Boxall's 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die discussion

I just finnished reading this book, and I found it to be truly interesting and fascinting a definite worthy read. In addition to the dark mystery threaded throughout the story, and the gothic setting and scenery the story also offers profound discussion on theological and philisophical ideas which truly do challenge the mind and give one something to think about. I did not agree with all of the arguments made within the book but I did find them deeply thoughtful and worth consideration.

Yeah this book is really good. I keep re-reading it.

I never managed to finish the book but the film with Christian Slater, Sean Conery and the actor who plays Hellboy is really great.

Ich bin good Catholic. Ron Pearlman. Book is as good as movie.

I have heard the the movie is really good, so perhpas I should check it out now that I have read the book

I had no idea there was a movie version. I'll have to check that out soon.

Movie with Sean Connery and Christian Slater. Jean-Jacques Annaud and screenplay writers did great job.

I remember that I saw the film by accident. I came home really incredibly late one night, and there it was on HBO, and I found myself staying up all night to watch it. A pretty good movie, I thought.

I gave the novel a go soon afterwards, and enjoyed it a good deal, very entertaining. I'm glad I had the experience of seeing the movie, it gave me an idea of the story that I could keep in the back of my mind as I read. I think I'd have been hopelessly lost without it.

I think the novel is much better than the film. I appreciated the film's ending until I read the novel's ending, which seemed much more probable.

Did anyone here laugh out loud when reading the scene where the monks taunting each other?

"The Gospel says Christ had a purse!"
"Shut up! You people paint that purse even on crucifixes!"
and so on. don't wanna spoil the fun ;p

It was one of the most hilarious conversations I've ever read.

Any time I read "The Name ..." I'm surprised discovering something new. It's like magic.

This book made me interested in meaning of numbers.

and who could forget the amazing library in the monastery...i wish i could have one of those.

Me too, Silvana.

Oh I loved the Monk brawl, and when they were acutally trying to pull off that guys beard, and throwing curses at each other. It was like a tavern scene in a monostary.

I've read the book several times. One time I read it and it reads like a philosophy/theological treatise. Another time I read it, and it reads like a good mystery novel. The author packed so much into the one novel, that it has layers like an onion. All this talk about it has me wanting to read it again.

I agree that Name of the Rose can be read on many levels. Makes me want to re-read it. I went to a monastery in Italy and immediately thought of the book - which made me scrutinize the monks more than I normally would have. Umberto Ecco is never an easy read. He is a philosopher and some of his books make my head hurt. Just finished Baudilino - another newer Ecco book - and felt as if I had watched a Fellini movie. I also agree that the movie version of The Name of the Rose was helpful in putting some of the book in historical context.

They made us watch the movie at school in 6th grade for philosophy class. I also thought it pretty good (though most of my classmates only cared for the sex scene then).
But the book will ALWAYS be better then the movie.
I too will have to re-read it sometime. oh, bummer ;)

I saw the movie when I was a kid and just thought it was a good mystery movie that happened to be set in a monastery. I just recently read the book for the first time and I was just amazed with it. I'm not a religious person, but the theological discussions were just fascinating. And I, too, loved it when they were arguing with each other.

I'd forgotten that scene! O my goodness, it was hysterical! I had to read parts of it out loud to my husband, they were so funny... and he's looking at my like "WHAT are you reading?

I still can't quite decide what I think. I understood most of the biblical references, although I'm a little fuzzy on some of the post-scriptural Saints, so I didn't catch all those nuances. I felt like when the story actually moved toward the conclusion of the deaths, it was fast-paced and very interesting, like any current murder mystery, but when it sidelined into long philosophy sections, it seemed to lose itself. Yet, the philosophy and debates about it seemed to be so essential to the outcome of the story.

The ending, with the (view spoiler)[burning of the library and the entire complex (hide spoiler)] hearkened very much to the gothic novels and dark secrets in old manors (Jane Eyre, anyone?). But I think Eco meant it more as a kind of purging, perhaps? Like expunging all evil and heretical ideas? Or was it more meaningful of the dangers of collecting and hiding knowledge?

And what did you think of William? At times, he seemed gentle, kind, and a good teacher, and others, he seemed harsh, rude, and careless. He even admits he was blundering along the whole time, that he came to the conclusion accidentally, through false assumptions. And Adso: does he learn anything from all this? Or does his (view spoiler)[going back for pieces of fragments from the old library (hide spoiler)] indicate his own hiding of knowledge, dwelling in the past?

I did enjoy when they finally figured out the way into the secret room, but a lot of the explanation left me going "huh? Who cares?"

Regardless, (view spoiler)[anytime a book or library is burned, even fictionally, I feel horribly sad, and makes me think of all that was lost at the burning of Alexandria. (hide spoiler)]

Okay I have serious issues with the movie howsoever much I love the source novel. I simply have no idea why people hold any admiration for the movie, unless its because they are devoted to Slater's career? First, the flick wasn't even a theatrical release, right? Just a cable production? I was so disappointed with it, because to my eyes that's exactly what it looked like: a tv movie. I remember wondering: gee couldn't they even afford a dry-ice machine? Where's the mist? Brooding atmosphere, suspense, anything? Nope. Clunky production values and a butchered script. It did no credit whatsoever to the extraordinary novel of Eco's. Next: Connery is wildly miscast and Slater? He simply played a pimply teenage Watson, but the script brought out nothing of the really wonderful Holmes/Watsonesque relationship in the novel. And then the way they made up both these actors as monks came across astonishingly unconvincing. Its probably a book which is so talky, no one but Kubrick could translate to the screen.

I love the novel--its mesmerizing--I can praise to the heavens. Extraordinary. A modern classic. But the 'film' was a groaner.