El nombre de la rosa

"It is no accident that the book starts out as a mystery (and continues to deceive the ingenuous reader until the end, so the ingenuous reader may not even realise that this is a mystery in which very little is discovered and the detective is defeated). I believe people like thrillers not because there are corpses or because there is a final celebratory triumph of order (intellectual, social, legal, and moral) over the disorder of evil. The fact is that the crime novel represents a kind of conjecture, pure and simple. But medical diagnosis, scientific research, metaphysical inquiry are also examples of conjecture. After all, the fundamental question of philosophy (like that of psychoanalysis) is the same as the question of the detective novel: who is guilty?" [page 564]

I don't disagree entirely with this take on the novel by its own author, but I find it troublesome that he didn't seem to recognise that it is possible to explore the metaphysical and underlying philosophies in ways that don't intentionally misrepresent what the book is about. Though, I also think it's possible to engage with the elements of something (say, whether or not Jesus was impoverished or if he laughed or if those who will die for God or truth [not the same thing] are the antichrist) without having to present them as a mystery novel.

In fact, this comment actually feels like a slap in the face to people who dared to engage with the book's mystery elements and then were disappointed by the reveal of the mystery or were frustrated by the ways in which everything in the book feels designed to cover up that aspect, as if Eco himself didn't quite know what he really wanted to do with the novel but was still quite pleased with it. And I'm not saying he shouldn't have been pleased by having written it or by others (who definitely aren't me) enjoying it, but it feels insulting for this to even be mentioned. Based on my own engagement with this text, I would venture a guess that the mystery was initially the foreground of the novel only to be made secondary because Eco had other things he had wanted to cram into the novel and wanted to focus on. It feels disingenuous to say that the readers were "deceived" into believing there was a mystery because of how little happened with it, since it feels much more like he simply moved on from his original goals and then was forced to tie up those loose ends.

And it's that point that makes me dislike this book, if I'm honest. I don't mind mysteries that have little action or where the detective makes little progress; these are things that already exist, and they have a purpose to explore the process and the world. They're often stories that have parallel narratives taking place, which prompts the readers to ask the questions about both the primary narrative and the secondary narrative. This is fine, but this isn't precisely how The Name of the Rose feels.

It feels like he initially wanted there to be a murder mystery in an abbey (especially if the title he originally planned, The Abbey of the Crime, is any indication), but so much of the book got stuck in providing excruciating details and lists of things that it felt like it changed into a bloated philosophical novel instead.

Honestly, I want to be more pointed in my criticism, but this book actually frustrates me for how much of my time I feel like I wasted. There was a story somewhere, but I couldn't remember it through the lists of details on statues or names of books in the library shelves... I couldn't remember half of what I needed to through the discourse of things that would've been more interesting in an entire other format, rather than something trying to portray itself as a mystery only to have the author (rather pompously) point to how it wasn't truly that (because, I think, he didn't understand the format or potential of such a thing).

Edit: I also very much just need to add that the resolution of this book was so obvious from the outset based entirely on the ravings of a person that, when it was revealed, I threw the book on the floor.

Je discutais de ce livre l'autre jour avec Y. mon libraire préféré, et il me disait comment il tenait à éviter ces best-sellers mondiaux, ou plutôt à en retarder la fréquentation. Je n'ai pu m'empêcher de mentionner Les misérables, et il y a des similitudes entre ces deux romans, au delà des différences formelles évidentes. Eco ne peut s'empêcher de faire disserter ses personnages, alors que Hugo se garde pour lui-même ces splendides digressions sur l'argot ou l'architecture parisienne. Dans les deux cas, on connaît déjà l'histoire, ou on croit la connaître, et le cinéma nous y aide un peu.

Il n'empêche qu'un jour, le livre se met entre vos mains et exige d'être lu. Alors les cavaliers de l'Apocalypse démarrent leur terrifiante cavalcade, les flammes de l'orgueil dévorent la librairie pendant qu'un moine s'en va, emportant avec lui le visage d'une femme dont il n'aura pas connu le nom.

A monk is asked to solve a series of murders in a remote 14th-century abbey amid a backdrop of high-level meetings between two opposing factions within the Catholic church.

This is my second time reading this novel. My first reading was well over 10 years ago, but that was before I discovered my recent interest in the Middle Ages. In addition to that, I also read a book earlier this summer specifically about monasteries and monastic living. With all of that under my belt, I decided to reread this book to see if I would still be impressed with it.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the mystery of the murders and of the library were much less intriguing the second time round. I think that's because there is little else to the novel other than that and the debates between the two opposing factions. A great novel, at its heart, still needs well-developed characters and an engaging narrative. This novel lacks both. The narrative is detailed and very quotable, but it is not particularly beautiful; and there are even times when future disasters get telegraphed to the reader in an overt attempt to build suspense. As well, the main characters are distant and unrelatable, merely there to go through the motions. I didn't really care for or empathize with either of them. This is by far the biggest weakness I noticed on rereading it, and I suspect Umberto Eco was a better essayist than he was a novelist.

However, having said that, I do remember being completely absorbed with the plot and with the labyrinth in the library when I first read it. And, after doing all my reading on the Middle Ages, I'm even more impressed with Eco's ability to recreate the time and the place so well--not just the physical atmosphere, but the attitudes as well--and to communicate it so effectively.

It's a novel, primarily, about the control of information. It touches on matters of greed, nationalism, humility, faith, class, and power as well. However, Eco's primary purpose seems to be about censorship regarding some of the more controversial ideas held in certain books in the library. It's an interesting discussion, but I can't help but wonder if Eco would still have the same views if he had written this novel in the post-truth world we are now living in.

Despite certain reservations, I still recommend it. It is a bit self-indulgent at times when he is showing off his knowledge, particularly about obscure writers and monastic orders, but there is definitely intrigue in the dual mysteries of the library and the murders, as well as the wonderful atmosphere and history.

A Franciscan friar and a Benedictine novice travel to a Benedictine monastery in Italy to attend a theological disputation. Not it’s not a joke… its murder. The Name of the Rose is set in 1327 and follows the story of William of Baskerville and his companion and narrator Adso as they try to uncover who is behind all the mysterious deaths.

Baskerville is an intellectual and almost Sherlock in the way he analyses and comes to his conclusions; with his trusty sidekick, Watson… I mean Adso who is narrating this book many years later as a memoir, giving Umberto Eco the perfect chance to flood the novel with all his knowledge of Medieval Catholicism.

This book is heavy in explaining the medieval times and the fights between the different Catholic factions, as well as the sheer ease of convicting someone as a heretic. I loved Eco’s other novel Foucault's Pendulum because of the subject matter (conspiracies) but I think this book is an easier book to read, and if you are interested in learning about Medieval times and the Catholics back then, it is a good way to teach and entertain.