I also saw the movie first, a crime for which I really can't be blamed. He almost doesn't seem to fit, as he's just so modern-but all his grounding in philosophy makes him pretty plausible. And William of Baskerville is a great character-sympathetic, smart, compassionate, stubborn, ironic. The characters way of speaking, for example, seemed to be pretty connected to their station and certain tactics for wielding power.
It also gives you a feeling that it's a world where ideas have power.Īnd though Eco isn't renowned for characterization, I actually thought that was one of the strengths of the novels. The whole mystery, in fact, seems to be as much about figuring out how do you solve a mystery (criminal or otherwise) as whodunnit. It's set at a time period when the middle ages are starting to give way to the renaissance-the modern world is making its first appearances, but just barely. What I thought was great about it was that all of the philsophical speeches/arguments and latin really gave a sense of what the time period could have been like. It also happens to be pretty allusion rich, so the more classic (and not so classic) works you're familiar with, the more you'll get out of it. It definitely helps if you have a fondness for philosophical digressions or academic/intellectual endeavors in general. I loaned it to my girlfriend, who was sort of lukewarm on it. I think The Name of the Rose is an excellent book, but I'll be the first to admit it's not for everyone.
0 kommentar(er)
