The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco.

Ulysses has been read and in silent apartment house arose my primal scream. A university environment is inner world, which is alien to reality from where you came. That’s if take prestigious institutes. There can meet people demonstrate arrogance and snobbism by which they view on things. From there was James Joyce about whom I’ve learnt. I was getting disgust from his book. It felt that I was reading a pornographic diary. It rarely haven’t a page from where was coming this thought. Joyce in reality was sexual possessed and he liked women with large breasts as was his wife Nora Barnacle. Same size in description had Molly Bloom – wife of a main hero Leopold Bloom with whom Joyce was associating himself. A text’s structure, which I was liking at first time, but later saw that it moves to nowhere, and I hadn’t a hope on change, is better explained by author “put in so many enigmas and puzzles that it will keep the professors busy for centuries arguing over what I meant, and that's the only way of insuring one's immortality”.

It wasn’t a conclusive thought, but about that’s professor danger I had on mind before reading of The Name of the Rose, which eponymous film adaptation with magnificent Sir Sean I was watching few times. Excellent medieval detective, which attracting mystery characterized in spirit of time, where monks connect murders with incoming of apocalypse. I precisely knew only one thing on the book – it’s different.

Umberto Eco’s writing style is a good tailwind for a sail ship. A professor with a devotion tells about XIVth century in Christianity, where can understand without expression of glazier Nicholas that religion uses for political and power goals. Interesting can see in conversations between characters, which sometimes images a time. Eco was talented in writing, but wasn’t well to right use it at least in read The Name of the Rose. The book reads as historical guide than a fiction story. Author overfills in all those details and dialogs on many pages. A main personage William of Baskerville must do investigation on murders than have long disputes in Christianity topics. So much text for strike off. Some talks and thoughts of Adso, who narrates plot, have feel of XXth Century. In exclusion quantities found wild sentences and same shade thoughts of personages as Adso’s impression on ignited fire on books in a library. In a few scenes monks don’t humble to use swears for which nobody willn’t criticize them about “you dare” in “God’s house” and no mention about crossing. Sometimes the book looked as failed comedy then serious. Eco tries to present the story in found manuscript, but it rarely moves away from a fiction book. He much writes about inventions of that time, which are unwelcome guests. That’s always comfortable to write from a future about past in demonstrated in clearly seeing a future William of Baskerville, who surprisingly never be called a heretic for his views in which can close to deism, because he much relays on sciences. Through him and Adso the author expresses own crushes on Christianity.

Investigation is a backstage. Writing on it reminds a film director, who is making drama movies and in one of them appears action scene, which terrible staged, because a filmmaker isn’t experienced. Umberto Eco is a well lecturer (he didn’t achieve in describing of Dulcinians story, which looks as unrealistic fiction.), but in excellent method of kills he fails in a solution structure. Adso accidentally in plenty of books took attention on needful on one of many tables. The oldest monk Alinardo, who just said how open the library, accepted as a madman by every inhabiting monk despite they’re living together. It discloses that he always be in sane in the end. Adso’s wacky dream helped to continue investigation. Salvatore, who was introduced as troubled for conversation and Adso understands nothing in his talk at first meeting, but in the next time a novice was catching every word. The book has much of this kind untied. Umberto Eco wasn’t experienced as Arthur Conan Doyle with Sherlock Holmes. A deduction of William of Baskerville can be without a commonsense on his surveillances. Detective’s line wasn’t intriguing as it was in film watching. Eco uses known and dull methods for the plot as dying victims prefer to talk in riddles as was with alive in read not to so far Death Is a Lonely Business. I always reason unprofessional when characters say everything what they wanted and than appears a next personage and starts conversation with him. Umberto Eco a lot of times used it.

A film adaptation makes a perfect surgery with the book. Sir Sean’s William of Baskerville actively devoted in investigation, demonstrates his fine mind (as in the great scene with sandals, which hasn’t in Eco’s work.) and likeable protagonist than unattractive in original story. Same relation I have to all characters, which in the movie are brilliant disclosed. In the book they lose own mystery shortly, when in the film them hold as excellent wine. I have sympathy only to Nicholas in the book, which didn’t appear in a flick, what is savvy, because line with second glasses of belongs to strike off. The film’s adaptation purifies from unnecessary and triviality. No straight dry in relationship between characters. Approach Adso and the girl came accurate slowly and their first meeting was on distance, when in the book it just a long text of fantastic words (yes, for strike off.) by a monk and immediate sex. Adaptation, as in everything, has preference in place where happened coition. A consequential conversation with William was changed for better for Connery’s character. The girl creates more important meaning in the film and I like a final scene when Adso is choosing. Film’s library design with stairways is hyping than it doesn’t do the book. Eco made a platitude with Jorge as mastermind and real ruler of a monastery, when those details absents in the adaptation. A conversation between Jorge and William perfect in the film to Eco writings of these mantras. Jorge escapes with a searching book in the adaptation, when in original I didn’t get an explanation why the protagonist looks long on how a monk destroys the book. I like film’s line in William admirations to books, which could kill him, what nothing in Eco’s original. Acts of inquisitor in the film has a logic and haven’t book’s scene with a new deadman, which didn’t change his mind on execution. The professor loses taste in the end in killing characters with having of background story and meeting with antagonist.

And so on. The reading of the book discovered for me that from it’s liquid founding was released a magnificent film of 1986.