Talk:The Name of the Rose

Discussion
How do the stairs in the monastery's library resemble those in Robarts Library? The stairs in Robarts don't seem particularly interesting to me... Adam Bishop 02:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This puzzles me too. I'm willing to stand corrected, but the library as described in the novel is on one floor. The film takes the liberty of adding staircases within it. Magicandmedicine 21:29, 20 Aug 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, Eco mentions in the intro to the book how he found "the terrible story of Adso of Melk" in an original medieval manuscript, later lost by Eco, which was followed by his intricate quest for more references.


 * Perhaps some elucidation on that point, if more information came to light. (Eco later published "Postscript to the Name of the Rose", reflections on the novel. I didn't read it, perhaps there is more information there.) 1
 * But I believe that that introduction is meant to be part of the fictional work, rather than be taken at face value. - Nunh-huh 01:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Novel / Film
I think this article needs to distinguish more between novel and film. -- Blorg 22:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * :D :D :D (i'm working on Patras Wireless Network right now :) can't help, sorry :) Project2501a 23:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to delete references to the film. Danspalding 06:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fork. Never delete useful stuff. — Llywelyn II   17:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ad simplicio?
Why bother to say "ad simplicio" means "to simplicio"? Can we either translate simplicio or remove the half-translation entirely? MrCheshire 21:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Simplicio was a character in Galileo's book. 68.74.112.41 03:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He's still right. It's the character's name but it's just the Latin for "dumbass". We just write "To Simplicio" because we don't want to let the hoi polloi in on the joke. — Llywelyn II   17:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Name of the Rose
NPR had a program about the novel and mentioned that the words "The Name of the Rose" were taken from a Latin phrase that alludes to the present-day Roman Catholic Church not being thelegitimate successor to the early Christian church. What is the orginal Latin phrase and what does it mean?72.150.132.37 16:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)nan
 * I can't believe that people don't know what the phrase "the name of the rose" alludes to. The explanation is so simple and obvious. It's the famous speech by Juliet in "Romeo and Juliet":
 * "What's in a name? That which we call a rose
 * By any other name would smell as sweet."
 * This has double meaning in the context of this novel: the most obvious one is an answer to the ending of the novel. In the last paragraph, Adso admits that the one thing that he cherishes the most on his life is his experience with the girl - even though he never even learned her name! The title suggests that it isn't important that he didn't learn her name, or that he never got to know more about her; what matters is that she made him feel love for the first and only time in his life.


 * The other meaning has to do with one of the central themes of the novel. The main medieval scholastic dispute was between nominalism and realism, over the the existence of 'universals', abstract concepts. Realists argued that universas are *real*. In Plato's theory, universals were the most important, and reasoning was based on deduction from universal principles. Aristotle's position was more moderate, he acknowledged universals, but argued universal principals should be induced by examining specific data. The extreme version of Plato's system of thought (e.g. Neo-Platonism) completely rejects empiric data - neo-Platonists went to far as to consider all material world evil. While they did go that far and while they did accept the reality of the material world, St. Augustine and most other Western theologists had a tendency to put abstract above the concrete, spirit above matter, and faith above reason. In contrast with the realists, nominalists argued that universals were no more than "names" for a group of similar things. This view was subversive because it implied that The Church is no longer an ontological unity as "the Body of Christ", but merely a Name to denote a collection of like-minded individuals with the same faith. Conceptualists, mediating between the two extremes, held that universals are concepts which exist in our minds and express real similarities in things themselves. Here's a part of an encyclopedic entry about this issue: "Under an appearance of much vain subtlety the controversy about universals involved issues of the greatest speculative and practical importance: realism represented a spiritual, nominalism an anti-spiritual, view of the world; while realism was evidently favourable, and nominalism unfavourable, to the teaching of the Church on the dogmas of the Trinity and the Eucharist. Nominalism was a doctrine of sceptics and suspected heretics, such as Berengar of Tours and Roscellinus. Even Abelard's mediating doctrine of conceptualism was sufficiently near to obnoxious ideas to involve him in lifelong persecution. The principles of the great orthodox philosophers of the later scholastic period which begins in the 13th century, Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, were those of moderate realism. When nominalism was revived in the 14th century by the English Franciscan, William of Occam, it gave evidence of a new tendency in thought, a distrust of abstractions and an impulse towards direct observation and inductive research, a tendency which had its fulfilment in the scientific movement of the Renaissance. Occam's dictum "Entia non multiplicanda sunt praeter necessitatem" was inspired by a spirit similar to that of Bacon. Though nominalism is properly a medieval theory, the tendency has passed over into modern philosophy: the term "nominalist" is often applied to thinkers of the empirical, sensationalist school, of whom J. S. Mill may be taken as the chief representative." http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Nominalism


 * Considering the fact that the main theme of the novel is the conflict between the empirism and the scientific mind embodied by William of Baskerville (a follower of Roger Bacon) and the religious dogma embodied by Jorge, and, in broader sense, between free thought and dogmatism in general, the title of the novel, "The Name of the Rose", and its allusion to the Shakespeare's lines I quoted ("what's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet") gains a new meaning and points very clearly the author's stance on this issue. Nightandday —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightandday (talk • contribs) 06:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has no mention of Shakespeare. Could somebody find a reference for this interpretation? --Error (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is the title section deleted? I think that it's an essential part in order to understand the novel.Florin zeitblom (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It really isn't important at all in understanding the novel. Two things are unnamed: the monastary and the girl.  A moderately alert reader is capable of noting that and comparing them.  If something is hugely important, then there will be scholarly works discussing it, and those can then be cited in an article.  But someone's interpretation in the talk page of Wikipedia doesn't make it true or relevant to a learned discussion of the subject.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.174.65 (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge tags
The article Librarians in the Name of the Rose is unlikely to become more than a paragraph or two, and probably should be merged into The Name of the Rose Kathy A. 21:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. If there's a Wiki about librarians, no doubt a longer article will appear in it one day. And rew D alby  21:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The Rose
My edition of the book has a Dramatis personæ. There the yound girl (that seduces Adson) is named "maybe the rose". --62.245.207.18 22:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The editor that added "maybe the rose" should be strung up and pummeled.
 * Sounds like an inquisitorial method to me! :D Strausszek (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Trivia integration
In keeping with Wikipedia's views on trivia sections, I took the liberty of relocating the section into a new sub-category, "Title". Please feel free to expand on the topic. Reason turns rancid 19:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment about Dr Watson
Hi:

The article currently has the sentence 'It is also a play on Holmes' friend Dr. Watson.' Err, How is Adso a play on the name Dr. Watson?

Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.175.251 (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * wADSOn? -- Paul Richter (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Further, he is called Adson at one point (at the period the novel is set, it was common for people to be known by variants of their name in different languages, e.g. Bernard/Bernardo Gui/Guido, and this is presumably a similar case). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.56.254 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It also helps to consider how the two names would be pronounced by an Italian speaker rather than an English speaker. The stress differences basically disappear.  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Numerous sources (I've cited one) comment on the similarity of the names. 2fs (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

University of Toronto
As I mentioned above a few years ago, I thought it was odd that the monastery was being compared to Robarts Library. However, it makes more sense if the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library was intended, since it does resemble the monastery somewhat, and it is attached to Robarts. Is this crazy original research or should I just assume that's what was meant by "Robarts"? Adam Bishop (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unexpected success
Should mention that it is not the type of book which is normally a popular best-seller in the U.S... AnonMoos (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Adso - Fransiscan novice
hello, I read this novel for school and I thing Adso was a Benedictin novice not Fransiscan. --82.117.137.130 (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Adso reference in other literature
In Diana Gabaldon's Highlander series, Jamie names Clair's cat "Adso", with the explanation that he is named after Adso of Melk (milk). 24.32.114.16 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Borges who supported the military coup in 1976
Is this a fact? I'm not sure that Borges supported the military coup in 1976, a think a reference should be provided or else this remark should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.72.155 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

fercha.

Style
Just a comment on the article. It is written in the style of an exam essay instead of something truly informative, IMHO this reduces readability and diminishes the value of the page. Mtpaley (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite accurate, and the peculiar, semi-formal and essayistic style of the book makes this kind of exposition useful. Strausszek (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with Strausszek, and agree with Mtpaley. This is not an appropriate format for an encyclopedia article, it reads like a review, and entire sections are unsourced and stink of original research.  The article needs some serious cleanup. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I third that notion. As I was reading through the plot summary, it more and more felt like I was taking part of an academic analysis rather than an encyclopedic article. I definitely think it should be cleaned up to improve readability. Andailus (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NOT. (That said: concur with majority). Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The prologue as parody
The introduction to the book where Eco recounts how he got hold of an obscure printed copy of Adso's story, translated it, and then lost it again and tried to get to grips with where the work came from - all of that is, I think, a shrewd parody of how various "secret gospels" have been introduced by their discoverers/writers. Eco sets his find in Prague in 1968, just before the Soviet invasion, then he translated it quickly before his friend took it with her under circumstances that blocked him from retrieving the book - and efforts to trace the origins of the work give ambiguous results. People who report a find of a sensational new gospel often tell similar stories, they have found it in some place that has since been destroyed or become inaccessible (Monte Cassino - pummeled in the last year of WW2 - some Kremlin library, a Tibetan or Ethiopian monastery) and at some point after making a copy/translation they have lost the original manuscript. People who can't be approached at present (monks, bishops, in Eco's case his female (?) friend) are introduced to act as some kind of guarantee that the book actually existed. As a medievalist Eco must have enjoyed this ploy at the beginning of his novel! Strausszek (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Found manuscript. --Error (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, the point isn't that the book purports to be from a found piece of writing but in the ironic use he makes of the device. Strausszek (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Dislodged paragraph in the text
The following in "Major themes":

However, there is an alternative and more plausible explanation - the extremely ingenious solution was taken by Eco from "The Arabian Nights" - the story of "The Vizier Who Was Punished" is based exactly on the same theme.

seems to have been orphaned as the section was expanded and re-edited. Could someone take a look at the history of the page and check what precise issue in the book they belong with (what is it that Eco possibly borrowed from the Arabian Nights? not just the device of having people recount stories of their past??) and reunite them with the "explanation" which must have been proposed earlier in the article? Strausszek (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

unexpected bestseller
Should mention how this book was kind of a surprise bestseller in the UNited States... AnonMoos (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Analysis
"On one level, the book is an exposition of the scholastic method which was very popular in the 14th century. William demonstrates the power of deductive reasoning, especially syllogisms. He refuses to accept the diagnosis of 'simple demonic possession' despite demonology being the traditional monastic explanation. Although the abbey is under the apprehension that they are experiencing the last days before the coming of Antichrist (a topic closely examined in the book), William, through his empirical mindset, manages to show that the murders are, in fact, committed by a more corporeal instrument. By keeping an open mind, collecting facts and observations, following pure intuition, and the dialectic method, he makes decisions as to what he should investigate, exactly as a scholastic would do. However, the simple use of reason does not suffice. The various signs and happenings only have meaning in their given contexts, and William must constantly be wary of the contexts within which he interprets the mystery. Indeed, the entire story challenges the narrator, William's young apprentice Adso, and the reader to continually recognize the context he is using to interpret, bringing the whole text to various levels which can all have different hermeneutical meanings. The narrative ties in many varied plot lines, all of which consider various interpretations and sources of meanings. Many of the interpretations and sources were highly volatile controversies in the medieval religious setting, all while spiraling towards what seems to be the key to understanding and truly interpreting the case. Although William's final hypotheses do not exactly match the actual events as written, those theories do allow him to solve the abbey's mystery."

This section is totally unsourced, reads like an essay, and is frustratingly obtuse about any actual details, instead deciding to dance around the particulars in order to avoid spoilers. It should not be on the page unless it can be made to follow wikipedia policy first.192.249.47.195 (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So rich in meaning it has no meaning
Removed this sentence from the TITLE heading since the same citation appears in the previous sentence.TheKurgan (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Postmodernist? lol
Umberto Eco postmodernist theorist? Really? Please read "Interpretation and Overinterpretation".

"The postmodern view, inspired by Derrida, Paul De Man, J. Hillis Miller, and brought forward by Stanley Fish and Richard Rorty, implies that there can be an infinite number of equally correct readings of a given text. Words as such do not possess any meaning, it is the reader who endows them with one. Hence, there is no way to prove that a given interpretation is right or wrong. There is no 'hidden message' to be discovered. Eco, while expressing great sympathy for reader-friendly theories, posited that there are, still, certain boundaries that shouldn't be trespassed. "

http://nude-literaryreview.com/en/05152012_postmodernism_human_face.htm

Here (google books): http://books.google.com.br/books?id=wbhROmD3guQC&printsec=frontcover&hl=pt-BR#v=onepage&q&f=false

M.utt (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Genre
Regarding this, I'm not sure I see the big difference between classifying the novel as "Historical mystery" or with the 2 component genres, "Historical novel, Mystery", or at least why historical mystery is objectionable? I realize it's sort of retroactively classifying the novel because the hybrid genre was relatively unrecognized at that point except for Cadfael, but 2 links seems weird when the topics are basically combined elsewhere. Plus I'd say this novel is more specifically detective fiction than mystery.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 03:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading the article on Historical mystery more closely, I can see why you think it's appropriate…
 * Frankly, I find this book sui generis, so any genre classification will fail - though in a lot of ways I agree with you about detective fiction, that Holmes-like quality in the pursuit of knowing is the trait of Brother William that makes this book cohere into a "Philosophical Fiction"/"Historical Fiction"/"Religious Fiction"/"Critical-Theoretical Fiction"/"Postmodernist Fiction" DETECTIVE FICTION that actually worked! as a truly popular novel?
 * By the way one of the things provoking my revert of your edit is that I feel the genre label "Historical Mystery" is quite misleading, since with that title I would expect such a book to be addressing (and perhaps resolving?) a mystery that took place in history.
 * Whatever, if you really prefer the Historical mystery category, I guess I can swing with that…
 * thanks!, the ever-picky - bonze blayk (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I completely understand your reaction because "historical mystery" wasn't really even a thing when Eco wrote this, and the book does transcend what I am loathe to call the "cookie-cutter" style of some works in what is now the genre (Hercule Poirot in a toga, Hercule Poirot in armor). I think you read the historical mystery article right before I started to apply this article, which really asserts the recent importance of the genre, but it mentions Cadfael (which surely influenced this) and not The Name of the Rose for some reason LOL. Anyway, I hate to retroactively force a "new" genre on an older book so I will leave that to the experts: as (I assume) a regular contributor to this article, I'll let you decide if a link to the genre has a place anywhere here. Thanks! &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 16:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really sure what the issue is here
What is The Name of the Rose? It is a book. Is it a fictional library? No, it is not. Is it a fictional librarian? No, it is not, for a real book cannot be a fictional anything. So stop bloody adding real things to categories for fictional things. Not that difficult, really. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Name of the Rose is a work of fiction, which revolves primarily around murders committed at an abbey whose claim to fame is maintaining "the greatest library in all Christendom." Likewise, The Library of Babel, also included in the list of "Fictional Libraries," concerns a library?
 * And YES, believe it or not!, "Blind Jorge," the librarian who controls the library in the abbey, is based on the author of The Library of Babel, Jorge Luis Borges! (Thus, as a "fictional librarian," he is included in the list of… fictional librarians!  MIRABILE DICTU
 * Not that difficult, really… if you've read the book. - bonze blayk (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So then you agree that TNOTR is a real thing. And real things should not be categorized as fictional things. If there were an article on the fictional abbey then it would properly be categorized as a fictional library, and an article on Blind Jorge would belong in the fictional librarians category. Do you understand the mess that would result if real things were categorized on the basis of all of the fictional things withiin them? The typical book or film article could potentially be in dozens of "fictional foos" categories, which would swamp the categories for what the book or film actually is and would render the fictional items categories useless. It is absolutely correct to include the library and librarian on the appropriate lists. It is dead wrong to place them in the categories. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "So stop bloody adding real things to categories for fictional things." - Did I add these Category links? NO.  You are arguing some recondite technical point about "the nature of categories in Wikipedia" in order to denude further a category that has hardly any entries?  What?  You sound exactly like one of the quarrelsome monks from the book, which somehow I feel certain you have never read? LOL and get a life!


 * I really don't know wtf your anger is about, Jerry Pepsi, and you know what? I can't care.  When some wikivandal comes along to fuck up this article, are you going to be here to revert the vandalism?


 * I THINK NOT.


 * And neither will I: over the course of some four and one-half years in which I endured an (inordinately) prolonged incarceration in the mental institutions of New York State while sane, I hewed to the principle:


 * NEVER ARGUE WITH THE LOONIES IN A LOONY BIN


 * So why should I frequent this Home for Terminally Argumentative Anons, given that the lunatics are in control of huge swathes of territory here on Wikipedia, arguing over trivia sans comprehension or collegiality? The (well-inteded but deeply clueless) vandalization of the article on Histrionic personality disorder was the next to last straw… and this is the last.


 * I walked out of that madhouse, and all the way out of that system, and i so am outta here - SEMI-RETIRED - Bonze Anne Rose Blayk - bonze blayk (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you certainly sound sane here...
 * Again, not really seeing why not categorizing real things as fictional things is such an issue but if this outburst means that you'll stop doing it, great. Padding small categories with things that don't belong in them doesn't serve anything. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are under a horrible misconception about Wikipedia categories. They are not "exact", nor are they meant to be.  The purpose of categories is not to come up with an encyclopedic naming scheme, but to provide a user-helpful way to navigate around Wikipedia.  Simplicity is acceptable, and usually trumps complete precision.  See, for example, the category Category:Cities in England.  There are no cities on that page, they are all located in subcategories.  There are several articles, none of which are actually the article for a City in England, and several subcategories, none of which contain a single City in England.  They are, however, extremely helpful pages for anyone interested in Cities in England.


 * The category name is kept at Cities in England. The reason is the point of the name is not to tell people, "look here, all pages that are examples of Cities of England and nothing but Cities of England," but rather, "congratulations, here are all the pages that are of great interest to people interested in more information regarding 'Cities of England'.  You see, if we insisted on the first view&mdash;the view you erroneously think has something to do with Wikipedia&mdash;we'd have to rename the category to something Category:Cities of England and Closely Related Locations, Lists, Concepts and What Have Yous.  Instead, Wikipedia follows the second view.


 * Our relevant category is named Category:Fictional libraries, and not Category:Fictional libraries and Works of Fiction containing Fictional libraries because it is simpler, and until you showed up, everyone understood the convention that articles of obvious, direct relevance to people clicking on the category belong in the category. This convention isn't just a matter of immediate usefulness.  It is also better compatible with the long-term evolution of Wikipedia: articles and categories mutate, and putting on absolute locks makes maintenance much much more difficult. Choor monster (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The purpose of categories is to group things of the same type together. Real things with real things. Fictional things with fictional things. Mixing real things and fictional things is a misuse of categories. A real book is not and can never be a fictional library or a fictional librarian.


 * The category about cities in England is irrelevant, beyond the fact that things that are not cities in England shouldn't be categorized as cities in England.


 * It's not at all difficult to maintain a category for fictional things. Just don't add real things to it and if real things are added to it, remove them.


 * But what the fuck ever. Tyranny of the minority is the rule of law on Wikipedia and ultimately you're going to re-add these categories regardless of how wrong and illogical it is. So have at it. Categorize real books as fictional libraries. Knock yourself out. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are making things up, and then edit warring based on your made up nonsense. The purpose of categories is:
 * "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics."

- WP:CAT


 * Note that nowhere does it say that the name of the category is the characterization. This is your fundamental error.  You are perhaps misled by the word "Category", and want to use it in a standard philosophical/mathematical sense.  Well, too bad, the word on Wikipedia means what the consensus is.  Perhaps it should have been called "Resemblancy" or "Assemblagy" or some such coinage so that no one could be confused by prior uses of the term, but it's too late now.


 * The example of Category:Cities in England is completely relevant: it's a clue, a giant one at that, regarding what is the consensus here on Wikipedia on how Categories are used and named.


 * By the way, in case you haven't noticed: everyone agrees that The Name of the Rose is not a fictional library. You have not pointed anything out that no one noticed before.  You have not noticed a sneaky bit of vandalism snuck in years ago.  Rather, you have stumbled on one of endless thousands of examples of Categories on Wikipedia being used according to the stated purpose of Wikipedia Categories, something that the long-term editors of this page are familiar with. Choor monster (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Jpep's lousy attitude and ill humor obscured this point since people just told him to sit down and shut up but—if anyone came along and felt he was somehow in the right—he's still wrong. The Name of the Rose is not a fictional library. The monastery's library is a fictional library and one of the more important ones in 20th century literature... but we don't have an article on the library from The Name of the Rose. Until there's enough material to such an article, the library is dealt with here and the categories for those parts of this article are dealt with here. —  Llywelyn II   17:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are attempting by commenting on this thread a year and a half later, but for the record, was a sock of a banned user. Choor monster (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Plot
What about Peter Waldo meeting William of Baskerville ? I cannot remember this happening... Robin of locksley (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

St. Michael's Monastery as inspiration
I just edited to resolve a bit of semantic weirdness which implied that Eco had actually visited St. Michael's Abbey in the 14th century. When I looked at the source cited in support of the statement that this place had been the inspiration for the abbey in the book, all it said was that he had visited it just prior to filming the movie version and that it had been considered as a shooting location. It's entirely plausible that the statement is true, so I didn't cut it, but a better cite is needed. 192.35.35.35 (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Slavoj Žižek
The Žižek quotation is "critical commentary", not "reception" (which usually refers to reviews at the time of publication). Also, probably too much is being quoted: it should be summarized. Choor monster (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I only just read this, and good god: Žižek can't "read" worth a damn:
 * This book is constructed as an instant example of building an open text. Eco wanted to kill a monk: this work, a grand folly among counterfeit texts, transpired, and otherwise, auctorial intent is irrelevant; you'll never get more out of Eco on the subject (cf. "Postscript to the Name of the Rose", which is all about Eco's "process" in constructing the text).
 * I view this more as an advertisement for Žižek than anything else.
 * the meanings you find here are your own - sincerely, ROSE - bonze blayk (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Allusions to other works
Checked. No "poisoned pages" theme in "The Golden Lotus". I canceled the reference.87.10.217.76 (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Variety of English
The word 'recognisable' was changed to 'recognizable'. Does this page have a policy of using American English? Is it not about an Italian novel? Jose Mathew (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Roger Bacon
Should be mentioned in the description of protagonist. This was the text at Roger Bacon's own article
 * In Umberto Eco's novel The Name of the Rose, the story follows the investigations of William of Baskerville, presented as an anachronistically empiricist contemporary and colleague of Roger Bacon who often quotes his late friend when explaining his own methods.

but it's to go into too much detail on each book's story over there. — Llywelyn II   17:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ink stains?
The article refers to "ink stains", is this the term used in the book? It's been a while and I don't have a copy on hand. Does "Name of the Rose" explicitly say that the poison was in the ink? A5 (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)