I read this entire book, and I still have no idea what happened in it.
All right, that's not entirely true; the endnotes summarize the major plot arc, and if you asked me to describe the plot I would mention all those things -- Vergil, the Vestals, exile, Carthage, the lotus-eaters (apparently the scarlet fig of the title is the lotus), lepers, Alexandria. And yet it manages to make very little sense.
I don't know if it's that I really know very little about the medieval conception of Vergil as a sorcerer. Maybe that's it. Because it took me until this book to figure out that the author renamed him (though he does wonder in one of those hallucinatory moments why his name isn't Maro). There are a lot of moments like that, where something has clearly whooshed right over my head. In a move that the introduction praises, SPQR has been metathesized to SQPR with a note saying that it stands for "senatusque populusque Romanus," because "Numa would have it so." Shouldn't it then be SQPQR, if you're going to be like that? What's the big deal about adding another and? Is it even grammatical to put a second-position clitic there? What does Numa have to do with anything? Was it grammatical in archaic Latin or something?
You see my problem. I can't tell if I'm thinking too hard about this or not hard enough, and it really doesn't make much sense. But if you'd like to read something that is basically a trippy trip through the Odyssey filtered through the medieval conception of Vergil, this book is there for you. Probably I should have stopped with the first one.