Rereadings: The Name of the Rose

February 5, 2010 at 12:00 am 5 comments

This is part of our Rereadings series, which alternates Friday-duty with Fairy Tale Friday. For more background on the series, check out this post.

To my surprise, it has been seven years since I first read The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco. Seven years since I first fell absolutely in love with the book and Eco himself. Seven years of insisting various people read it. And seven years of not reading it myself. I remained steadfast in my love of The Name of the Rose for most of those seven years, until this past October when my lovely co-blogger read it. And hated it. Since we often agree about these sort of things, this gave me serious pause. I was 17 when I first read the book. In the intervening seven years, I had undeniably changed in ways large and small as a person and as a reader. At this point I rather fretfully glanced at The Name of the Rose. Had it changed, too?

Rereading is always a little perilous and filled with that very worrying question. What if that which I loved is now complete garbage to me? Wouldn’t I just have been happier with the fond memory rather than knowing the book isn’t very good? On the other side, what about all the books I hated the first time around? Do they deserve a second chance because of how I’ve changed or should I trust my initial gut and perhaps miss out on something great? These very questions caused me to enter this particular rereading with some trepidation and, I’m sorry to say, I was in part sadly correct (and so was KT).

The Name of the Rose, while still good, is no longer a book I would force into the hands of everyone around me. In fact, reading it again and liking it well enough, I was hard-pressed to remember why I had felt such a passion for it in the first place. It is definitely a fine book, probably unparalleled in its sheer intelligence and use of language, but it certainly did not speak to me the way it did to 17-year-old-me. (In related news, no, you can’t be 17 again, even if you want to recapture a lost book-love.) I became bogged down in the oftentimes endless theological debates (although I enjoyed some of them still) and I started skimming the lengthy descriptions of religious rapture in front of beautifully decorated church doors. It wasn’t the same. Or I wasn’t the same. Or both. Either way, the rereading suffered for it.

What was different about this rereading, aside from my age, is that I read Eco’s Postscript this time around. I skipped it in high school, but I rather morosely entered into it this time around. I had lost a favorite and for some reason I hoped the Postscript would provide some kind of comfort. And Eco did not fail me. I almost liked the Postscript better than the novel (although, of course, you cannot have one without the other). It made me appreciate Eco’s braininess and his evident egotism, which made me appreciate his abilities more but like him personally rather less. The Postscript was an excellent little explanation of why he wrote what he did and what his writing process was like. In fact, it made me understand where the book came from and why it evolved into its current form much better, which, in turn, made me appreciate it a little bit more. Those endless theological debates had a place and Eco had inserted them for good reason.

Including the Postscript in this rereading, it became a “win some, lose some” situation. I won a deeper appreciation of The Name of the Rose, but I definitely lost my love of it. So I may no longer love the book, but I think I now have a far better understanding of what makes it a great modern work of fiction. Happily, I can always check out 17-year-old-me’s utterly simplistic and adoring reaction to the book and think to myself, “Those were the days.”

Advertisements

Entry filed under: Contemporary Fiction, Mystery, Rereadings. Tags: , , , , .

Discussion Post: Nine Stories Weekly Geeks: Author Fun Facts

5 Comments Add your own

  • 1. KT  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:21 am

    In my defense, I still think the book was well-written, and my reaction was just my completely subjective reaction! I’m certain Umberto Eco did exactly what he set out to do in this novel. Far smarter people than me have called it brilliant, so even though I didn’t enjoy it, I’m sure they’re right.

    That said, I’m sorry your reading experience was not as enjoyable the second time around. It’s always depressing to lose a favorite :(

    Reply
    • 2. Corey  |  February 9, 2010 at 7:47 am

      And not enjoying it is totally fine! This book seems to perfectly illustrate that whole “to each his own” aspect of reading. It makes me want to stop recommending things to people quite so forcefully, though!

      Reply
  • 3. silverseason  |  February 8, 2010 at 10:34 am

    I have wondered about the strong feelings we have for books we read at a certain age. Later, on rereading, you still like the book but the strong sense of attachment has been lost. Perhaps it has something to do with discovering yourself through a book, especially at an age when you are trying to discover yourself in a number of ways.

    Reply
    • 4. Corey  |  February 9, 2010 at 7:46 am

      Do you have any books where you’ve had a similar experience? So far, for me this is the only book I’ve had this reaction to. Happily, all the other books I read at a formative age seem to still hold up!

      Reply
      • 5. silverseason  |  February 9, 2010 at 9:47 am

        I thought Look Homeward Angel was very good when I was 19 or 20, but now I don’t think I could get through it again.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Connect with LT

literarytransgressions (Gmail)

@LitTransgressor (Twitter)

LT RSS feed (Subscribe)

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 135 other followers

Categories

LT Archives

In accordance with FTC regulations…

...we must disclose that we are independent bloggers with no ties to authors, publishers, or advertisers. We are not given books or monetary compensation in return for favorable reviews or publicity.

Where we have received advance or complementary copies of books, it will be noted in the body of the entry, and will not affect our review or opinions in the slightest.


%d bloggers like this: