicated to essays on his work, showing respect from the philosophical community.

Among peers and critics, opinions have varied. Many colleagues admired his breadth of knowledge and wit, noting that Eco could make arcane subjects engaging. For instance, the British critic Frank Kermode remarked that while Eco’s theoretical books were complex, his novel The Name of the Rose appears “as a very modern pleasure” born of that intellectual passion. Colleagues often praised Eco’s encyclopedic mind and jovial personality: he once joked that his one-word review of each novel he read was “enough.” He received numerous awards and honors, both literary (such as the Strega and Médicis prizes) and academic (over thirty honorary doctorates worldwide), reflecting respect across disciplines.

Critiques and Debates

Despite his acclaim, Eco was not without critics or controversies. Some scholars found his style of writing challenging. In particular, the conservative British philosopher Sir Roger Scruton criticized Eco’s academic work as overly technical and obscure, accusing him of hiding behind jargon. Scruton quipped that Eco’s writing emitted enough “smoke” to make readers feel at fault for not understanding it. Others, like art historian Nicholas Penny, chastised Eco for apparently grandstanding for “relevance,” suggesting that in writing for a broad audience he risked diluting scholarly rigor. These critiques centered on the idea that Eco, by bridging high and popular culture, might sacrifice depth for accessibility.

Within literary circles, opinions on his novels have also diverged. Some critics enjoyed the way Eco packed his narratives with historical detail and thematic puzzles, seeing them as intelligent literature. Others found certain passages dense or inserted for display of erudition. For example, the original translation of The Name of the Rose had to be carefully handled so that the Latin quotations and allusions did not alienate general readers. In response to such debates, Eco sometimes said that novels by definition require a kind of suspension: not every reference will be caught by each reader, but they add to the world-building.

Eco’s own philosophical positions drew debate too. As academic trends shifted in the late 20th century, some postmodern theorists questioned Eco’s relative optimism about shared meaning. Although Eco was aligned with continental philosophy (he is often associated with “continental” thinkers rather than analytic ones), he did not fully embrace the philosophical relativism that others promoted. In scholarly gatherings, debates sometimes arose between Eco and proponents of deconstruction or reader-response theory – mainly about the balance between text-author and text-reader in generating meaning. Friends and pupils recall that Eco enjoyed these intellectual debates; he once said in a lecture that criticism makes texts more interesting, so he invited dialogue rather than polarization.

Aside from textual criticism, Eco also engaged in public controversies. When writing on politics and culture, he took stances on contemporary issues. For example, his essays warning about propaganda and pseudo-events prefigured modern discussions of “fake news.” He sometimes drew ire for strong statements; in a 2015 BBC interview, he controversially described Islam in terms that some called Islamophobic (though he defended his remarks as cultural commentary). Whether writing academic essays or journalistic pieces, Eco’s work often invited debate because he tackled how ideas can be twisted – and that frequently touches on sensitive topics. Overall, Eco welcomed debate as part of the interpretive process, even if it led to criticism of his own interpretations.

Legacy

Umberto Eco’s legacy remains significant in several realms. In literary theory and cultural studies, his ideas about semiotics and interpretation continue to be taught. Students still read The Open Work or A Theory of Semiotics in theory classes, and his notion of the “model reader” influences how literary analysts think about the reader-text relationship. In philosophy of language and mind, Eco’s emphasis on background knowledge (encyclopedia) resonates with current ideas about context and cognition in understanding meaning.

Eco’s novels have inspired later writers who blend genre with ideas. For example, the success of The Name of the Rose helped pave the way for novels that mix mystery with dense scholarship, sometimes called “intellectual thrillers.” Eco’s combination of plot and idea can be seen as a precursor to modern bestsellers that involve historical puzzles or meta-textual games (such as Dan Brown’s works, though those are often seen as deriving from Eco’s template). More broadly, Eco showed that a novelist could be both erudite and popular, encouraging a generation of intellectuals to write fiction or columns for general audiences.

In popular culture, several of Eco’s key phrases have entered the discourse. Media analysts and commentators often cite his idea of “hyperreality” (the blurring of reality and representation) when discussing social media, advertising, or theme parks. His concerns about “fake news” were prescient; in the 21st century as misinformation spread online, many observers referenced Eco’s skepticism about appearances. Academics sometimes point to Eco’s “Ur-Fascism” essay when analyzing authoritarian language, making his work relevant to students of history and politics as well.

After Eco’s death in 2016, many tributes highlighted how he served as a bridge between academic world and public life. Italian newspapers and international media described him as “the last encyclopedist” for the breadth of his expertise, and as a civic intellectual whose curiosity spanned from medieval manuscripts to modern cartoons. Memorial events often emphasize his gentle, witty persona as much as his ideas. A special funeral procession in 2016 through his hometown Alessandria signified his deep roots in Italian culture, where people carried paper roses (evoking his novel) and held aloft signs referencing his work.

In education, Eco is still cited whenever interpretation or communication are discussed. Teachers of literature or communication might present his idea of limits to interpretation to temper absolute relativism. For readers and writers, Eco’s essays like Six Walks in the Fictional Woods (1994) remain guides to understanding how narrative works. His wide approach to culture—writing about everything from children’s books to Islamic humor—demonstrates a model of the engaged intellectual. In sum, Eco’s legacy lies not only in the specifics of his theories, but in the example of a thinker who never separated scholarly rigor from joy in storytelling and humanistic inquiry.

Selected Works

The Open Work (Opera Aperta, 1962) – Essays on modern art and literature as “open” to interpretation.
The Absent Structure (La struttura assente, 1968) – Early introduction to semiotic theory.
A Theory of Semiotics (1976) – Foundational text of Eco’s semiotics (English translation of Trattato di semiotica generale, 1975).
The Role of the Reader (1979) – Collection of essays on how readers construct meaning.
Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language (1984) – Further theoretical writings on language and signs.
Travels in Hyperreality / Faith in Fakes (1986) – Essays on simulation, art, and consumer culture.
The Limits of Interpretation (1990) – Blog-like essays on hermeneutics and textual limits.
Kant and the Platypus (1997) – Philosophical reflections on knowledge, reference, and name.
Six Walks in the Fictional Woods (1994) – Explorations of narrative techniques and the relationship between reader, writer, and text.
On Ugliness (2005) – Cultural history of beauty and ugliness (contrasts with On Beauty, 2004).
The Name of the Rose (1980) – 14th-century mystery novel, Eco’s most famous work of fiction.
Foucault’s Pendulum (1988) – Novel about conspiracies and the creation of meaning.
The Island of the Day Before (1994) – 17th-century adventure and philosophical allegory.
Baudolino (2000) – Historical novel of medieval adventures and myth.
The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana (2004) – Story of memory and nostalgia through books.
The Prague Cemetery (2010) – Thriller about 19th-century forgeries and manufactured ideologies.
Numero Zero (2015) – Satirical novel on media and power set in early 1990s Italy.

Table: Chronology of Umberto Eco’s Life (suggested). A timeline table could concisely list key dates: birth (1932), doctorate (1954), Opera Aperta (1962), professorship at Bologna (1971), A Theory of Semiotics (1975), The Name of the Rose (1980), Foucault’s Pendulum (1988), founding of communication institutes (late 1980s–1990s), Interpretation and Overinterpretation (1992), later novels up to Numero Zero (2015), and death (2016).

Conclusion

Umberto Eco’s work spans a rare combination of roles. He was both a rigorous scholar who helped build semiotics as a discipline and a bestselling novelist who brought thoughtful ideas to a general audience. The common thread through all his writing—academic or fictional—is an exploration of how we create and share meaning. Eco demonstrated that interpretation is as crucial to human life as language itself, but also that it is bounded by culture and text. His novels illustrate these themes dramatically, inviting readers to puzzle over truth in the same way his academic essays invite scholars to puzzle over language. In both realms, Eco emphasized reason, humor, and cooperation between text and reader. Today, as debates over truth and interpretation continue (for example in media literacy and cultural studies), Eco’s voice remains relevant: he warned against both rigid dogmatism and runaway relativism. Through his ideas about signs, codes, and the openness of texts, Umberto Eco left behind a framework for understanding not only literature, but the broader human endeavor of communication and understanding.