Brian's Reviews > The Name of the Rose
The Name of the Rose
by
by
“The Name of the Rose” is a horribly pretentious, pedantic, verbose “novel”. And it stinks too!
Under the guise of a medieval mystery Umberto Eco has written a diatribe on philosophical ideas (and not presented all of them accurately) in order to impress upon the reader how very smart he is indeed. Characterization, moments of human reality & truth, and most importantly accessibility to the reader are clearly repulsive ideas to Mr. Eco.
I can sum up the book, which takes place at a monastery in northern Italy in 1327 thus:
-Monks have crazy visions, lots of them and their visions don’t advance the plot one iota.
-Umberto Eco knew Latin, and he wants you to be damn sure to know it.
-The narrator has a vison in which Eco shows off that he knows Bible stories, lots of them, and can throw them into a blender to create some post-apocalyptic nonsense, again to no point in the story. My mommy read Bible stories to me too. I get the references Eco was making. I imagine that would disappoint him. He clearly hates novels that actually involve the reader.
-Eco is actually a very bad version of Dan Brown. Read that sentence again. Yep I said it. The text’s great dénouement is straight out of one of Brown’s novels with the same obvious villain/ religious fanatic that the reader can see coming a mile away. Mr. Brown can’t write, but he is a good storyteller. Eco can’t write (and editing is out of his frame of reference) AND he is a horrid storyteller.
-The arrogant and meandering “Postscript” written by the author (he takes 40 pages to explain to you how great he and his book are) is truly terrible. It will make you detest the writer. As if you will need help after finishing this torture. Did no one ever tell this guy to shut up? Throughout these 40 pages he contradicts himself, and talks down to the reader too many times to count.
Really my biggest frustration with “The Name of the Rose” is that it infrequently presents an interesting idea which if followed up would have made for intriguing reading. Among them, the idea of “books speaking among themselves” and some thoughts on the nature of learning that had much potential. There are nuggets throughout the text that if taken out of context are quite insightful and worthy of thought. But then Eco’s ego gets the better of him and he pontificates and belabors each point he makes. Every time he presents an idea (philosophical, educational, religious or other) he makes the point in 2-3 pages and then goes on to lecture the reader for another 10-20 pages on the same point redundantly. If those redundancies alone had been cut the text would have been 300 pages and significantly less bad.
A member of my book club picked this text, and the way the meeting for this book went clearly demonstrates its flaws. It was not a discussion and an exchange of ideas, but a lecture. When you have a group of educated people and 1 or 2 has to tell the rest of them how valuable a text is…well…I think that says it all right there. Ironically Eco writes in the book “Without an eye to read them, a book contains signs that produce no concepts, therefore it is dumb.” Unless you are a book by Mr. Eco of course, then if people don’t read your work because it does not speak to them they are the fools. There are quite a few fans of this text who may believe that whopper. I for one am not biting.
Under the guise of a medieval mystery Umberto Eco has written a diatribe on philosophical ideas (and not presented all of them accurately) in order to impress upon the reader how very smart he is indeed. Characterization, moments of human reality & truth, and most importantly accessibility to the reader are clearly repulsive ideas to Mr. Eco.
I can sum up the book, which takes place at a monastery in northern Italy in 1327 thus:
-Monks have crazy visions, lots of them and their visions don’t advance the plot one iota.
-Umberto Eco knew Latin, and he wants you to be damn sure to know it.
-The narrator has a vison in which Eco shows off that he knows Bible stories, lots of them, and can throw them into a blender to create some post-apocalyptic nonsense, again to no point in the story. My mommy read Bible stories to me too. I get the references Eco was making. I imagine that would disappoint him. He clearly hates novels that actually involve the reader.
-Eco is actually a very bad version of Dan Brown. Read that sentence again. Yep I said it. The text’s great dénouement is straight out of one of Brown’s novels with the same obvious villain/ religious fanatic that the reader can see coming a mile away. Mr. Brown can’t write, but he is a good storyteller. Eco can’t write (and editing is out of his frame of reference) AND he is a horrid storyteller.
-The arrogant and meandering “Postscript” written by the author (he takes 40 pages to explain to you how great he and his book are) is truly terrible. It will make you detest the writer. As if you will need help after finishing this torture. Did no one ever tell this guy to shut up? Throughout these 40 pages he contradicts himself, and talks down to the reader too many times to count.
Really my biggest frustration with “The Name of the Rose” is that it infrequently presents an interesting idea which if followed up would have made for intriguing reading. Among them, the idea of “books speaking among themselves” and some thoughts on the nature of learning that had much potential. There are nuggets throughout the text that if taken out of context are quite insightful and worthy of thought. But then Eco’s ego gets the better of him and he pontificates and belabors each point he makes. Every time he presents an idea (philosophical, educational, religious or other) he makes the point in 2-3 pages and then goes on to lecture the reader for another 10-20 pages on the same point redundantly. If those redundancies alone had been cut the text would have been 300 pages and significantly less bad.
A member of my book club picked this text, and the way the meeting for this book went clearly demonstrates its flaws. It was not a discussion and an exchange of ideas, but a lecture. When you have a group of educated people and 1 or 2 has to tell the rest of them how valuable a text is…well…I think that says it all right there. Ironically Eco writes in the book “Without an eye to read them, a book contains signs that produce no concepts, therefore it is dumb.” Unless you are a book by Mr. Eco of course, then if people don’t read your work because it does not speak to them they are the fools. There are quite a few fans of this text who may believe that whopper. I for one am not biting.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Name of the Rose.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
April 23, 2016
–
Started Reading
April 23, 2016
– Shelved
May 9, 2016
–
Finished Reading
January 1, 2022
– Shelved as:
fiction
Comments Showing 1-50 of 85 (85 new)
message 1:
by
Joe
(new)
Sep 06, 2016 10:12PM
Very funny. A rose by any other name would smell as stinky I guess.
reply
|
flag
And then some. It is bad Joe, oh so bad!
Joe wrote: "Very funny. A rose by any other name would smell as stinky I guess."
Joe wrote: "Very funny. A rose by any other name would smell as stinky I guess."
It was not pleasant Barbara! :)
But that is not normal for that club, we have been together for 10 years now!
Barbara wrote: "That book club meeting sounds just awful!"
But that is not normal for that club, we have been together for 10 years now!
Barbara wrote: "That book club meeting sounds just awful!"
Brian, your excellent review made me look back through my records to try and ascertain why I, usually a fairly tough marker, gave this book three stars. I found that I had read it in 1999. In those days I didn't keep notes or reviews and when I entered all my 'read' books into Goodreads after I joined in 2011, I had to guess a 'star' rating for Name of the Rose, because I could barely remember what it was about except that it took forever to finish reading it. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it !!
Glad to hear that I am not the only one Nigel. Goodness, this book!
Nigel wrote: "Couldn't agree more Brian. Very nicely summed up"
Nigel wrote: "Couldn't agree more Brian. Very nicely summed up"
Ha! "Barely remembering" is as good as any excuse sir, as good as any. ;)
Terence M wrote: "Brian, your excellent review made me look back through my records to try and ascertain why I, usually a fairly tough marker, gave this book three stars. I found that I had read it in 1999. In those..."
Terence M wrote: "Brian, your excellent review made me look back through my records to try and ascertain why I, usually a fairly tough marker, gave this book three stars. I found that I had read it in 1999. In those..."
Take the pass and run sir. Take it and run!
Ned wrote: "Thanks Brian, I struggled through Foucault and was fearing this one. Maybe you gave me a pass😏"
Ned wrote: "Thanks Brian, I struggled through Foucault and was fearing this one. Maybe you gave me a pass😏"
First published in 1980, which I think is reflected in the writing style. Biggest issue, however, is that Eco likes to show off what he knows, in a pedantic way. Epitomized by the long rants about Christian heresies at the end of the book.
Take the pass and run. Take it and run! :)
Julie wrote: "Okay, l think you just handed me a free pass to skip this one!"
Julie wrote: "Okay, l think you just handed me a free pass to skip this one!"
Pedantic puts it mildly.
Michael wrote: "First published in 1980, which I think is reflected in the writing style. Biggest issue, however, is that Eco likes to show off what he knows, in a pedantic way. Epitomized by the long rants about ..."
Michael wrote: "First published in 1980, which I think is reflected in the writing style. Biggest issue, however, is that Eco likes to show off what he knows, in a pedantic way. Epitomized by the long rants about ..."
I have to chuckle because this is one of those where I look at my friends reviews and I see some 1 stars and some 5 stars. Oh, what to do, what to do?
Wow, I have it on my list bc it’s just one of those books you take a stab at, you know? Well, I’m in no hurry. Redundancy drives me up the wall. Ugh.
You seem like a nice fella, stay away from it! :)
Wayne wrote: "I have to chuckle because this is one of those where I look at my friends reviews and I see some 1 stars and some 5 stars. Oh, what to do, what to do?"
Wayne wrote: "I have to chuckle because this is one of those where I look at my friends reviews and I see some 1 stars and some 5 stars. Oh, what to do, what to do?"
Redundant it is in spades. and it says the same thing over and over again too.
Shaina wrote: "Wow, I have it on my list bc it’s just one of those books you take a stab at, you know? Well, I’m in no hurry. Redundancy drives me up the wall. Ugh."
Shaina wrote: "Wow, I have it on my list bc it’s just one of those books you take a stab at, you know? Well, I’m in no hurry. Redundancy drives me up the wall. Ugh."
I gave this book 2 stars. You are braver than me. I gave it 2 stars because I didn't want my friends who liked it to think I was a philistine. You're now one of my Goodreads heroes.
I ticked off some friends with this review, but this book left me angry. In case my review did not make that abundantly clear! ;)
I have found that I am not alone in my dislike in this text. Glad to meet another member of the tribe.
Elyse wrote: "I gave this book 2 stars. You are braver than me. I gave it 2 stars because I didn't want my friends who liked it to think I was a philistine. You're now one of my Goodreads heroes."
I have found that I am not alone in my dislike in this text. Glad to meet another member of the tribe.
Elyse wrote: "I gave this book 2 stars. You are braver than me. I gave it 2 stars because I didn't want my friends who liked it to think I was a philistine. You're now one of my Goodreads heroes."
Every book is not for everyone, you have the right to share your thoughts. Hope your next read is much better!!
Thanks Cheryl, and it was. :)
Cheryl wrote: "Every book is not for everyone, you have the right to share your thoughts. Hope your next read is much better!!"
Cheryl wrote: "Every book is not for everyone, you have the right to share your thoughts. Hope your next read is much better!!"
I tried to read this book when I was a teenager, couldn't finish it. I think it was only the second book I didn't finish. Always thought I might come back to it, maybe I just didn't understand it/was too young?
Your review, tho, LOL .... it's great.
Your review, tho, LOL .... it's great.
Thanks. And stay away from it. No need to finish!
MK wrote: "I tried to read this book when I was a teenager, couldn't finish it. I think it was only the second book I didn't finish. Always thought I might come back to it, maybe I just didn't understand it/w..."
MK wrote: "I tried to read this book when I was a teenager, couldn't finish it. I think it was only the second book I didn't finish. Always thought I might come back to it, maybe I just didn't understand it/w..."
I think Dan Brown should certainly use parts of your review for his next book. It could appear in the list of accolades on the cover.
Plus your review made me laugh, which is a good way to end a bad day, so thank you! :)
Plus your review made me laugh, which is a good way to end a bad day, so thank you! :)
Glad you got a chuckle. I tried to tinge my bitterness with a little humor!
And note to Mr. Brown's publishers, they are free to use my blurb. Ha!
Melindam wrote: "I think Dan Brown should certainly use parts of your review for his next book. It could appear in the list of accolades on the cover.
Plus your review made me laugh, which is a good way to end a ..."
And note to Mr. Brown's publishers, they are free to use my blurb. Ha!
Melindam wrote: "I think Dan Brown should certainly use parts of your review for his next book. It could appear in the list of accolades on the cover.
Plus your review made me laugh, which is a good way to end a ..."
Yes!
And you are welcome for the heads up. ;)
Jay wrote: "It's on my bucket list. So maybe I should take it off?"
And you are welcome for the heads up. ;)
Jay wrote: "It's on my bucket list. So maybe I should take it off?"
I am now quietly removing this book from my to-read list. There is nothing I abhor more than an arrogant writer who takes liberties to use their books as a platform for public display of their greatness. 😜
Wise move Shiloah, and well said!
Shiloah wrote: "I am now quietly removing this book from my to-read list. There is nothing I abhor more than an arrogant writer who takes liberties to use their books as a platform for public display of their grea..."
Shiloah wrote: "I am now quietly removing this book from my to-read list. There is nothing I abhor more than an arrogant writer who takes liberties to use their books as a platform for public display of their grea..."
I read this book when it first came out----in the 80's.
I attempted to re-read it a couple of years ago and found it defended itself against being read.
I attempted to re-read it a couple of years ago and found it defended itself against being read.
Michael wrote: "I attempted to re-read it a couple of years ago and found it defended itself against being read."
Michael wins the internet today! :D
Michael wins the internet today! :D
What Matt said!
Michael wrote: "I read this book when it first came out----in the 80's.
I attempted to re-read it a couple of years ago and found it defended itself against being read."
Michael wrote: "I read this book when it first came out----in the 80's.
I attempted to re-read it a couple of years ago and found it defended itself against being read."
You might like it. If you were wondering, I did not. ;)
Kami wrote: "I’m going to read this against my better judgement"
Kami wrote: "I’m going to read this against my better judgement"