UKC

I've just finished watching the mini-series (and have never read the book).  

The production was very well done and worth watching, but,  unless one is interested in the minutiae of historical monastic and theological politics, and given that the plot with all those murders is pretty preposterous, my main response was to wonder why on earth this book is so highly rated ("14th greatest of the century"; Le Monde). 

Do I presume that the book contains much that doesn't translate well to the screen?

I think you're right about what doesn't translate. I haven't watched this version but the earlier film version worked hard to simplify the book and was still confusing despite some good performances and conjuring a medieval atmosphere really well. 

This reviewer found similar problems with the plot in the new version.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/oct/11/the-name-of-the-rose-r...

I've read the book several times. It's not always an easy read, often digressing into realms of medieval history that turn out to have been every bit as politically complicated as anything contemporary, but it's always fascinating. If you're interested in the struggle between superstition and rationalism, or the relationship between books and people, and books and other books, or the wider questions of how language, stories and reality are related to each other you'll be intrigued. And there is much there that a liberal rationalist such as I think you are would appreciate - 

"Fear prophets, Adso, and those prepared to die for the truth, for as a rule they make many others die with them, often before them, at times instead of them."

On the other hand, you might find the philosophy, history and semiotics a little heavy-handed - sometimes (some of) the characters seem like cyphers whose presence is mainly to present philosophies and perspectives in the wider argument. 

I enjoyed the book but havent got round to the tv series. Remember the series is effectively a translation of a translation, so some nuance is inevitably lost

I enjoyed the TV series, but couldn't follow what was going on, I just let it wash over me..........

I read the book years ago, and seem to have mislaid it, which is a shame  ecause the series has made me want to re-read. I thought the series was good - visually very well done - inevitably misses some of the detail of the books. And I liked the music.

But I wonder if some of it is inevitably lost on readers/viewers who don't get the significance of the loss of a work by Aristotle? To those who do, it is howling misery and wails of frustration, but it is possible that not everyone feels that way about it

Lizzie, they speak of little else in...

Mick

...the Aristotelian Society's fortnightly meetings?

Undoubtedly!

Mick

I enjoyed the telly series, some of it went right over my head. It's probably 30 years since I read the book and it's definitely a dense read but I certainly enjoyed (with inevitable blah blah moments). Rupert Everett made for a very good panto bad guy on occasion and a couple of times I wanted to drop John Turturro into a Sean Connery accent from the original film "What you fail to understand Ad-ssho is..."