Tedious, but conveys zeitgeist well

Would you say that listening to this book was time well-spent? Why or why not?

At first, I was quite mesmerized by this book. The book cleverly made to feel like a first-person depiction from the time, and feels very genuine. The characters are not only well built, they also think like medieval monks (with the exception of the main character, William of Baskerville, a rational, ahead of his time free thinker, who thinks and acts much more like a modern man). However, it appears the author, a world renowned intellectual, was quite keen on displaying his vast knowledge of the period, resolving many times with endless surveys of medieval church politics and tedious descriptions of theological views, marginal character history, artifacts etc. In fact, it sometime feels like the plot is only an excuse for the author to show off his intellect, who ironically indulges in the sin of pride like many of the characters in his book…Slowly, I began to wander off and lose track of the plot. Not a good thing, especially in a mystery novel. I would recommend this audio book to enthusiasts of this particular era, but for those, like me, who are fun-loving history buffs – I felt it was spending too much effort on wowing the readers with mind blowing quantities of information, and not enough on giving them a great read.

Any additional comments?

The narration by Sean Barrett was incredible. It is quite overwhelming knowing all characters were played by one very talented person. Every character had its own distinct voice, tone and accent, and the narration was as vivid as a theatrical show.

5 people found this helpful

The medium is the stupendous message.

If you could sum up The Name of the Rose in three words, what would they be?

Sensational.. ( in the truest sense of the word) Humbling. Illuminating.

What was one of the most memorable moments of The Name of the Rose?

Near the ending of this dense, labyrinth- like novel, the novice Adso, through whose now aged eyes we share the myriad incidents and and ancient tales, witnesses his Master and champion for what he in part is. William of Baskerville is a man full of his own vanity sparring with another man full of hubris in the literary, intellectual vastness of each other's intelligence. It is remarkably rare to have the privilege to share the sounds of the philosopher's sword clash repeatedly with the maniacal clang of a frenzied believer over a Thought or Notion. The stakes are terribly high, have always been and one hopes always will be. One man utterly believes that if the gravitas of Aristotle is accorded to Comedy and Laughter all fear and therefore power over others will be irretrievably lost. The other believes that all freedoms are ours to take and use, whatever the consequences. The feelings aroused by this purely spoken interchange ( one of many, many throughout the novel) are overpowering and as visceral as the ubiquitous visual equivalents,No car chases, no explosions, no overt body count. Yet what is being discussed is the power of words wherever they are uttered and the often dreadful but also so often empowering gift some other person' s words can bring to us.

Have you listened to any of Sean Barrett’s other performances before? How does this one compare?

Again I sought out this actor's name and again, when it intersected with an interest of mine ,I chose to listen to his performance. What a tour de force. His voice is redolent of a medieval, cosmopolitan milieu...ranging from youthful, Latin, mad and arrogantly intelligent monks to an aged but still insightful narrator. What sustained, remarkable skill.To think last week I was transported through the streets of contemporary Oslo in a police car with the voice of this Actor. That in itself is a testament to the marvels of free imagining and the remarkable freedoms available to some.

Did you have an extreme reaction to this book? Did it make you laugh or cry?

Yes. Umberto Eco deserves his scholarly place amongst the firmament of semiotic academics who manages to successfully link such disparate historical facts( or imaginative guesses), religious events, massive knowledge of ancient history and the vicissitudes of all of our human appetites to meld together chapter after chapter where we cannot but be involved. One is coaxed into terrifying mists, funny conversations, smelly kitchens and horrendous grief at monumental loss. It is a provocation on every page for testing one's acumen from remembering " the joke about.." from a " The Simpsons " episode, yes, remembering a long forgotten sexual encounter, yes, and trying to remember what the Latin for disappointment was, yes. To assist laughing and crying lay a Bible, a Latin dictionary, a guide to ancient History, a semiotic/ signs text, a guide to architecture..I won't go on..you get the picture..or a great technological device alongside whatever you are listening with if you want to wring the most out of this novel.Or just enjoy the mystery.

Any additional comments?

Listen to this novel if you want to remember why you read it and wept so many years ago. Listen to it if you really want to learn or remember things you learnt and had forgotten about History and how important elemental things remain in all our lives.It is a challenge but it is worth it.

4 people found this helpful

A Pattern Emerges

This historical search for the lost Second Book of Aristotle and the murderer of seven monks follows a labyrinthine path, like the rooms of the library the monks have sworn to protect. Now, 30 years since it was first translated into English, the pace seems too slow for modern tastes (compared to, say, "Wolf Hall"). The amount of detail is comparable, if not in excess of other very good historical fiction, but the "care factor" is lower. I have commented before that I never though that I could like Cromwell until I read Wolf Hall. I'm afraid I simply have no care for the dead monks, or even William of Baskerville (whom I pictured as Sean Connery throughout, although the narrator, Adso, I saw as no Christian Slater; more a minion than a martyr). I found the tale too dense, the characters unappealing (even the ones that you suspect you're meant to dislike, like Bernado Gui, the inquisitor) and the discourses too frequent to maintain the pace of the investigation. That investigation takes seven days, but it took me considerably longer to listen to the whole title. None of this can be laid at the feet of Sean Barret, who performs the roles with dexterity and good character differentiation. I wanted to like this more than I did and I suspect I will be condemned as a Philistine for the overall rating, but it simply was not my cup of poison.

2 people found this helpful

Not a thriller; a mirror

YE BE WARNED - SPOILERS AHEAD

I'll come right out and say it, as a thriller, the story has not held up so well. It is a little too slow and a little too straight forward to work as a Sherlock Holmes. As far as I can tell, however, this aspect is the least important of all the book's many facets.

I don't know a lot about Italy in the late 1970's. I do know the period from late 1960 to late 1980 was called the "Years of Lead", marred by political extremism and terrorism. My interpretation of this book hinges on a pretty significant assumption about what Eco tries to do; he tries to hold up a mirror to a culture in turmoil, where dogma holds sway over rationality and truth. Listening to the stellar narration I had a feeling this book uses the monks of the abbey as proxies for modern day people. Essentially, from the perspective of modern morality and epistemology, it is quite obvious that many of the beliefs of the monks are completely asinine, like the insistence on the female being of the devil, and all the philosophising about punishment as just reward for sinful deeds meted out by some very real and vengeful overseer. To our eyes, such beliefs tend to be seen as ludicrous, and for good reason (I am not now drawing into question the existence of deities; that is a discussion not pertinent to my attempt at analysis here). Moral judgement will, for the most part, always depend on the subject's point of view. One can state that murder and slavery is wrong, but other people at other times will say "you're wrong" or "you're wrong if the murdered or enslaved are so-and-so".

What I believe Eco wants to do is tell us, today, in the modern culture of Italy (with its unnerving relevance to much of the rest of Western culture in the late 2010's), is that we are the stupid monks. By using the morality of the 1300's it will be clear even to the most fanatic individual that there is something off with that time's morality with respect to some ideal, modern one (which people generally hold to be their own). He does not intend to ridicule the monks, nor does he want to prove to us that we hold morally indefensible ideas. That would be close to pointless, with the fluidity and subjectivity of full moral frameworks. What he wants is to point out the fundamental flaw in how we have arrived at our morals. The monks arrive at their morals from religious dogma; we arrive at our morals from political dogma.

For reason to thrive, reason must be applied, despite how laborious it is to do so. And even if it is applied, it may not lead anywhere; William and Adso's eventual solution to the mystery in the abbey is found by accident, through no particularly powerful application of Holmsian deduction. Not only that, but the mystery turns out to not be an orchestrated conspiracy, but rather a few coincidences on top of the passive, deadly malevolence of a bitter old man. Reason cannot create order out of chaos, but it sure is a better way to approach it that by just accepting whatever you're told.

In modern Western politics, we're sliding backwards. We elect the likes of Trump, we Brexit ourselves in the ass, and we threaten the children of local politicians over toll roads in Norway. We're getting heated. We're getting extreme. We're moving away from order and reason, into chaos, and the further we move, the harder it becomes to apply reason to make our way back again. We ain't got time to think when there is this inflammatory Facebook post to reply to! The first to post gets the most likes, after all!

Eco wrote, in the late 1970's Italy, a warning to all of Western culture, to be wary of how we get our morals. Whatever the morals may be, if we get them from ridiculous sources, we can't expect them themselves to be of better quality.

1 person found this helpful

wonderful voice acting

a very interesting yet sometimes frustrating book made better by a compelling voice actor. would highly recommend it to anyone whose into 14th century monks

1 person found this helpful

It was such a wonderful reading!

I liked the book’s atmosphere. The narrative is amazing. You can easily identify the character by its voice.

A modern classic

This book will never be outdated even though it's set in 12th century. A masterpiece!

A suberb reading of a demanding story.

A compelling "read", with concepts society will do well to consider, especially the older the story becomes.

Superb rendering of a demanding story.

Thank you

Really great narrative and narrator!

A great philosofical work on the life and times of the medieval world and a Journey trought The mindset of it's inhabitants

Narration Makes this book too Good.

Sean Barrett is an amazing Narrator.
I removed so many books from my library after listening to this one because their narrators weren't palatable anymore.
Also, I don't think I could have read this story. it's only in audio form that I can possible consume it.

The story is a bit slower than my taste, but it's so scrumptious.

Many things have been said in Italian. I should have known before buying the unabridged version. However, nicely enough, this makes the experience far richer.

I would reccomend it.