Pros: A philosophical treatise on truth & postmodernism, intense in every respect
Cons: Intense in every respect
The Bottom Line: Not for the light of heart... NOTR greedily hides the most brilliant concepts from the reader. You'll have to work at this one. Well worth the effort though.
dijinn's Full Review: Umberto Eco - The Name of the Rose
The Blue Or The Red Pill
I must admit that this review has been writing itself in my mind ever since I first learned of Epinions… and to be honest I have been rather cowed by the whole concept. I mean really, who am I to review an Eco book? Honestly, I am still wrangling with this book – fighting mortally with the various possible ways to read it. And really I am not certain how much of my wrangling is appropriate for a “Book Review” – but then again there are worlds and universes here to delve into and explore.
I have noticed a number of individuals that cannot stand Umberto Eco because they believe he comes off as being unnecessarily difficult or that he is pompous and comes across as being pedantic. This is the first clue to me that they were assuming they were getting a Medieval Sherlock Holmes but instead ran into a bucket full of intense Latin and vocabulary equal to a Graduate degree course. Yes, it is valid that they are upset if that is all this is, a who-done-it told from a historical perspective. But that is not what this is. The plot is simply a device used to bring the reader down a path of discovery to greater things. There is so much more here than a simple book told for pleasure reading - there are wonderful insights here for the diligent. **Please note that this review not only has spoilers for the basic plot (which I personally don't mind spoiling) but I am also including information that goes to the heart of Eco's intent for The Name of the Rose. Caveat emptor.
**-- Attention all NOTR movie fans --**
Sean Connery and Christian Slater did not do the book justice. And Yes if I were to review the movie I would give it four or five stars. But I am not reviewing the movie I am reviewing the book and the Hollywood's end for the movie and Eco's end for the book are two very separate and different worlds. It is like the difference between Milan Kundera's book The Unbearable Lightness of Being and the movie version of said book. Apples/Oranges.
Plot Summary
We find ourselves in Italy at the end of November in 1327 following William of Baskerville and Adso of Melk as they journey to investigate a suspicious death amongst the amazing backdrop of a formidably constructed Abbey. William is a Middle Ages equivalent to Sherlock Holmes, a student of Francis Bacon who apparently was a thoroughly Modern influence in his life. It is due to this tutelage of William’s that he is able think and reason with the evidence handed him unlike his other brethren of the Abbey who believe these deaths at the Abbey are portents of the great Apocalypses’ arrival.
As several more deaths are discovered in various odd ways (a deceased Monk drug out of the Abbey without any apparent signs of footprints, another found in a vat of pig’s blood, another poisoned to death by some unknown poison) William and Adso find themselves caught up amongst an inquisition that seems to run in juxtaposition to their natural line of inquiry. It is amongst these competing tides that William must decipher the signs laid out before him.
Umberto Eco
Who would it take to write such a book as this? At the very least someone very well versed in the Middle Ages, the various sects and beliefs within the Catholic Church and a master of languages especially Latin and German. He would also need to have an enormous grasp of Francis Bacon and Modernism – Nietzsche and Postmodernism – so that he could speak to each of these schools of thought through thinly veiled references to each. It wouldn't hurt to be someone that got their Doctorate from the University of Turin at the age of 22. Eco is that individual. Just for your information Eco's doctoral thesis dealt with the early philosopher and religious thinker St. Thomas Aquinas. He currently is a professor of semiotics at the University of Bologna, Italy. His other works include Foucault’s Pendulum, The Island of the Day Before, and three collections of popular essays.
Of his two other fictional works my personal favorite is The Island of the Day Before as it is a period piece set once again in the Middle Ages - back when the world was still perceived to be flat. I may soon do a review of it, but like this review it will deal mostly with the philosophical implications than it will with the basics of characters & plot. Foucault's Pendulum is a work of orderly chaos there is so much information thrown at the reader. It is as if Eco has decided to share with his audience every single sect and religious group he had ever discovered in a single sitting. The story itself reminds me of the movie Conspiracy Theory where he accidentally comes across a potent truth although it
Basic Reading of the Text
This is not a book to be read enjoyed and then set aside. Well, I suppose you could do that – but that would be like reading James Joyce’s Araby and just assuming that it is a pleasant little story about a boy pining away for the girl down the street. I mean really, this book isn't for the average reader simply because Eco brings so many dense layers of knowledge and understanding it is difficult at times to sense his actual meaning. This novel isn’t difficult because of particularly intense vocabulary or it is so superior or overly complicated – it is actually quite easily understood at the face of it.
Umberto Eco has stated before that there is quite a large difference between authors that seek to create a new reader and one that attempts to fulfill the wishes of the readers already found about him. In the latter case the author creates his novel based on tried and true formulas which will allow it to be effectively mass produced and swallowed by the population at large because it is exactly what they long to hear. Eco on the other hand has admitted he is looking for a reader for The Name of the Rose who is willing to under go a transformation:
"You believe you want sex and a criminal plot where the guilty party is discovered at the end, and all with plenty of action, but at the same time you would be ashamed to accept old-fashioned rubbish made up of the living dead, nightmare abbeys, and black penitents. All right then, I will give you Latin, practically no women, lots of theology, gallons of blood in Grand Guignol style, to make you say, 'But all this is false; I refuse to accept it!' And at this point you will have to be mine, and feel the thrill of God's infinite omnipotence, which makes the world's order vain."
To endure this novel is to prostrate oneself and start again, to seek the snare set for us the reader and to realize that the rope is already firmly around our necks.
Various Interpretations
I originally read The Name of the Rose in high school and completely missed the entire lot of it. My initial interpretation led me to believe that it was a triumph of Modernity over the Dark Ages - the clever logician unravels the knot of lies and deception and at the end of the day he is the only one left standing. I had no idea whatsoever how wrong I was. It wasn’t until college when a professor laughed at my naivete and informed me that Eco is actually a postmodern evangelist that I revised my initial conclusions. Now the clever logician is actually a straw man that is completely upended by the chaos revolving about him... the answer accidentally fell into his lap from amongst the maelstrom. This is the postmodernist carefully deconstructing all that we encounter a piece at a time until there is nothing left. It wasn’t until I discovered that Eco abhors narrow-minded postmodernism that leaves no room for the fact that there might actually be Truth in the universe. The clever logician actually finds himself humbled by the chaos surrounding him as it points out the various facets of his own pride and failings in the face of the utter omnipotence of God. I think I ran through that much too quickly - let's look at each philosophical bent...
The Rose and Modernity
Frances Bacon’s New Atlantis was my first introduction to the concept of modernity (there should be no surprise here that William is Band all the trappings of man’s superiority in the face of great challenges. This sentiment, that was so overwhelmingly in vogue in the pre-World War era, seemed as though it would usher in a utopian new world order. It was as if the new religion was humanism and man was his own best fan. It saw the bonds of all other religions as base and idiotic. Why look to God for something man can do for himself?
I guess I shouldn’t be too hard on myself for having come to the conclusion that William was an archetype for a return to modernism (not a post-modernism a re-modernism) with all his various and sundry apparent trappings of the modern. I wrongly assumed that William was there to pass the torch of Humanism to the poor lost Monks of the Abbey. I never really did understand how William himself could be a believer and great sympathizer with the Catholic faith as he was converting them to this new Secular Humanism.
The Rose and Postmodernism
The natural progression of modernity and its kitschy zeitgeist obviously is postmodernism and its relentless questioning. The shackles of science and religion had finally been thrown away forever. “ God is dead, and we have killed Him” declared Nietzsche and finally we actually understood what he was saying. After waking from our self-deluded dream we stared into the Void and considered it a refreshing change of view.
My new postmodern William had an entirely different agenda than my recently modern William. He was an agent for change and destruction. He came in the guise of logic and left with the Abbey tower in flames, the metaphorical walls in ruins. This was both insightful and disturbing at the same time… and it actually never sat well with me. I read both Eco's Foucault’s Pendulum and his Island of the Day Before with this perspective deeply entrenched in my mind. It begins to cast a pallid shadow when you lose yourself in it for too long and I have promised myself I will reread both now that I understand better where Eco is coming from.
The quote that I have found that most accurately speaks in defiance to this perspective is an exchange between William and the killer towards the end of the book. “The Devil is not the Prince of Matter; the Devil is the arrogance of the spirit, faith without smile, truth that is never seized by doubt. I would like… to say to all: he was announcing the truth to you and telling you that the truth has the taste of death, and you believed, not in his words, but in his grimness.” It was this quote and several other similar quotes that caused me to really question Eco’s intentions and begin looking for alternative answers. For what is more grim and foreboding than postmodernism and its nihilistic conclusions?
The Rose, Postmodernism & Truth
I first began to get a glimpse of an alternate possibility after reading a fascinating article written by Niki Lambros entitled ’God, Truth, and Meaning, in the Post-Modernism of Umberto Eco’ where she brilliantly posits that Eco actually is an open minded postmodern who is intent on finding meaning wherever it might be (even amongst the Truth - imagine that!). "While Eco is skeptical of simply accepting traditional religion or modernist conclusions, she yet shows himself to be even more suspicious of philosophy which does not seek truth and meaning, but is content with nihilism and the void." Postmodernism from this perspective is an effective tool for getting to the base of things by avoiding the lies and deceit inherent in human behavior that can so easily skew and ultimately enslave but as an end it is futility at its most obvious.
It is through this insight that the book seemed to unlock itself for me. Eco's concerns are not merely theoretical, academic, or intended to capture the attention of movement-followers; they are vitally concerned with life, the sanctity of the cosmos, and especially the improvement of humanity. We must see Eco’s ingenious solution to this postmodern dilemma for what it is worth – brilliance beyond compare. When the entire world is deconstructed and left to die a tragic death of complete loneliness there is nothing left to hope for or believe in. This is the tragic fault in the foundation of pomo thought and logic which Eco has so delicately side stepped for us.
I Haven’t Done It Justice
For most I have been too long winded here – prattling on about issues that are irrelevant to whether or not the book is worth your time. For a few I have been too quick and have not successfully defended my line of reasoning. To both of you I apologize. Hear me though when I say that if you work at it this book really does have the potential for changing how you see the world. As pointed out by Lambros, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle‘s Sherlock Holmes put it best when he said -
"What a lovely thing a rose is!.... There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion…It can be built up as an exact science by the reasoner. Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. All other things, our powers, our desires, our food, are all really necessary for our existence in the first instance. But this rose is an extra. Its smell and its colour are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. It is only goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope from the flowers"
I do hope that you will take the opportunity to read The Name of the Rose critically and ponder it, but if you only read it for mere entertainment sake it is a worthwhile story. It is very impressive in scope and style. The first 100 pages are admittedly a little rough, but they were designed that way intentionally – you are entering the Abbey and your pace is beginning to match theirs… slow and methodical. Leap this hurdle and you will enjoy this novel regardless of your reading level. The basic point of this review is to take the blinders off and ultimately assist in the process of a minor epiphany. And yet at the same time I don’t want my review to keep you from experiencing a true classic. I, and I think Eco as well, hope that you would have an even more impressive experience than simply reading another marketed bestseller. Read and be transformed.
-------
08.12.2002 - Niki Lambros, the author of "God, Truth, and Meaning, in the Postmodernism of Umberto Eco" (which can be found at http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_papers_lambros.html) contacted me to let me know that I had appropriated one of her quotes. Particularly the Doyle 'What a wonderful thing a Rose is' quote. Let it be said that I am in her debt both for pointing this misstep out and also for catapulting my thinking into an entirely new orbit. (I also mistakenly referred to Ms. Lambros with the pronoun 'his' - an awful mistake that I am rather embarassed about.) I am in her debt for both missing the reference she was due - and for the minor-epiphany her article gave me.
The year is 1327. Franciscans in a wealthy Italian abbey are suspected of heresy, and Brother William of Baskerville arrives to investigate. When his ...More at HotBookSale
The year is 1327. Franciscans in a wealthy Italian abbey are suspected of heresy, and Brother William of Baskerville arrives to investigate. When his ...More at Buy.com Marketplaces
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.