/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6835970]

>Dan Brown tier detective story with Theologian Holmes always up for heretical debate and history dumps.

Why, again, do I read what /lit/ wanks over?

[Anonymous No.6835976]

>>6835970
Interesting as fuck

[Anonymous No.6835977]

Be honest OP, you didn't finish the book did you?

[Anonymous No.6835978]

>>6835970
>Dan Brown tier

for sure brother, so computers tbh

[Anonymous No.6835982]

Is this bait? I haven't even read it yet cause it looks challenging/long whatever, but everyone wanks over it just about.

[Anonymous No.6835988]

>>6835976
But it's not!

[Anonymous No.6836010]

>>6835977
I'm a third through, I'm getting there. Does it change much?

[Anonymous No.6836019]

>>6836010
>6010▶
>>>6835977
>I'm a third through, I'm getting there. Does it change much?
Superficially no but if you drop your prejudices it's actually a good book.

[Anonymous No.6836020]

>>6835982
I'm really disapointed with it. As described is how I feel about it so far. It's sooo boring.

[Anonymous No.6836026]

>>6836019
>prejudices
Why assume I've got prejudices? I haven't.

[Anonymous No.6836043]

>>6836020
Interesting as fuck

[Anonymous No.6836050]

>>6836026
>Dan Brown tier detective story with Theologian Holmes always up for heretical debate and history dumps.

[Anonymous No.6836149]

>>6836050
How does that indicate prejudice?
It is that from impartial reading.

[Anonymous No.6836185]

>>6835970
>what /lit/ wanks over
Fun fact: Eco is well known and respected outside /lit/.

[Anonymous No.6836193]

>>6836185
I'm skeptical as fuck about that.

[Anonymous No.6836194]

>>6836185
maybe op is amerilard

[Anonymous No.6836198]

>>6836185
Yes, I know. That is not what influenced me to read it however. He's still shit.

[Anonymous No.6836202]

>>6836194
Am not.

[Anonymous No.6836216]

>>6836193
I'm not.

My lit professor has read Name of the Rose and recommended it to me.

Even my mom has read it and gave it to me to read it.

>>6836198
No :^)

[Anonymous No.6836227]

>>6836216
Interesting as fuck

[Anonymous No.6836244]

>>6836216
Yes. Either the detective story is an excuse to delve into theological arguments or the theological arguments were inserted to mask the poor, mediocre detective story.

People think it's layered because the author puts in theology, detective story and history but he only out all those in to try and make the book as interesting as possible and not only do each individual theme fail in that but it is compounded when the reader is bombarded with them all. It's all over the place! He jumps to and fro like he doesn't understand how to write a believable story! It's bad, okay?

[Anonymous No.6836254]

>>6836193
You're an idiot

[Anonymous No.6836302]

>>6836193
You're retarded then.

[Anonymous No.6836320]

>>6836254
>>6836302
Cheeky as fuck.

[Anonymous No.6836401]

Good bait OP you got some e/lit/ists all triggered. Now go to bed.

[Anonymous No.6836423]

>>6836401
I'm sincere. I also don't think this book is what my idea of the stereotypical elitist would enjoy. It's half Shercock Holes tier you know. Also again, it's still early.

[Anonymous No.6836429]

>>6836423
Interesting as fuck

[Anonymous No.6836440]

>>6836429
Fuck-ass interesting!

[Anonymous No.6836480]

youre not obligated to praise or enjoy the book. think what you want. just keep in mind the many people who are arguably more qualified than you to critique books and think it is an excellent book.

and read the entire book. a half baked opinion of a partially read book says more about the holder of the opinion than about the book

[Anonymous No.6836505]

my professor said something about semiotics and deconstruction of stereotypes

[Anonymous No.6836525]

Dan Brown is actually enjoyable though, as pulp. Eco isn't even good at that. He fails at everything.

[Anonymous No.6836528]

>>6836480
>many people who are arguably more qualified than you to critique books and think it is an excellent book.
Are you serious? Even ignoring the fact that my opinion on the book which is directly related to my individual state of understanding (which in itself is silly) that I must value others' opinions who can not project their perspective onto me if I am a critical reader.
Also you do understand by that statement you indirectly support some sort of notion that says there is some semblance of objectivity to an entirely subjective field?
You're talking crazy.

>a half baked opinion of a partially read book says more about the holder of the opinion than about the book
My opinion of the first third of the book is as valid as any other, I make no presumptions of judging the entire book's content, only I make predictions of the rest of it's quality.

[Anonymous No.6836547]

>>6836528
>entirely subjective field
>>>/mu/
>>>/v/
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.6836567]

>>6836547
Pray tell how objectivity is derived from entirely subjective variables?

[Anonymous No.6836581]

>>6836567
liking book itself perhaps is, making claims (without textual evidence, even) like
>Dan Brown tier detective story
is debatable

[Anonymous No.6836607]

It's an amusing book. I believe it sold well and had a movie adaptation. A shame you don't like it.

[Anonymous No.6836714]

>tfw when you will never be an illuminator working in a based scriptorium having debates on rhetoric and scripture while you take breaks to pray, drink warm milk, cheese and wine

[Anonymous No.6836840]

Try to read it as a character analysis, not a detective story.

[Anonymous No.6837078]

>>6836194
Silly butthurt Europeans. Are you upset that your economy relies heavily on American business?

[Anonymous No.6837547]

>>6836581
No shit. It also sounds like you concur, now, that it's all (obviously) subjective. Or else I'm missing your point.

>without textual evidence, even
Do you want some quotes baby boy? I'm obviously basing my opinions on the first third holistically and I'm not prepared to give you about 200 pages of "evidence text".

>>6836607
Indeed. Truth be told I really just created this thread with the hopes of somebody pointing out to me Something I missed/am missing in my interpretation. As completely unprejudiced as I like to think I am towards reading etc. this is obviously not so easy if one is ignorant of said prejudices.

>>6836840
The main detective in particular or the various side characters? They all seemed rather two dimensional to me. Anything in specific you liked?

>>6836505
I've never been too fond of the deconstruction of cliches, stereotypes, tropes and the like. It's certainly better if the work tries to as original as possible. But I'm not all that familiar to these types of novels and as a result some of this in there might've been lost on me. As for "semiotics" I don't even know what it really means, seems like another way of expressing analogies (or their interpretation)?

[Anonymous No.6837911]

>>6835970
It's not a book for you, OP. That's the gentlest way I can put it. If you find it boring, yes, that's your subjective and valid experience, but the objective truth is that Eco made a very complex text that uses postmodern semiotics and medieval history, theology, and philosophy in complex and interesting ways. If you're reading it for the whodunnit, it's a bit like complaining that a row across a bay is boring because you aren't interested in diving down to the wrecked galleon beneath (or in this case, the aedificium's labyrinth). If you care enough, you might pick up The Key to The Name of the Rose, which I found essential. Otherwise, just read Wilkie Collins.

"The Key to 'The Name of the Rose' is a conversation with readers of The Name of the Rose. You will find it a wonderfully illuminating conversation that furthers and deepens your reading experience. The authors' scholarship is as unerring as their sense of fun: The Key is full of bizarre characters and mirthful anecdotes. It is, in truth, a delightful guide not just to The Name of the Rose, but to the Middle Ages. For those who have read and enjoyed The Name of the Rose, this key will prove a belated boom; for those who have been intending to take the plunge, The Key is a real lifesaver, time-saver, decoder. But it is also a pleasure in itself."

[Anonymous No.6838028]

>>6837547
>As for "semiotics" I don't even know what it really means, seems like another way of expressing analogies (or their interpretation)

Kek
I think you're the dan brown my freind

[Anonymous No.6838108]

>watch movie
>monks are portrayed as inept retards, closeted gays, and vagrants who wouldn't survive in real society outside the sheltered monastery's walls
Directed by Aron Ra?

[Anonymous No.6838552]

>>6838028
>I think you're the dan brown my freind
I wish.

[Anonymous No.6838562]

I finished this last week and enjoyed it a lot. Quick, easy reading that was compelling with a cool setting and fun historical digressions. How does Foucault's Pendulum compare?

[Anonymous No.6838624]

>>6835970
I'm currently 100 pages or so into Foucault's Pendulum and the plot still hasn't kicked in yet. He hasn't even laid down a first coat of what's going to happen in the story.

I love Eco's writing style and all the information is fun to chew on, but god damn dude does he need to get on with the action already.

[Anonymous No.6838694]

>>6838624
Eco lays down the overarching plot within the first chapter. It starts in medias res with Casaubon hiding in a museum and then narrating his life that led to this point.>>6837547
>>6837547
IDK if you really are commited to trying to like/understand it I recommend you finish reading it and then reading Eco's afterword on it, and then contemplating it. It's fair to say it's a deconstruction of analysis, but on a pure standalone work basis I think it's very appealing and aesthetic. You may disagree but I feel like the overarching plot (reading for plot kek) does make the book better, so just try finishing it first. Happy to discuss aftewards.

[Anonymous No.6838715]

>>6838694
Right, I understand that he starts in the action, but he's vague about what that action is. There is a threat, but it's vaguely gestured, not clearly outlined. I'm 1/5 of the way through the book and I still don't know the adversary, what's at stake, what their intentions are, why Casaubon has so much anxiety, why Belbo is in danger, etc. I don't mind so much because it's a delight to drift along on his writing. I'm just saying, the dude is taking his sweet time to get into it, stretching his legs quite a bit before delivering.

[Anonymous No.6838794]

>>6838562
Reading Rose at the moment and also bought pic related for afters.

I like it very much. There is quite a lot of summary but I found that acceptable since Adso is the far-removed narrator. I really like Eco's sense of humor too.

I am planning to read The Prague Cemetery next. Do any of you have opinions on that novel?

[Anonymous No.6839257]

>>6835970
it's blasphemy to match Umberto Eco's works with Dan Brown

[Anonymous No.6839263]

>>6837547
>It's certainly better if the work tries to as original as possible.

jesus.fucking.christ.

[Anonymous No.6839735]

>>6836193
You do know that he is an internationally respected professor, frequently cited within many fields, and that his books are loved by academics across the world, no? Are you homeschooled or from STEMistan?

You can call him a Dan Brown for non-retarded people and be pretty spot on, I guess.