You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by ryanmazzola
The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco
adventurous
challenging
dark
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
I had no idea what I was getting into when I was sent this book. However, I now know where this book belongs in my heart, and in history.
This is the quintessential text on the language of postmodernism - post-structuralism. William, whom just so happens to be a teacher in Paris (the home to the post-structuralist movement), so beautiful and effortlessly teaches adso the methods of critique, Deweyian inquiry, and a reject of modernist doctrine (what a fascinating tale to situate within debates on religion).
So many times throughout the book, William employs Derridian deconstruction, sausserian semiotics, and the foucauldian intersection of power, knowledge, and performativity. A masterpiece in these areas.
William teaches adso the dangers of ascribing universal laws of motion to things like heresy, reformers, the simple, sin, righteousness, piety, and women. Nuance and the pursuit of truth are lost in a world where everything is knowable and only existing knowledge, not inquiry, can teach you of the essence of worldly phenomena.
“A single body can be cold or hot, sweet or bitter, wet or dry, in one place-and not in another place. How can I discover the universal bond that orders all things if I cannot lift a finger without creating an infinity of new entities? For with such a movement all the relations of position between my finger and all other objects change. The relations are the ways in which my mind perceives the connections between single entities, but what is the guarantee that this is universal and stable?" I mean good fucking lord this book is incredible.
The basic tenant of post structuralism that’s heavily featured in this book is that words are not signs with fixed meaning. This point becomes over emphasized in the conclusion when William discovers the unknown book he so fervently chased after:
“We will show how the ridiculousness of actions is born from the likening of the best to the worst and vice versa, from arousing surprise through deceit, from the impossible, from violation of the laws of nature, from the irrelevant and the inconsequent, from the debasing of the charac-ters, from the use of comical and vulgar pantomime, from disharmony, from the choice of the least worthy things. We will then show how the ridiculousness of speech is born from the misunderstandings of similar words for different things and different words for similar things, from garrulity and repetition, from play on words, from diminutives, from errors of pronunciation, and from barbarisms.”
Additionally, William misunderstands the other monks by misattributing signs to the the things they say, and missing key clues to the mystery:
“Alinardo was raving about a mysterious enemy who had been sent to seek books in Silos (my curiosity peaked when he said this enemy had returned prematurely to darkness: at first it might have seemed the man he was speaking of had died young, but he was referring to your blindness)”
In similar display of this theme, William falsely attributed the deaths at the abbey to following the same patterns laid out in scripture. But this only takes him further from the truth. Reinforcing the postmodernist notion that to asblcribe actually existing phenomenon to metaphysical patterns observed in essentialist theories of the world will only lead to dead ends. Wow. Magical.
If you or your friend don’t understand postmodernism (that’s okay no one does) just give this book a read!
This is the quintessential text on the language of postmodernism - post-structuralism. William, whom just so happens to be a teacher in Paris (the home to the post-structuralist movement), so beautiful and effortlessly teaches adso the methods of critique, Deweyian inquiry, and a reject of modernist doctrine (what a fascinating tale to situate within debates on religion).
So many times throughout the book, William employs Derridian deconstruction, sausserian semiotics, and the foucauldian intersection of power, knowledge, and performativity. A masterpiece in these areas.
William teaches adso the dangers of ascribing universal laws of motion to things like heresy, reformers, the simple, sin, righteousness, piety, and women. Nuance and the pursuit of truth are lost in a world where everything is knowable and only existing knowledge, not inquiry, can teach you of the essence of worldly phenomena.
“A single body can be cold or hot, sweet or bitter, wet or dry, in one place-and not in another place. How can I discover the universal bond that orders all things if I cannot lift a finger without creating an infinity of new entities? For with such a movement all the relations of position between my finger and all other objects change. The relations are the ways in which my mind perceives the connections between single entities, but what is the guarantee that this is universal and stable?" I mean good fucking lord this book is incredible.
The basic tenant of post structuralism that’s heavily featured in this book is that words are not signs with fixed meaning. This point becomes over emphasized in the conclusion when William discovers the unknown book he so fervently chased after:
“We will show how the ridiculousness of actions is born from the likening of the best to the worst and vice versa, from arousing surprise through deceit, from the impossible, from violation of the laws of nature, from the irrelevant and the inconsequent, from the debasing of the charac-ters, from the use of comical and vulgar pantomime, from disharmony, from the choice of the least worthy things. We will then show how the ridiculousness of speech is born from the misunderstandings of similar words for different things and different words for similar things, from garrulity and repetition, from play on words, from diminutives, from errors of pronunciation, and from barbarisms.”
Additionally, William misunderstands the other monks by misattributing signs to the the things they say, and missing key clues to the mystery:
“Alinardo was raving about a mysterious enemy who had been sent to seek books in Silos (my curiosity peaked when he said this enemy had returned prematurely to darkness: at first it might have seemed the man he was speaking of had died young, but he was referring to your blindness)”
In similar display of this theme, William falsely attributed the deaths at the abbey to following the same patterns laid out in scripture. But this only takes him further from the truth. Reinforcing the postmodernist notion that to asblcribe actually existing phenomenon to metaphysical patterns observed in essentialist theories of the world will only lead to dead ends. Wow. Magical.
If you or your friend don’t understand postmodernism (that’s okay no one does) just give this book a read!