The Name of the Rose Discussion

[Dlmrose, Moderator Emeritus]

This is the discussion thread for the Summer 2012 Group Read The Name of the Rose. Please post your comments here. This thread is not restricted to those choosing this book for task 20.10, feel free to join in the discussion. Warning- spoilers ahead!

[Jennifer W]

I read this one last year. It's a bit of a slog, but I wound up enjoying it. I read someplace that the author intentionally made it tough to get through so he could weed out those who weren't truly invested in his novel. It's worth it, though!

[Kara]

I found this for really cheap at a book sale last week and figured it was fate. This is definitely the group read I'll be participating in. Looking forward to it!

[Dlmrose, Moderator Emeritus]

The beginning is pretty dense- there's a lot to set up- but I thought the rest came together pretty well, but I read it last when it was "hot"- like 30 years ago (yikes, I'm old)

[Bea]

I have meant to read this book for a long time. Guess now is my chance.

[Chaitra]

If anyone has the Everyman's Library version, I hope they do not read the introduction before reading the book. It gives away the whole plot within the first couple of pages. Yikes. Not sure if that's the case with every edition. I'm still looking forward to reading the book though.

[Riya]

thanks Chaitra. I am the kind of person that almost akways reads the introduction of a book; I will make sure not to do that in this case.

[Cindie]

I read this together with "the key to the name if the rose." it helped a lot, if only to illuminate how much I don't know. I may have to see the movie, if only to see how they translated it to a 2 hour movie! My guess is more emphasis on the mystery, less on esoterica. I enjoyed it. And I read it in the back if a 9 person van on a 2 day drive! Says something about how engrossing the book is.

[Coralie]

I found it hard to get into. It must be very slow for someone who looks up every word that they don't know (unlike me). My Latin isn't quite up to the quotes. However, once into it I really enjoyed it. It took me a week to read the first half, then I finished the second half in a day. I loved the labyrinth.

[Kari]

I also found this book hard to get into. When the main mystery was being investigated I really enjoyed it and flew through these chapters. However slogging through all the theological and philosophical debates was kind of difficult as philosophy is not really my thing. But hey I made it through it!

[Chaitra]

I finished this. I quite enjoyed it, especially when it becomes clear that all the discussions of heretical sects actually have a point. The Latin was a sore point for me, but after a while I just skipped the Latin and read through the rest of the text and the gist of the quote would be clear enough.

A few scattered thoughts. Spoilers obviously,
- My favorite portion of the book was when William and Adso figure out the classification of the library. In fact, I loved every portion of the book set in either the scriptorium or the library.
- Poor black cats and women. They always get the short shrift.
- At one point, when Adso is self-diagnozing the malady of "love", one account mentions pustulent sores as one of the symptoms of love. Hmm. I don't think that was what poor Adso had in mind. :D
- I loved the chapter on the big debate, members of both sides are not above name calling. Some names are quite inventive and I would love to use them. :D
- (view spoiler)[I think the atmosphere of mistrust and oppression was very well conveyed. It comes as no surprise that the characters indulge in all kinds of so-called sins. Viper's pit is a perfect description for the abbey.
- I found the end quite depressing, there's no real solution to both problems introduced in the book. The killer kills himself but brings the whole abbey down with him, the master and novice abruptly part ways, the Franciscan order and the Emperor lose their favor, poor Adso collects the scrap of the burnt library, William dies in the plague. Not exactly an uplifting ending. (hide spoiler)]

In addition to the book I also watched the movie. Cindie is right, more mystery, almost no esoterica. Even the solving of the mystery is not very clear. Adso's internal monologue is understandably cut out, which leaves Christian Slater to play him more as a village bumpkin than a novice of the Benedictine order. But the ending takes the cake - (view spoiler)[Bernard Gui decides to burn the heretics right there in the abbey and the villagers pull off a revolt (?) and rescue the girl (!). Gui tries to run away (!) in the midst of the confusion and gets killed. (lol) Adso then faces the dilemma of whether to stay with the girl or go with his master. (hide spoiler)]. Pure Hollywood melodrama.

[Bea]

I want to read this book and had planned to read it as my Group Read, but then I found out how big a book it is! I just don't have the energy for it. Off to read one of the other selections.

[Kara]

I was a philosophy major with a religious studies minor, so this could've been written for me, haha. That said, I still found it really dense, and ashamedly, I started skimming some parts.

Overall, it was an enjoyable read, and I definitely plan to reread it at some point.

[Megan W]

I'll have to echo what some of the others have already said: the philosophical chapters really dragged for me, so the first half of the book took forever to get through. Then when I got to the point where I decided to focus on understanding the murder-mystery part of the story instead, the second half flew by.

I probably would have been more interested in all the religious philosophy if only I had the background knowledge to discern which movements and/or religious figures mentioned in the story actually existed, and which were invented or embellished for the purposes of the story.

I think from now on when I want to read about religions and their philosophies, I'll find some nice nonfiction texts; and when I want to read about a British Master of Deduction solving crimes, I'll pick up my collection of Sherlock Holmes.

[Alice]

I have been meaning to read this for a long time. I remember a friend of mine when I was doing my A-Levels read it and told me she really enjoyed it.

I had an opposite experience to my friend! I won't say that I disliked the book because there were parts I did enjoy. Like Megan W above I decided to focus on understanding of the murder mystery part of the story. I found there was a bit too much wax-lyricalling on heresy, whether Jesus laughed and the malady of love. I have to admit I skimmed read quite a few bits of these parts after the first few chapters on them!

[Wendy UK]

I read this book some years ago, and like others I found it it quite hard going because of the theology, philosophy and monastic politics. This time I listened to an audio book, which was abridged so a lot of the difficult bits were missed out and the main focus was the solving of the murder mystery. Still some bits of latin though, which are even harder to translate when you can't see them! Having read The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes for the last challenge I was interested in the parallels with Holmes and Watson which keep cropping up in William and Adso.

[Danna]

I have not read the book yet, so I hope it's alright I am writing this comment. My mother has been saying that this is a great book, and so far I enjoyed every single book she has recommended to me. I hope you liked it, too! I can't wait to read it.

[Gayla]

I read this book years ago, so I was really curious about what I would think about it now. I still enjoyed it--much more for the atmosphere than the plot--but now that I have three kids and work and so many other things clamoring for my attention it is so much harder to focus on those philosophical chapters! But I still loved it.

[RedSycamore]

I was afraid I would have similar issues with some parts of the book dragging, but after the first few chapters even the philosophy/minute descriptions/politics/etc seemed to flow pretty well (although the discovery of the system of the layout of the library was definitely my favorite part!).

Also, (view spoiler)[I've always loved the idea that no book exists in a vacuum and that present literature is not only informed by the entire body of human literature that proceeds it, but that past literature is revealed/altered by everything that comes after it! That's why I was especially intrigued to see the same thing happen with the ideas/actions of many of the people involved in the murders - so much so that William's theory about the apocalyptic pattern became self-fulfilling. (hide spoiler)]

[[deleted user]]

Although the book tends to be marketed as a medieval murder mystery, the murders are more of a device to present a complex historical fiction. I love history, including medieval and ecclesiastical, so I enjoyed it a lot, particularly the fine lines drawn between heresy/orthodoxy.

[Skandia]

I have been meaning to read this book for a very long time. I knew it is different and somewhat difficult to read. I'm not into theology, esoterics and semiotics but I love history and medieval times and I love Italy.
I enjoyed the atmosphere of the book and my favorite part was to follow the discussions between William and Adso. I skimmed through the more theological/political parts but enjoyed the cleverness of mystery.

[Suzanne]

I feel like a literary lunkhead, not liking this book. I really wanted to like it as I participate in a group that studies the Rule of Benedict and how to apply it in modern life.

Umberto Eco is obviously exceedingly familiar with medival history, religion, and philosophy. I just couldn't get into the story. Monks raved for pages and pages and pages about different heretical groups and politics and sin. I'm not a huge Sherlock Holmes fan and found William of Baskerville just as annoying (yes, I get that William was supposed to be Holmes, and that Adso was Watson).

Even the mystery (which is the only thing that kept me going) seemed anticlimatic. After 500+ tedious pages, I just didn't much care by the end.

I'm sure there are some profound gems in this book (the many arguments about whether Jesus ever laughed and the place of comedy in the world). Maybe I wasn't in the mood to be philosophical.