alba_malo's review against another edition
buenisima pero me gustaría haberlo leido ahora con 23 años y no con 16 con 16 es la cosa mas pesada de leer del mundo pero ahora lo aprecio un poquito más, no sé
thechris's review against another edition
4.0
Good lord this book was a trial. After several false starts and several breaks I finally finished this book. While this book was incredibly difficult for me to get focused on, I believe that is because it is just so immersive. The whole murder mystery was incredibly interesting and that story alone was enough for me to like it. However, the church history, the factions at odds with each other, and the various Heresies were all incredibly interesting to me.
robhughes's review against another edition
3.0
This is a book i left on a plane months ago with just 60 pages left to go. I now finally know who did all the killing but I can't say it was worth the wait. A bit like Moby Dick in that narrative haste is frequently sacrificed for indulgent pontificating. Hard to believe this was a best seller and that everyone who read it was completely satisfied after all that effort.
pandecanela's review against another edition
3.0
Viste cuando algo te gusta, pero estás tipo, por qué mierda me gusta, acabo de leer 3 páginas seguidas de un monje teologeando sobre las mujeres siendo o no las enviadas del diablo y antes de eso tuviste que leer 10 páginas sobre movimientos heréticos en Italia y terminaste no entendiendo una fucking goma, pero tipo. Está bueno! Me salté un par de partes sobre la política de Italia no les voy a mentir, pero, buenas noticias!, no necesité entenderlo para entender el climax de la historia (como temía)!
Es denso, es difícil, pensé que iba a tener un poco más de reflexión sobre la lingüística y la semiología en sí, pero fue tipo voltanzo para el catolicismo. Pero no aburrido, somehow. Y es tipo ese smart que no es pretencioso, el chabón solo tenía una re banda de conocimiento y by god (pun intended) he was gonna share it all. Me deja dudas sobre las personas que me dijeron que tenían sentimientos fuertes por este libro igual es como, sí, es muy buen libro, pero....de dónde viene el amor?? de la política teológica?? i'm confused.
Anyway la parte del murder mystery 10/10, tengo una sola ??? con tipo. u know.
Anyway valió la pena, that's it.
Es denso, es difícil, pensé que iba a tener un poco más de reflexión sobre la lingüística y la semiología en sí, pero fue tipo voltanzo para el catolicismo. Pero no aburrido, somehow. Y es tipo ese smart que no es pretencioso, el chabón solo tenía una re banda de conocimiento y by god (pun intended) he was gonna share it all. Me deja dudas sobre las personas que me dijeron que tenían sentimientos fuertes por este libro igual es como, sí, es muy buen libro, pero....de dónde viene el amor?? de la política teológica?? i'm confused.
Anyway la parte del murder mystery 10/10, tengo una sola ??? con tipo. u know.
Spoiler
la parte en la que el bro encuentra una mina y se la insta coge y also like. she did it because she was just SO GRATEFUL that he wasn't an old dirty man. like. qué. y la flasheada de amor después. @ umberto eco entiendo que es un pendejo muy horny pero el daño psíquico de toda esa storyline quién me lo arregla?Anyway valió la pena, that's it.
nonabgo's review against another edition
4.0
I first read [b:The Name of the Rose|119073|The Name of the Rose|Umberto Eco|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1415375471l/119073._SY75_.jpg|3138328] when I was in highscool. It was a mandatory read for my Universal literature class and, as with most mandatory reads, I hated it. It didn't help that I also hated the teacher, whom I considered (and still do) a poser who lived to be adulated by high-schoolers. He had these ideas to teach philosophical novels to 16 year-olds who barely understood them, but thought they would be cool if they bragged about reading "hard" stuff. Anyways.
While I still don't think this is a novel fit for teenagers, I can appreciate it more now. It will never be one of my absolute favourite books, for the simple fact that I think religion is the devil and the Catholic Church did more bad than good throughout its existence (with some very gruesome examples in this book)… but alas, I can, for the most part, detach from my beliefs and appreciate it as the great piece of literature that it is.
I see a lot of reviews from people who stop at the crime part and think the rest of the book is simply pointless and just a way for Eco to show off about his erudition. There's simply too much Latin for some people. I disagree (I also actually studied Latin in school, and probably being European makes it just sort of normal to see it in writings). To me, the mystery is solely an excuse to discuss about the historical context of the era. Yes, Guglielmo is sort of a Middle Ages Sherlock Holmes, he employs logic and evidence-based deductions to uncover the mystery and that aspect of the novel is alert and interesting and reveals a mind ahead of its times. Undressed of the philosophical discourse, the novel would not have been more than your regular run-of-the-mill murder-mystery.
However, the main part of the novel is a deep dive into the politics and religious beliefs of the time - the first more than the latter, because any history buff knows that most politics during those times were shaped, in reality, by the Church, who would use religion as merely a means to gain more power and wealth (not unlike in some countries today - see Poland).
The entire debate on whether Jesus was wealthy or not is not a religious debate, but simply a means to decide (or justify) whether the Church should hold possessions or not, and to what extent. It may appear to be a philosophical and doctrinal debate and that's how the characters rationalize it, but in reality (and very much admitted by Guglielmo as well), it's all about maintaining the Church's power over the people by amassing wealth and creating law. In the end, however subtle and despite his involvement in the Church, Guglielmo hints at the inconsistencies of the faith, and even Adso, immature and ecstatic as he is, realises that, if properly dissected, the Church's logic actually demonstrates that God does not exist.
I think having Adso as the storyteller was a stroke of genius from Eco's part. He is merely a novice and a teenager, but - and particularly because of this - he is able to observe things with fresh eyes, not yet corrupted by the Church. The fact that he comes from an order that values possessions, but is actually a disciple of a Franciscan, an order that preaches humility and poverty, makes him a great unbiased (who occasionally questions his faith) observer. Eco even states at some point that he chose to tell the story through Adso's eyes because he was so young that he could recount the events with a photographic memory, but didn't understand them - consequently did not try to explain, thus he did not misinterpret them.
Adso is also quite funny, bringing an innocence that breaks the seriousness of both the events in the Abbey and the religious debates. For such a dark book, having the storyteller insert self-deprecating humour in the story is a much needed breather.
The book is also a praise of knowledge and science. Knowledge is power, but it can also lead to a lot of harm if fallen in the wrong hands. But who is responsible of maintaining the knowledge and is it really beneficial, on long term, to hide it from those who could use it unwisely, or should it be free for everyone? In the end, hiding knowledge turns out to be worse. Humans are rational and curious beasts and hiding something only makes people want it more. But knowledge is also power and some people (in this case, the Church) doesn't want to share that power and lose control of the masses. We have a saying in my language, the books make you unstupid; thus harder to be manipulated.
The ending was simply heart-breaking for me. It hit me hard and saddened me. But it was the natural and only possible ending.
It's not a book for everyone, don't be fooled by the movie. Don't expect an easy read. The mystery is but a small part of it. It's great as historical fiction, the Middle Ages being an era so easily bypassed by writers (probably because it's not an easy period to write about).
While I still don't think this is a novel fit for teenagers, I can appreciate it more now. It will never be one of my absolute favourite books, for the simple fact that I think religion is the devil and the Catholic Church did more bad than good throughout its existence (with some very gruesome examples in this book)… but alas, I can, for the most part, detach from my beliefs and appreciate it as the great piece of literature that it is.
I see a lot of reviews from people who stop at the crime part and think the rest of the book is simply pointless and just a way for Eco to show off about his erudition. There's simply too much Latin for some people. I disagree (I also actually studied Latin in school, and probably being European makes it just sort of normal to see it in writings). To me, the mystery is solely an excuse to discuss about the historical context of the era. Yes, Guglielmo is sort of a Middle Ages Sherlock Holmes, he employs logic and evidence-based deductions to uncover the mystery and that aspect of the novel is alert and interesting and reveals a mind ahead of its times. Undressed of the philosophical discourse, the novel would not have been more than your regular run-of-the-mill murder-mystery.
However, the main part of the novel is a deep dive into the politics and religious beliefs of the time - the first more than the latter, because any history buff knows that most politics during those times were shaped, in reality, by the Church, who would use religion as merely a means to gain more power and wealth (not unlike in some countries today - see Poland).
The entire debate on whether Jesus was wealthy or not is not a religious debate, but simply a means to decide (or justify) whether the Church should hold possessions or not, and to what extent. It may appear to be a philosophical and doctrinal debate and that's how the characters rationalize it, but in reality (and very much admitted by Guglielmo as well), it's all about maintaining the Church's power over the people by amassing wealth and creating law. In the end, however subtle and despite his involvement in the Church, Guglielmo hints at the inconsistencies of the faith, and even Adso, immature and ecstatic as he is, realises that, if properly dissected, the Church's logic actually demonstrates that God does not exist.
I think having Adso as the storyteller was a stroke of genius from Eco's part. He is merely a novice and a teenager, but - and particularly because of this - he is able to observe things with fresh eyes, not yet corrupted by the Church. The fact that he comes from an order that values possessions, but is actually a disciple of a Franciscan, an order that preaches humility and poverty, makes him a great unbiased (who occasionally questions his faith) observer. Eco even states at some point that he chose to tell the story through Adso's eyes because he was so young that he could recount the events with a photographic memory, but didn't understand them - consequently did not try to explain, thus he did not misinterpret them.
Adso is also quite funny, bringing an innocence that breaks the seriousness of both the events in the Abbey and the religious debates. For such a dark book, having the storyteller insert self-deprecating humour in the story is a much needed breather.
„I sat in church, near the central door, as the Masses were said. And so I fell devoutly asleep and slept a long time, because young people seem to need sleep more than the old, who have already slept so much and are preparing to sleep for all eternity.”
The book is also a praise of knowledge and science. Knowledge is power, but it can also lead to a lot of harm if fallen in the wrong hands. But who is responsible of maintaining the knowledge and is it really beneficial, on long term, to hide it from those who could use it unwisely, or should it be free for everyone? In the end, hiding knowledge turns out to be worse. Humans are rational and curious beasts and hiding something only makes people want it more. But knowledge is also power and some people (in this case, the Church) doesn't want to share that power and lose control of the masses. We have a saying in my language, the books make you unstupid; thus harder to be manipulated.
The ending was simply heart-breaking for me. It hit me hard and saddened me. But it was the natural and only possible ending.
It's not a book for everyone, don't be fooled by the movie. Don't expect an easy read. The mystery is but a small part of it. It's great as historical fiction, the Middle Ages being an era so easily bypassed by writers (probably because it's not an easy period to write about).
ulvinde's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
laurenmsilverman's review against another edition
So much I love about this, too much for words
nhborg's review against another edition
5.0
4.5
What a journey. The amount of genres this badboy of a book falls under and how well the story is crafted, balancing a thrilling mystery and enlightening philosophical discussions - I’m so impressed! How come this is not recommended as a dark academia classic?
What a journey. The amount of genres this badboy of a book falls under and how well the story is crafted, balancing a thrilling mystery and enlightening philosophical discussions - I’m so impressed! How come this is not recommended as a dark academia classic?
kipepeo's review against another edition
challenging
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
So, on the whole I thought this was pretty good. HOWEVER. It was dense and long and VERY religious and religiously political. There’s a bunch of (obviously) outdated bs in here but it does make sense for the story and its time. I really liked our two main protagonists they were interesting people, especially William. I also cracked up laughing at the hypocrisy and the GAY.