The Name of the RoseUmberto Eco
Once upon a time -- forever ago, it seems -- I was in high school. My years at this drab institution were colored by a variety of characters, including one particular young lady whom I'll call...Jane.
Jane was one of those annoying little twits who was too smart for her own damn good. Of course, being smart is never a bad thing -- unless, like Jane, you take every opportunity to shove your erudition into the face of EVERY SINGLE PERSON within a 10-mile radius.
Jane was one of those annoying little twits who was too smart for her own damn good. Of course, being smart is never a bad thing -- unless, like Jane, you take every opportunity to shove your erudition into the face of EVERY SINGLE PERSON within a 10-mile radius.
a dead-ringer for the little know-it-all snit
(True story, though: During my senior year, members of my physics class were forced to take a national test euphemistically called "The Physics Bowl." Why labeling a test as a "bowl" should make it more palatable is beyond me, but, as it didn't affect my actual grade, I didn't really sweat it. Anyway, as they announced the winners -- and here I shit you not -- Jane stood to accept the grand prize...only they didn't call her name. Who did win, you ask? ME! She was none too happy that I had taken the highly-coveted (snort) prize, and even more embarrassed that she had stood to collect a prize that wasn't hers. I still have that plaque to this day. Victory = mine.)
Why do I bring this up? Well, as much as I hate to say it, Umberto Eco reminds me of my old nemesis, Jane. Like Jane, Eco loves showing off how much he knows, as he did the last time I encountered him. Still, EVERYONE praises The Name of the Rose, and it was another title in my reading resolution, so I plowed though like any good reader would do.
For those who don't know, The Name of the Rose follows William of Baskerville, a monk who investigates a death at a monastery. With him is his loyal but obtuse sidekick, Adso. William is a unique monk, since he is quite rational and given to logical arguments, even if logic leads him to beliefs counter to those of the Catholic Church. The Church is in upheaval at this time, and heresies are not taken lightly. But what, exactly, is heresy? Is it heresy to believe that Jesus owned property, or that he didn't? Is it heresy to believe that Jesus laughed? These monks argued such issues NONSTOP. Really, it was a bit much after the third or fifth (or tenth) such argument.
In truth, The Name of the Rose is a great book, but I just wish Eco didn't put in EVERYTHING he knew about the times, the beliefs, the customs, etc. of the period. However, the central issue of the whodunit is what really pushed me to the end. I was fascinated by the mysterious library at the center of the abbey, loved the Borges connections, enjoyed the semiotics at the heart of the novel, and found the ultimate solution to the mystery quite compelling.
In a nutshell: I'd have liked it more if there had been less arguing and more murdering. Just kidding, at least as far as the murdering goes. But seriously, some paring down and I'd have adored it. Still, I recognize that I'll appreciate it even more after I reread it...in a few years.
Bibliolatry Scale: 4 out of 6 stars
Why do I bring this up? Well, as much as I hate to say it, Umberto Eco reminds me of my old nemesis, Jane. Like Jane, Eco loves showing off how much he knows, as he did the last time I encountered him. Still, EVERYONE praises The Name of the Rose, and it was another title in my reading resolution, so I plowed though like any good reader would do.
For those who don't know, The Name of the Rose follows William of Baskerville, a monk who investigates a death at a monastery. With him is his loyal but obtuse sidekick, Adso. William is a unique monk, since he is quite rational and given to logical arguments, even if logic leads him to beliefs counter to those of the Catholic Church. The Church is in upheaval at this time, and heresies are not taken lightly. But what, exactly, is heresy? Is it heresy to believe that Jesus owned property, or that he didn't? Is it heresy to believe that Jesus laughed? These monks argued such issues NONSTOP. Really, it was a bit much after the third or fifth (or tenth) such argument.In truth, The Name of the Rose is a great book, but I just wish Eco didn't put in EVERYTHING he knew about the times, the beliefs, the customs, etc. of the period. However, the central issue of the whodunit is what really pushed me to the end. I was fascinated by the mysterious library at the center of the abbey, loved the Borges connections, enjoyed the semiotics at the heart of the novel, and found the ultimate solution to the mystery quite compelling.
In a nutshell: I'd have liked it more if there had been less arguing and more murdering. Just kidding, at least as far as the murdering goes. But seriously, some paring down and I'd have adored it. Still, I recognize that I'll appreciate it even more after I reread it...in a few years.
Bibliolatry Scale: 4 out of 6 stars
5 comments:
I am absolutely hooked to your reviews, their great!
Ah....miss goody two shoes...I also remember her even so I was schooled in Switzerland...sadly she travels the world :( Pain in the arse girl!
On to THE NAME OF THE ROSE, I did like it but I did get tired of plodding along. Yes I also felt Umberto Echo showed us like a good little scholar everything he learned...tedious...I haven't picked up his newer ones...to scared to get bored....
Have a nice day :)
Oh, this made me laugh! You are right, Eco does like to sho off how smart he is. Sometimes I find it endearing, sometimes annoying. I did enjoy Name of the Rose quite a bit though.
Eco is definitely Smarter Than Me. On the whole, I liked it, but I very much sleep-read through parts. But then I'd wake up and be all, Oh good, someone else has mysteriously died! I am a suck for a mystery, and it will drag me through even the worst books.
I've always had "The Name of the Rose" on the bookshelf because it belonged to my father, but I've never had the "courage" to read it. Umberto Eco is supposed to be a bit boring and indeed he likes to show off. I remember I thought that while I was read "Foucault's Pendulum".
You're right that Eco wants so show off how much he knows, but I think it's vaguely forgivable because, well, he knows an awful lot!
Of course there is an art to showing off brilliance in a way that isn't annoying. (I think Martin Amis has mastered that, Eco maybe not).
I loved In the Name of the Rose, though, and I'll save you some time by saying that this is his best novel, and I found all his other novels disappointing after N of the R.
Post a Comment