Classics and the Western Canon discussion
The Magic Mountain
>
Week 1.1 Foreword and Chapter 1
message 1:
by
Everyman
(new)
Mar 26, 2013 06:52PM
A “perfectly ordinary young man” takes a journey up into the mountains to spend three weeks visiting his cousin at the sanatorium where he is being treated for tuberculosis.
reply
|
flag
Up into the mountains we go. Surely this is symbolic (on many levels, probably). Mountains have always been seen as places of wisdom, haven’t they? Moses went into the mountains to get the Ten Commandments. The Greek Gods lived on Mount Olympus. The Greek Muses lived on Mount Parnassus (which was also the location of the Delphic Oracle). Plato’s philosophers went up out of the cave to find wisdom. (One commentator has said that whenever you find up or down in Plato, you can be sure that the up is toward wisdom and the down is away from it.) Mount Shasta in California was considered by both Native Americans and New Age seekers to be a magical place. The Himalayas are rife with monasteries. We have just finished the Divine Comedy where climbing up is the path to wisdom and to God. The classic cartoon presentation always has a guru sitting on a mountain ledge and the seeker climbing up to him.
In those countries which didn’t have mountains, men built cathedrals as massively tall structures, almost man made mountains, to get closer to God.
What Hans Castorp will find on the mountain we of course have as yet no idea. But can’t we be pretty sure that he will find something there, even if it’s not what he went looking for?
At least initially it seems ironic, in light of the mountain metaphor, that this one is populated by the sick and dying.
Do we know when this is taking place? After reading the foreword I realize the author doesn't want to specify but I need to be able to visualize clothes and such. Is it about 1900?
It should be noted that the description of Hans Castorp as a "perfectly ordinary young man," is that of the author, rather than that of an omniscient narrator. I mention this because, even in the story itself, Mann enters periodically. Perhaps as we go along people may find a pattern to this and explain the intrusions.
In general, the book strikes me as an example of something James Woods, the literary critic, calls "free indirect style." He writes:
Thanks to free indirect style, we see things through the character's eyes and language but also through the author's eyes and language. We inhabit omniscience and partiality at once. A gap opens between the author and character, and the bridge--which is free indirect style itself--between them simultaneously closes that gap and draws attention to its distance.
In contrast, consider a book like Huckleberry Finn (which also features an ironic forward). Here we see everything through Huck's eyes and the limitations of his experience. In MM, Mann keeps popping up and I am interested in understanding why.
In general, the book strikes me as an example of something James Woods, the literary critic, calls "free indirect style." He writes:
Thanks to free indirect style, we see things through the character's eyes and language but also through the author's eyes and language. We inhabit omniscience and partiality at once. A gap opens between the author and character, and the bridge--which is free indirect style itself--between them simultaneously closes that gap and draws attention to its distance.
In contrast, consider a book like Huckleberry Finn (which also features an ironic forward). Here we see everything through Huck's eyes and the limitations of his experience. In MM, Mann keeps popping up and I am interested in understanding why.
The other significant thing in the Foreword is Mann's insistence on "the extraordinary pastness" of the story. He emphasizeds that this results from its having taken place before the "rift that has cut deeply through our lives and consciousness." [World War I]
This does not seem to me to be a very inviting welcome to a 700 page narrative. Isn't he basically saying that what happens in the book is in a mythic place with little relation to the reader's time?
This does not seem to me to be a very inviting welcome to a 700 page narrative. Isn't he basically saying that what happens in the book is in a mythic place with little relation to the reader's time?
Mary Ronan wrote: "Do we know when this is taking place? After reading the foreword I realize the author doesn't want to specify but I need to be able to visualize clothes and such. Is it about 1900?"It is set before World War I, which is referenced in the Foreword as "before a certain turning point, on the far side (he is writing after the war) of a certain rift (the war).
Mann started the novel before the war, in 1912, the same year he visited his wife in a sanatorium in Davos, but the war interrupted his work, and he didn't publish the novel until 1924.
I can give you a closer date, but it might be considered by some a minor spoiler, so I'll put it in spoiler protection.
(view spoiler)
Zeke wrote: "In MM, Mann keeps popping up and I am interested in understanding why. "An excellent question. I think an answer, or at least my answer, will develop as we get further into the book and start to analyze the purposes for which Mann was writing. It's early days yet!
Everyman wrote: "Mary Ronan wrote: "Do we know when this is taking place? After reading the foreword I realize the author doesn't want to specify but I need to be able to visualize clothes and such. Is it about 190..."Thank you, Everyman, that's just what I needed.
Zeke wrote: "...Isn't he basically saying that what happens in the book is in a mythic place with little relation to the reader's time? ..."The book was published in 1924. Mann claims he started it as sort of a light, satiric companion to Death in Venice (1912), intending it to be about the same length. That obviously is not what happened. 1912 was just a couple years prior to the assassination in Sarajevo, Bosnia, of the archduke of Austria on June 28, 1914. Armistice was declared November 11, 1918.
A lot of soul searching followed the "Great War." I have always considered The Magic Mountain to have been part of that process, but I don't know if that is true. Suspect will find out over the next several weeks!
There are two strong paragraphs (and other references) regarding the his treatment of time in Mann's essay "The Making of The Magic Mountain. I considered including them here under a spoiler designation -- I don't even really consider them spoilers but part of understanding the structure and approach of our author -- but decided to stay conservative. If of interest, I suggest searching out the article. (I'll go copy a link I included in the Schedule thread into the Background thread. There may be a better link that is only the essay, just haven't seen it.)
Lily wrote: "A lot of soul searching followed the "Great War." I have always considered The Magic Mountain to have been part of that process, but I don't know if that is true. Suspect will find out over the next several weeks! "I suspect you will indeed find out. [g]
Mary Ronan wrote: "Do we know when this is taking place? After reading the foreword I realize the author doesn't want to specify but I need to be able to visualize clothes and such. Is it about 1900?"Mary -- Mann visited his wife in 1912 when she was undergoing treatment at a sanatorium in Davos, Switzerland, like the one in our novel. He claims early scenes in the novel are based on that visit, so one could start with about that time?
Cover of a 1912 issue of Collier’s magazine:
I'll add a couple of sites to background information and it could be fun to have more, especially men's fashions appropriate for walking alpine trails et al.
Zeke wrote: "It should be noted that the description of Hans Castorp as a "perfectly ordinary young man," is that of the author, rather than that of an omniscient narrator. I mention this because, even in the s..."I hope you will point out instances of this as you find them, Zeke. I'm not sure I understand the technique exactly, and I'm having some difficulty differentiating between the author and the narrator. (Up to now I thought they were the same!)
Thomas wrote: "At least initially it seems ironic, in light of the mountain metaphor, that this one is populated by the sick and dying."
And yet, it's been my experience that people don't generally wake up and consider Life until they--or someone close to them---has become sick or died.
And yet, it's been my experience that people don't generally wake up and consider Life until they--or someone close to them---has become sick or died.
Zeke wrote: "The other significant thing in the Foreword is Mann's insistence on "the extraordinary pastness" of the story. He emphasizeds that this results from its having taken place before the "rift that has..."
Once possible view to take of that description is that pre-WWI really WAS a time now past. I had read The Vertigo Years. I didn't take notes, but I remember the author wrote that the world prior to 1910 really was a different time...gone forever.
"From Publishers Weekly
Virginia Woolf famously declared that human character changed in the year 1910; this dizzying survey of European history and culture before WWI elaborates. Historian Blom (Enlightening the World) examines every innovation of the turbulent period that, in his estimate, gave birth to modernity and its discontents."
Perhaps Mann felt the same.
The Vertigo Years: Europe 1900-1914
Once possible view to take of that description is that pre-WWI really WAS a time now past. I had read The Vertigo Years. I didn't take notes, but I remember the author wrote that the world prior to 1910 really was a different time...gone forever.
"From Publishers Weekly
Virginia Woolf famously declared that human character changed in the year 1910; this dizzying survey of European history and culture before WWI elaborates. Historian Blom (Enlightening the World) examines every innovation of the turbulent period that, in his estimate, gave birth to modernity and its discontents."
Perhaps Mann felt the same.
The Vertigo Years: Europe 1900-1914
Adelle wrote: "Once possible view to take of that description is that pre-WWI really WAS a time now past. I had read The Vertigo Years."That is exactly what is meant. First World War ended a time of security and prosperity, even of security in a metaphysical sense: The Kaiser ruled the Reich and was admired by the people, German culture and German products conquered the world, God blessed this country indeed - and then the unbelievable happened: The war lost. Millions dead. The Kaiser gone. Your money worthless. Debts had to be paid to the victorious countries until ~1985 (which did not happen as you know). And on top off all, Germans were held responsible and - ! - guilty by all others for the mess. From an orderly and peaceful world Germany dropped into the chaos. To remember the past meant to dream of a golden age - you could not believe that it was real!
Here we see another example how Thomas Mann talks of time: The time was not long before measured in years, but it *feels* as if it was a fairy tale from the middle ages or even a timeless myth of a golden age.
One of the best books on this change is by an Austrian author, Stefan Zweig:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worl...
I suggest to read the first two pages of the book and everything becomes clear:
http://books.google.de/books?id=YrJjc...
I can't help but recall that quote of William Faulkner:
"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
That might be worth keeping in mind, too.
A good number books and articles have been written holding that WWII grew directly out of WWI.
I don't know yet how Hans Castorp is going to turn out. But, Mein Gott! from flashback scenes in these early chapters it seems obvious that Hans's past has shaped Hans's present character.
Dostoevsky's "The Grand Inquisitor" scene begins "But here, too, it's impossible to do without a preface."
If you read this scene without having read the chapters that preceded it, the truth of that opening sentence just slams you. Here, too, it seems obvious that we would have no understanding of Hans were we not provided with little pieces of his childhood.
"Arrival"
Mann opens with "An unassuming young man was traveling...in the Canton of the Grisons" (3).
Personally, I put more focus on opening sentences than any other sentence in a book. What had made Hans into "an unassuming" man? And with mention of Cantons... Switzerland... I immediately think of Carl Jung. He was from Switzerland. Mann would certainly have been aware of him and his work.
In the thrid paragraph, I see mention made of a Swiss town called "Rorschach." I couldn't find any connection between the town of Rorschach and the modern Rorshach Test.
However.
Apparently there had been a game in the 1800s... "Using interpretation of "ambiguous designs" to assess an individual's personality is an idea that goes back to Leonardo da Vinci and Botticelli. Interpretation of inkblots was central to a game from the late 19th century. Rorschach's, however, was the first systematic approach of this kind" (wikipedia).
Rorschach developed his test in 1921. Since Mann published his book in 1924, he may or may not have heard of the Rorschach test ... he may possibly?? have purposefully chosen to include the name of the town Rorschack rather than the name of a different Swiss town. No way to know.
But it certainly leads me to read this book through psychologically tinted lenses. I've a book of Jung's here somewhere. I'll try to find time to read it as I read MM.
We see Hans before he is named. He's so unassuming that his name (which identifies him as an individual---(view spoiler)) is less important than the physcial fact of him??? He's sitting "alone." Just how alone in life is he? I ask myself.
He's sitting in a "little grey-upholstered compartemnt." Is his life "little"?? Mann, in these early chapters, repeatedly uses the adjective "grey."
"Water roared in the abysses...among rocks, dark fir-trees aspired toward a stone-grey sky" (4-5).
{What a great sentence, think I!) from wiki: "Water is often used to symbolize things in literature. Water is a universal symbol of change and is often present at turning points in a story. Since water is often a sign of life, many times water represents life. Water can also be up into two categories: fresh water and bad/polluted water. Fresh water can represent good health, and bad water symbolizes bad health. Water can also mean purity and cleansing. "
So perhaps change is coming to Hans's life?
And "abysses." How perfectly Jungian! And that following sentence: "The train passed through pitch-black tunnels" (5). Supposedly, tunnels are psychological symbols for the unconscious.
"he felt such a sense of impoverishment of life" (5) Is Hans's life impoverished, too?
"A lake was visible in the distant landscape, its waters grey" (5). Oh, no. Grey waters. Bad health.
"in grey livery" (10)
"his square-cut beard was grey" (29)
"her dishevelled grey-black hair" (39)
"The man was of slight proportions, with a grey, hollow-cheeked face" (69).
Yes, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes grey is just a color. But it pops up quite a bit. And I wonder if that isn't meant to tells us something about Hans himself. Neither black nor white. Not willing? Not able? to define himself??? In any case, this early on, a question worth considering.
Back to that first page. We've been told that the young man is "unassuming." Yet here he is with his "alligator-skin hand-bag." NOT an unassuming bag. But wait. The bag was a gift from his uncle and guardian. His uncle gave him the bag. What aspects of Hans's personality did his uncle contribute?
Well, anyway, some of the questions I'm asking myself as I read.
"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
That might be worth keeping in mind, too.
A good number books and articles have been written holding that WWII grew directly out of WWI.
I don't know yet how Hans Castorp is going to turn out. But, Mein Gott! from flashback scenes in these early chapters it seems obvious that Hans's past has shaped Hans's present character.
Dostoevsky's "The Grand Inquisitor" scene begins "But here, too, it's impossible to do without a preface."
If you read this scene without having read the chapters that preceded it, the truth of that opening sentence just slams you. Here, too, it seems obvious that we would have no understanding of Hans were we not provided with little pieces of his childhood.
"Arrival"
Mann opens with "An unassuming young man was traveling...in the Canton of the Grisons" (3).
Personally, I put more focus on opening sentences than any other sentence in a book. What had made Hans into "an unassuming" man? And with mention of Cantons... Switzerland... I immediately think of Carl Jung. He was from Switzerland. Mann would certainly have been aware of him and his work.
In the thrid paragraph, I see mention made of a Swiss town called "Rorschach." I couldn't find any connection between the town of Rorschach and the modern Rorshach Test.
However.
Apparently there had been a game in the 1800s... "Using interpretation of "ambiguous designs" to assess an individual's personality is an idea that goes back to Leonardo da Vinci and Botticelli. Interpretation of inkblots was central to a game from the late 19th century. Rorschach's, however, was the first systematic approach of this kind" (wikipedia).
Rorschach developed his test in 1921. Since Mann published his book in 1924, he may or may not have heard of the Rorschach test ... he may possibly?? have purposefully chosen to include the name of the town Rorschack rather than the name of a different Swiss town. No way to know.
But it certainly leads me to read this book through psychologically tinted lenses. I've a book of Jung's here somewhere. I'll try to find time to read it as I read MM.
We see Hans before he is named. He's so unassuming that his name (which identifies him as an individual---(view spoiler)) is less important than the physcial fact of him??? He's sitting "alone." Just how alone in life is he? I ask myself.
He's sitting in a "little grey-upholstered compartemnt." Is his life "little"?? Mann, in these early chapters, repeatedly uses the adjective "grey."
"Water roared in the abysses...among rocks, dark fir-trees aspired toward a stone-grey sky" (4-5).
{What a great sentence, think I!) from wiki: "Water is often used to symbolize things in literature. Water is a universal symbol of change and is often present at turning points in a story. Since water is often a sign of life, many times water represents life. Water can also be up into two categories: fresh water and bad/polluted water. Fresh water can represent good health, and bad water symbolizes bad health. Water can also mean purity and cleansing. "
So perhaps change is coming to Hans's life?
And "abysses." How perfectly Jungian! And that following sentence: "The train passed through pitch-black tunnels" (5). Supposedly, tunnels are psychological symbols for the unconscious.
"he felt such a sense of impoverishment of life" (5) Is Hans's life impoverished, too?
"A lake was visible in the distant landscape, its waters grey" (5). Oh, no. Grey waters. Bad health.
"in grey livery" (10)
"his square-cut beard was grey" (29)
"her dishevelled grey-black hair" (39)
"The man was of slight proportions, with a grey, hollow-cheeked face" (69).
Yes, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes grey is just a color. But it pops up quite a bit. And I wonder if that isn't meant to tells us something about Hans himself. Neither black nor white. Not willing? Not able? to define himself??? In any case, this early on, a question worth considering.
Back to that first page. We've been told that the young man is "unassuming." Yet here he is with his "alligator-skin hand-bag." NOT an unassuming bag. But wait. The bag was a gift from his uncle and guardian. His uncle gave him the bag. What aspects of Hans's personality did his uncle contribute?
Well, anyway, some of the questions I'm asking myself as I read.
Joachim (a cousin) is there at the station to greet Hans. "The meeting took place without exuberance {Adelle: Is this mere custom or does it suggest the greyness of Hans's life?), as between people of traditional coolness and reserve" (5). This at first seems to imply that the lack of exuberance was custom...but the next sentence seems to contradict this view: "Strange to say" (so...it WAS strange), the cousins had always avoided calling each other by their first names simply because they were afraid of showing too much feeling" (5-6).
Does this mean they don't like showing too much feeling in the abstract? towards anyone?
Or does it mean that despite their surface coolness Hans and Joachim actually have a very strong emotional bond...and if they allowed themselves to show their emotions they would show "too much"?? I mean, they are embarrassed even to simply shake hands.
Are most people of that time emotionally restrained? Or is it a trait that pertains to Hans and Joachim's upbringing?
Does this mean they don't like showing too much feeling in the abstract? towards anyone?
Or does it mean that despite their surface coolness Hans and Joachim actually have a very strong emotional bond...and if they allowed themselves to show their emotions they would show "too much"?? I mean, they are embarrassed even to simply shake hands.
Are most people of that time emotionally restrained? Or is it a trait that pertains to Hans and Joachim's upbringing?
Adelle, I think it means that they are Germans. People of Northern Europe are customarily said to be far more reserved than those of the south. But then, as you point out, there is that "Strange to say"....
Laurele wrote: "Adelle, I think it means that they are Germans. People of Northern Europe are customarily said to be far more reserved than those of the south. But then, as you point out, there is that "Strange to..."They are not only Germans, they come from *Hamburg* and are members of Hanseatic merchant families! Very reserved people ... indeed!
But besides this I agree with Adelle, that they seem to have a deeper and friendly relation. From an American point of view this looks strange, I assume ...
And then we observe Hans. He seems to have a tendency to say what he thinks is the properly acceptable thing to say. He wants to "fit in." Yet his actions---which are more "true" give lie to his spoken words.
Example:
After Joachim explains to Hans about the man with the limp (he has "the disease"), Hans says to Joachim: "But you can't make me believe you've still got anything like that the matter with you! Why you look as if you had just come from manoeuvres!" (I love the generous usage of the explanation points. To emphasize that this is what Hans truly believes.)
BUT, his actions say otherwise. "And he looked sidelong at his cousin" (6). Not an honest direct look. Rather, a sidelong, somewhat secrative, speculative glance. Hans is wondering how well is cousin REALLY is.
"But seems to me that you've made a splendid recovery," he {Hans} said, shaking his head. (7).
This MIGHT be Hans shaking his head sadly at the thought of Joachim having to stay there for months more.
OR, this MIGHT Hans's physical body saying, "No, I don't believe that Joachim has recovered splendidly." The use of the word "splendidly" strikes me as Hans overdoing it verbally. Like the exclamation points. Wanting his words to be SO affirmative/ because he doesn't believe his own words.
Joachim pulled a bottle out of his pocket to show Hans. This has to do with his illness. Joachim says to Hans that some patients make a joke of it, but Joachim, I think, includes that information merely to protect himself emotionally. Really, what he's doing is trying to share an important (a life or death) part of his life with Hans.
Hans...does not want to see...he doesn't want that conversation... Notice how abruptly that sentence runs:
"It even has a nickname; they make quite a joke of it" /// Then with no transition, almost jarringly: "You are looking at the landscape?"
This would have been the PERFECT opportunity for Hans to ask a follow-up question. But Joachim realizes that Hans is looking (pretending to look???) at the landscape.
Hans: "Magnificent!" With yet another lying exclamation point.
Hans SAYS, "No, to speak frankly" ... LOL. Hans is NOT speaking frankly. Anything but. (Or so it seems to me.)
Hans breathes in the air. "It was fresh and that was all." But what does Hans SAY? He says, "Wonderful air."
Hans inadvertently says to Joachim something he actually thinks: "You have such a queer way of talking" (9).
And then almost immediately takes those words back: "Oh, no, of course I don't mean you really have..." Hans hastened!!!!! to assure him. {Please don't reject me.} Poor Hans. Mustn't offend anyone. Hans will carry the bag his uncle gave him...to please his uncle? And he'll take the job laid in front of him... And he'll change his professed opinions in order to keep everything all nice and socially accepted ... and grey. Or, so I'm seeing at this point.
Joachim may not be well. Joachim tells Hans that the dead are brought down on bob-sleds.
Hans SAYS, "Their bodies? Oh, I see. Imagine!" as though he is a sophisticate, and can make light of the bodies...even as a thought must linger that Joachim's body might well be brought down on a bob-sled one day. How funny can this actually be? Hans's physcical body of its own volition breaks into nervous laughter. "And suddenly he burst out laughing, a violet, irrepressible laugh which shook him all over and distorted his face, that was stiff with the cold wind, until it almost hurt." The realization that Joachim might die must really hurt Hans.
Example:
After Joachim explains to Hans about the man with the limp (he has "the disease"), Hans says to Joachim: "But you can't make me believe you've still got anything like that the matter with you! Why you look as if you had just come from manoeuvres!" (I love the generous usage of the explanation points. To emphasize that this is what Hans truly believes.)
BUT, his actions say otherwise. "And he looked sidelong at his cousin" (6). Not an honest direct look. Rather, a sidelong, somewhat secrative, speculative glance. Hans is wondering how well is cousin REALLY is.
"But seems to me that you've made a splendid recovery," he {Hans} said, shaking his head. (7).
This MIGHT be Hans shaking his head sadly at the thought of Joachim having to stay there for months more.
OR, this MIGHT Hans's physical body saying, "No, I don't believe that Joachim has recovered splendidly." The use of the word "splendidly" strikes me as Hans overdoing it verbally. Like the exclamation points. Wanting his words to be SO affirmative/ because he doesn't believe his own words.
Joachim pulled a bottle out of his pocket to show Hans. This has to do with his illness. Joachim says to Hans that some patients make a joke of it, but Joachim, I think, includes that information merely to protect himself emotionally. Really, what he's doing is trying to share an important (a life or death) part of his life with Hans.
Hans...does not want to see...he doesn't want that conversation... Notice how abruptly that sentence runs:
"It even has a nickname; they make quite a joke of it" /// Then with no transition, almost jarringly: "You are looking at the landscape?"
This would have been the PERFECT opportunity for Hans to ask a follow-up question. But Joachim realizes that Hans is looking (pretending to look???) at the landscape.
Hans: "Magnificent!" With yet another lying exclamation point.
Hans SAYS, "No, to speak frankly" ... LOL. Hans is NOT speaking frankly. Anything but. (Or so it seems to me.)
Hans breathes in the air. "It was fresh and that was all." But what does Hans SAY? He says, "Wonderful air."
Hans inadvertently says to Joachim something he actually thinks: "You have such a queer way of talking" (9).
And then almost immediately takes those words back: "Oh, no, of course I don't mean you really have..." Hans hastened!!!!! to assure him. {Please don't reject me.} Poor Hans. Mustn't offend anyone. Hans will carry the bag his uncle gave him...to please his uncle? And he'll take the job laid in front of him... And he'll change his professed opinions in order to keep everything all nice and socially accepted ... and grey. Or, so I'm seeing at this point.
Joachim may not be well. Joachim tells Hans that the dead are brought down on bob-sleds.
Hans SAYS, "Their bodies? Oh, I see. Imagine!" as though he is a sophisticate, and can make light of the bodies...even as a thought must linger that Joachim's body might well be brought down on a bob-sled one day. How funny can this actually be? Hans's physcical body of its own volition breaks into nervous laughter. "And suddenly he burst out laughing, a violet, irrepressible laugh which shook him all over and distorted his face, that was stiff with the cold wind, until it almost hurt." The realization that Joachim might die must really hurt Hans.
Adelle wrote: "And then we observe Hans. He seems to have a tendency to say what he thinks is the properly acceptable thing to say. He wants to "fit in." Yet his actions---which are more "true" give lie to ..."IMHO you are wrong but I can understand your approach.
From my point of view Hans simply speaks straightforwardly. He is not hiding anything because of politeness or piety. He is really surprised how well his cousin looks, and adds a "seems" to express his surprise openly. He is really laughing about the corpses on bob-sleds, because he is far from thinking that his sound-looking cousin could make the same way.
IMHO it does not fit to Hans' character as a young, orderly, optimistic son of a Hanseatic family to hide any subtle thoughts in a double-speech.
I must confess that when reading I, as a German, had not the least idea that the words of Hans could mean anything else than he says ... the thought is disturbing to me, it shakens my trust into the author, he cannot just make a person like Hans say this and think that without mentioning it to the reader.
You are right when it comes to Hans' desire to fit into society.
Ah, that is how it goes when more than one person reads a book. This one sees it from one perspective; the other sees it quite differently.
Oddly enough, in my opinion, it makes me admire the author that he can write Hans so that the reader can see below the surface.
Well, it should prove interesting.
Oddly enough, in my opinion, it makes me admire the author that he can write Hans so that the reader can see below the surface.
Well, it should prove interesting.
"Number 34"
Joachim tells Hans that the woman who had occupied the room Hans will have died yesterday morning.
"Hans Castorp took in this information with a sprightly, yet half-distraught air. He was standing with his sleeves pushed back before the roomy wash-hand basin, the taps of which shone in the electric light, and gave hardly a glance at the white metal bed with its fresh coverlet" (11).
Yes, the words do appear almost straight-forward.
But as I read it the fact that Hans was "half-distraught" and that "He rattled on"...he started a rambling "voluble" conversation seems to indicate that Hans was very much bothered by the death there. And the fact that he gave the bed "hardly a glance" ...when at least a glance would be warranted...seems--granted to me --- that it bothers him very much and he is very purposefully avoiding looking at the bed.
Still...I will try to stop occasionally and try to view Hans at face value. I will try sometimes to see if I can't maybe see him from your perspective.
It seemed to me, too, that Hans was rambling on about the coughing...it seemed to me that perhaps Hans thought that if he could move himself into a "scientific" sense...and discuss symptoms and effects ..."It isn't dry and yet isn't loose either..." I felt that that was Hans attempting to step back emotionally from the horror he had felt.
I did really appreciate that Hans was going on and on and on ..."all slime and mucous---"
"Oh," said Joachim, "I hear it every day, you don't need to describe it to me" (12).
I thought this was Joachim wanting to shut Hans up about all those details about coughs and the various contistencies of phlem.
Joachim tells Hans that the woman who had occupied the room Hans will have died yesterday morning.
"Hans Castorp took in this information with a sprightly, yet half-distraught air. He was standing with his sleeves pushed back before the roomy wash-hand basin, the taps of which shone in the electric light, and gave hardly a glance at the white metal bed with its fresh coverlet" (11).
Yes, the words do appear almost straight-forward.
But as I read it the fact that Hans was "half-distraught" and that "He rattled on"...he started a rambling "voluble" conversation seems to indicate that Hans was very much bothered by the death there. And the fact that he gave the bed "hardly a glance" ...when at least a glance would be warranted...seems--granted to me --- that it bothers him very much and he is very purposefully avoiding looking at the bed.
Still...I will try to stop occasionally and try to view Hans at face value. I will try sometimes to see if I can't maybe see him from your perspective.
It seemed to me, too, that Hans was rambling on about the coughing...it seemed to me that perhaps Hans thought that if he could move himself into a "scientific" sense...and discuss symptoms and effects ..."It isn't dry and yet isn't loose either..." I felt that that was Hans attempting to step back emotionally from the horror he had felt.
I did really appreciate that Hans was going on and on and on ..."all slime and mucous---"
"Oh," said Joachim, "I hear it every day, you don't need to describe it to me" (12).
I thought this was Joachim wanting to shut Hans up about all those details about coughs and the various contistencies of phlem.
"In the Restaurant"
I found a good deal of humor in this section. Hans does so appreciate a good meal. "Hans Castorp clasped his freshly washed hands and rubbed them together in agreeable anticipation--a habit of his when he sat down to table..." (13).
Even when not overly hungery, "...he always ate a good deal, out of pure self-respect" (13).
And then, as I see it, there are a couple of scenes in this section which seem [I'm trying to remember to be generous with quantifiers :)] to indicate a desire to carefully not engage emotionally.
And I am back to wondering if this is a family trait?
Towards the close of the meal, Joachim has been drinking "with gusto, not to say abaondon'; and repeatedly, though with careful avoidance of emotional language, expressed his joy at having somebody here with whom one could havea little rational conversation.
'Yes, it's first-rate you've come,' and his gentle voice betrayed some feeling. 'I must say it is really an event for me---*it is certainly a change, anyhow, a break in the everlasting monotony."
*Joachim interupts himself -- it seems to me he interupts himself in order to pull himself back emotionally...so that it won't seem so obvious to Hans how glad he is to have Hans there... casual... too casual... just a "change"
Me? I see Hans as rather full of himself. Speaking of Hamburg. "Epoch-making," said Hans Castorp. (Loved the use of first and last name there. This isn't just Joachim's cousin Hans speaking. It's "Hans Castorp.") I find that significant.) And then Hans adds, "...fifty millions...you may be sure we know what we're about" (14).
And then that next section in which I think that the author is trying to tell us important things.
"But notwithstanding all the importance he attached to the projected improvements, he jumped away from the theme and demanded that Joachim tell him more about life 'up here'..."
[EDIT ADDED: I've been thinking about what Thorwald wrote about Hamburg. Maybe Hans isn't exactly putting on airs. Not really. Hans doesn't have much family. Perhaps he likes to associate himself closely with Hamburg so he can feel like part of a successful group. As Thorwald pointed out, Hans family isn't as successful as it once was. But Hamborg is successful. They could be like his family.]
And I ask myself, Was Hans truly a part of that "we" he had bandied about? Had he been involved in any of those decisions? Or is Hans using "we" to included himself in the group of decision-makers so that he will sound important to Joachim? Or important to himself??? Does Hans NOT follow up with this important subject because if he were pressed for details it would come out that he doesn't know anything???
These seem to me valid questions to ask, because here Hans has specifically asked Joachim about life "up here" and Joachim starts telling him...Joachim tells Hans how time drags, how "I have to stagnate up here -- yes, just stagnate like a filthy puddle; it isn't too crass a comparison" (15).
And Hans? He expresses no sympathy. He asks no follow up questions. He doesn't ask, Why do you feel that way?
No, "Strange to say, Hans Castorp's only reply to all this was a query as to whether it was possible to get porter [port] up here;"
No wonder Joachim "looked at him, in some astonishment."
Ok. An indication that Hans wants to fit in:
"Then I certainly did offend him," Hans Castorp said fretfully, for it annoyed him to give offence.
Mmm. Interesting word-choice there: "annoyed."
It doesn't actually read that Hans that he regrets that he has caused someone to feel offended. He's "annoyed." Why?
I found a good deal of humor in this section. Hans does so appreciate a good meal. "Hans Castorp clasped his freshly washed hands and rubbed them together in agreeable anticipation--a habit of his when he sat down to table..." (13).
Even when not overly hungery, "...he always ate a good deal, out of pure self-respect" (13).
And then, as I see it, there are a couple of scenes in this section which seem [I'm trying to remember to be generous with quantifiers :)] to indicate a desire to carefully not engage emotionally.
And I am back to wondering if this is a family trait?
Towards the close of the meal, Joachim has been drinking "with gusto, not to say abaondon'; and repeatedly, though with careful avoidance of emotional language, expressed his joy at having somebody here with whom one could havea little rational conversation.
'Yes, it's first-rate you've come,' and his gentle voice betrayed some feeling. 'I must say it is really an event for me---*it is certainly a change, anyhow, a break in the everlasting monotony."
*Joachim interupts himself -- it seems to me he interupts himself in order to pull himself back emotionally...so that it won't seem so obvious to Hans how glad he is to have Hans there... casual... too casual... just a "change"
Me? I see Hans as rather full of himself. Speaking of Hamburg. "Epoch-making," said Hans Castorp. (Loved the use of first and last name there. This isn't just Joachim's cousin Hans speaking. It's "Hans Castorp.") I find that significant.) And then Hans adds, "...fifty millions...you may be sure we know what we're about" (14).
And then that next section in which I think that the author is trying to tell us important things.
"But notwithstanding all the importance he attached to the projected improvements, he jumped away from the theme and demanded that Joachim tell him more about life 'up here'..."
[EDIT ADDED: I've been thinking about what Thorwald wrote about Hamburg. Maybe Hans isn't exactly putting on airs. Not really. Hans doesn't have much family. Perhaps he likes to associate himself closely with Hamburg so he can feel like part of a successful group. As Thorwald pointed out, Hans family isn't as successful as it once was. But Hamborg is successful. They could be like his family.]
And I ask myself, Was Hans truly a part of that "we" he had bandied about? Had he been involved in any of those decisions? Or is Hans using "we" to included himself in the group of decision-makers so that he will sound important to Joachim? Or important to himself??? Does Hans NOT follow up with this important subject because if he were pressed for details it would come out that he doesn't know anything???
These seem to me valid questions to ask, because here Hans has specifically asked Joachim about life "up here" and Joachim starts telling him...Joachim tells Hans how time drags, how "I have to stagnate up here -- yes, just stagnate like a filthy puddle; it isn't too crass a comparison" (15).
And Hans? He expresses no sympathy. He asks no follow up questions. He doesn't ask, Why do you feel that way?
No, "Strange to say, Hans Castorp's only reply to all this was a query as to whether it was possible to get porter [port] up here;"
No wonder Joachim "looked at him, in some astonishment."
Ok. An indication that Hans wants to fit in:
"Then I certainly did offend him," Hans Castorp said fretfully, for it annoyed him to give offence.
Mmm. Interesting word-choice there: "annoyed."
It doesn't actually read that Hans that he regrets that he has caused someone to feel offended. He's "annoyed." Why?
Adelle wrote: "Once possible view to take of that description is that pre-WWI really WAS a time now past. I had read The Vertigo Years. I didn't take notes, but I remember the author wrote that the world prior to 1910 really was a different time...gone forever. "As it happens, I'm listening to a Coursera course on The Modern World: Global History Since 1760 and he makes the same point, that the world after the war really was a very different place from the world before the war. The word "rift" that Mann uses (or more accurately Mann's translator choose for whatever the German was) is quite accurate.
Those who are aficionados of Downton Abbey are very much seeing this in Season 3.
Thorwald wrote: "That is exactly what is meant. First World War ended a time of security and prosperity, even of security in a metaphysical sense: The Kaiser ruled the Reich and was admired by the people, German culture and German products conquered the world, God blessed this country indeed - and then the unbelievable happened: The war lost. Millions dead. The Kaiser gone. "That's a good reminder that the effect of the war on Germany was greater than in most other countries; certainly more than in the United States or England, which were not physically devastated and didn't have an overthrow of their governments and social structure. Castorp's life in Hamburg, while he no longer lives in a lap of great wealth, is certainly comfortable, well structured, and civilized; his life after the war, if the book had been continued that long, would have been totally different.
It's easy from this distance of time and from a victorious, rather than a losing, country to fail to realize just how incredibly disruptive the war was on Germany. Thanks, Thorwald, for reminding us of this perspective, with I hope more to come.
Adelle wrote: "Rorschach developed his test in 1921. Since Mann published his book in 1924, he may or may not have heard of the Rorschach test ... he may possibly?? have purposefully chosen to include the name of the town Rorschach rather than the name of a different Swiss town. No way to know. "As Lily noted, the opening paragraphs were based on Mann's actual visit to his wife's sanatorium in 1912, which is also when he started writing the novel, so I suspect that this is just one of the towns that he passed through himself on his way there back in 1912. Not proof, but that's my assumption. All the other towns he names are actual towns, and looking at a map it makes sense to change trains at Rorschach for Landquart, and then again at Landquart for the higher alps and Davos. (Thank you, Google maps, which actually shows these railway lines! And to the rail journey based on a 1913 Bradshaw which Lily pointed us to in several places.)
At 16 Thorwald wrote: "
I suggest to read the first two pages of the book and everything becomes clear:
http://books.google.de/books?id=YrJjc...
..."
Thank you, Thorwald. A very different time.
I suggest to read the first two pages of the book and everything becomes clear:
http://books.google.de/books?id=YrJjc...
..."
Thank you, Thorwald. A very different time.
Adelle wrote: "Yes, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes grey is just a color. But it pops up quite a bit. And I wonder if that isn't meant to tells us something about Hans himself."Interesting observation. Although all the grey is of other things than Castorp -- either of the scenery or of other people. So perhaps grey isn't so much about Hans as about the environment he is in?
I have actually been noticing more the mentions of red than of grey, though I haven't marked each occurrence of it.
At 19 Laurele wrote: "Adelle, I think it means that they are Germans. People of Northern Europe are customarily said to be far more reserved than those of the south. But then, as you point out, there is that "Strange to..."
Yes, it is possible that such was simply the German custom. But then... that "Strange to say" and from Chapter 2 (view spoiler)
Yes, it is possible that such was simply the German custom. But then... that "Strange to say" and from Chapter 2 (view spoiler)
Adelle wrote: "Yes, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"Funny you should say that, when we are told that Castorp packed 200 cigars for a three week visit. Even allowing two days on each end of the trip for travel, that's only 25 days, which works out to 8 cigars a day. And very special cigars. Who expects to smoke 8 cigars a day?
Hmmm. Is it possible that these cigars aren't just cigars??
Adelle wrote: ""In the Restaurant"I found a good deal of humor in this section. Hans does so appreciate a good meal. "Hans Castorp clasped his freshly washed hands and rubbed them together in agreeable anti..."
We may want to be a wee bit careful -- this isn't directed at anything specific you wrote, but a general comment for all of us doing close reading -- about reading too much into individual words or ways of saying things, because this is, after all, a translation. And your translation, which I assume is the original translation, is slightly and perhaps subtly different from mine, the Woods translation. Which can be fine, we get two ways of seeing the original German (and Thorwald can give us a third way). But, for just one minor example, your translation has Hans rubbing his hands together in "agreeable anticipation," while mine has him rubbing them together in "congenial expectation." Congenial has more of a sense, to me at least, of recognition of dining with his cousin, which agreeable doesn't as much.
That's only a minor and not really important example, but at other times the translator's choice of terms may be more significant. This isn't at all to say we shouldn't do close reading or quote the text -- certainly we should. But we may want to be careful about reading too much nuance into single words.
Also, I notice that the earlier translation uses "grey" rather than "gray," which suggest that it was an English translator, whereas Wood is, I believe, American. Thus there may be subtle differences too in the use of the "common language which separates us," including in ways in which words may have changed subtly from their 1924 English usage to the 2004 American usage.
Not meaning at all to discourage this close reading. Just wanting to sound a little hint of caution.
Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: "Yes, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"
Funny you should say that, when we are told that Castorp packed 200 cigars for a three week visit. Even allowing two days on each end of the..."
Everyman! You did the math. Eight a day, eh?
Funny you should say that, when we are told that Castorp packed 200 cigars for a three week visit. Even allowing two days on each end of the..."
Everyman! You did the math. Eight a day, eh?
Interesting that when Castorp is introduced to Dr. Krokowski, he calls him "a phenomenon of greatest medical interest. You see, I've never met a perfectly healthy person before." Huh?
Everyman wrote: "Hmmm. Is it possible that these cigars aren't just cigars?? "
Hans says to Joachim in "Teasing":
"...what I'm saying is, that if a man has a good cigar, then he's home safe, nothing, literally nothing, can happen to him."
It does seem to be a talisman of sort for him.
By the way, the Maria Mancini cigar is still made today, no doubt by a different manufacturer, but the name brand is still around.
In the short Preface Hans Castorp is defined as an average young man - an Everyman (!). So we may prepare ourselves for a morality play. This book, continues Mann, is not about HC, it's a story - a long story. Placed in a fairy tale time, before the Great War changed every thing (and every man).WW1 was indeed a great break in so many ways - those interested might want to put Modris Eksteins' book on their reading list:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16...
A few other remarkable things:
- HC is reading a book titled: Ocean Steamships (in English!)
- moving in space has almost the same effect as moving in time: one forgets, and is set free: even a philistine becomes something of a vagabond, says Mann
- HC feels dizzy entering a world without songbirds. He covers his eyes.
The cousins greet each other without emotions, as is their custom. People from Hamburg share the British reputation for a stiff upper lip. First question: will you come back with me in 3 weeks time? JZ doubts it: time is different on the mountain.The mountain is also higher than it seems, says JZ. A nearby sanatorium even has to transport its corpses by sleigh. They laugh. Death clearly disturbs them, but in different ways. HC feels his cousin has become a stranger, member of a different community.
He is shown his room, #34, where a day earlier a young American lady died. He feels cold - there is no heating - but hot in the face. A nurse watches the boys in the corridor - horrible coughing from mr. Herrenreiter (a term from the gay scene). Thanatos & Eros?
JZ complains that his existence on the mountain is not a life. HC learns that the sanatorium not only takes care of the body, it tinkers with the mind as well. Assistant dr. Krokowski, who never met a healthy person, seems really voracious. He is a bit taken back though, when he hears that HC is an engineer and not in search of a cure.
HC dreams about his cousin and mr. Herrenreiter going down the mountain on a sleigh.
Wendel: He is a bit taken back though, when he hears that HC is an engineer and not in search of a cure.
It does seem as though everyone, though courteous, treats Hans like an outsider, an interloper, an alien.
It does seem as though everyone, though courteous, treats Hans like an outsider, an interloper, an alien.
Everyman wrote: "Interesting that when Castorp is introduced to Dr. Krokowski, he calls him "a phenomenon of greatest medical interest. You see, I've never met a perfectly healthy person before." Huh?"
At the first glance it looks to me like typical doctor's humour with no further meaning, but then it is also a kind of mockery on the character of Hans Castorp:
Hans Castorp is not only young and optimistic, but even more: He is carefree, somehow happy-go-lucky, maybe even naive as only a young person can be. Under this perspective I would not interprete too much in his words at the beginning of the book.
In the first chapters Hans Castorp shows several times reactions which are not "fitting" or suitable. He does not know how to react. Maybe he is not naive in that sense that he knows that he does not know how to react: How to react on his dreams. How to react on his hot face. How to react on stories of death. How to react on Krokowski. How to react on Settembrini.
What the first chapters of the book make me expecting is that Hans Castorp will be confronted more and more with problems and situations he had not imagined, which makes him grow in character by finding ways how to react adequately on these problems and situations.
Thorwald: What the first chapters of the book make me expecting is that Hans Castorp will be confronted more and more with problems and situations he had not imagined, which makes him grow in character by finding ways how to react adequately on these problems and situations.
I like this. I have seen the novel described as a bildungsroman or coming of age novel.
I am wondering as we form initial impressions of young Hans whether there is a distinction between "naive" and "callow?" And, if so, which is he?
I like this. I have seen the novel described as a bildungsroman or coming of age novel.
I am wondering as we form initial impressions of young Hans whether there is a distinction between "naive" and "callow?" And, if so, which is he?
Zeke wrote..I am wondering as we form initial impressions of young Hans whether there is a distinction between "naive" and "callow?" And, if so, which is he?
."
I think that that is addressed in Chapter 2 (L-P p32).
(view spoiler)
."
I think that that is addressed in Chapter 2 (L-P p32).
(view spoiler)
Zeke wrote: "Thorwald: What the first chapters of the book make me expecting is that Hans Castorp will be confronted more and more with problems and situations he had not imagined, which makes him grow in chara...""Callow" is clearly the better word, I did not know it, so far. Thank you!
Adelle: "There does appear to be something terrible wrong with the times"
Very good question: I think there was something wrong with the time. If you feel too good, you start to forget how this state was achieved, you become somewhat "callow" in a certain sense of loosing knowledge and education, and then you start to kill the goose which laid the golden eggs. (This is exactly what happens in Europe, now!)
German Kaiser Wilhelm II. was the living example. A very callow, brisk and breezy man. He just ignored Bismarck's complicated architecture of peace and balance of powers in Europe. Wilhelm II. was young, too. Too young! He started reigning much too early, because his father died of cancer.
Would be interesting to analyze if Hans Castorp and Wilhelm II.'s character fit together!
Think also that Heinrich Mann, brother of Thomas Mann, wrote in 1914 the book "Der Untertan", "the subject": Every orderly German was molded according to the pattern the Kaiser represented. Maybe Hans Castorp is at the beginning of the novel "the typical subject"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Unte...
Ahh, read the section "Personality" in the Wikipedia article on Wilhelm II - isn't this exactly Hans Castorp?
Thorwald wrote: "
Would be interesting to analyze if Hans Castorp and Wilhelm II.'s character fit together!
..."
Mmm. Maybe there are some comparisons.
I know I had focused on Hans being "an unassuming young man," but perhaps that refers to his personality, not his desire for material things... He has the good wine, the good cigars, he knows which ones have been judged "good." And he still seems concerned with the impression he makes on other people.
(view spoiler)
Would be interesting to analyze if Hans Castorp and Wilhelm II.'s character fit together!
..."
Mmm. Maybe there are some comparisons.
I know I had focused on Hans being "an unassuming young man," but perhaps that refers to his personality, not his desire for material things... He has the good wine, the good cigars, he knows which ones have been judged "good." And he still seems concerned with the impression he makes on other people.
(view spoiler)
Adelle wrote: "I don't know many details about Kaiser Wilhelm. Crippled arm at birth. Supposedly somewhat jealous of Edward of England (who had better boats). "Aaaahhh, "who had better boats": Which book does Hans Castorp read?! Aaahhh!
All of the posts in this thread are great, although I was only able to skim through them. I'm so overloaded with work, but I would like to participate in this discussion.I have been very confused about something since the very beginning of this novel. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why guests are allowed to visit people in a sanatorium for tuberculosis patients. Tuberculosis is an extremely infectious (contagious) disease, as far as the information I have on it.
But people who are not sick (such as our hero, Hans), are surrounded by all of these people who are very sick. Spouses who are healthy are staying in the same room as their spouse who is ill. AND, the patients walk around and they go into the nearby town to do shopping.
Were things really like this, or is Thomas Mann being ironic (or funny) about all of this. I would think that only ill people are allowed in the sanatorium, and that they certainly can't leave and randomly walk around. To go and not only visit but to actually STAY at a sanitarium when you're perfectly healthy? How can the healthy people not eventually become ill???
Anyway, this has really been bothering me since I started reading The Magic Mountain, but I'm wondering if it's a silly question because it seems that no one else here has mentioned anything about it.
Barbara wrote: "I have been very confused about something since the very beginning of this novel. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why guests are allowed to visit people in a sanatorium for tuberculosis patients. Tuberculosis is an extremely infectious (contagious) disease, as far as the information I have on it. "That's a great question. I don't know the answers (maybe they're in some of the links that Wendel posted in the Backgrounds thread.
Several possibilities.
One, they may not have realized at the time that TB was infectious. They may not have known how it was transmitted.
Two, the strands at the time may not have been that infectious -- many diseases have gotten a lot stronger as we have attacked them with various drugs. The Mayo clinic website notes that "Another reason tuberculosis remains a major killer is the increase in drug-resistant strains of the bacterium. Since the first antibiotics were used to fight tuberculosis 60 years ago, some TB germs have developed the ability to survive, and that ability gets passed on to their descendants."
Three, the Mayo Clinic website says that "Although tuberculosis is contagious, it's not easy to catch."
Fourth, I see that the Mayo clinic site also notes that "Since the 1980s, the number of cases of tuberculosis has increased dramatically because of the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Tuberculosis and HIV have a deadly relationship — each drives the progress of the other." So perhaps in the days before HIV the etiology of TB was different from what it now.
Or fifth, all of the above may be wrong. It might just be that a sanatorium didn't want to turn away paying visitors, since it appears from the descriptions of the place that it was probably a fairly costly place, and I doubt there was any medical insurance at the time, so it must have been reasonably wealthy people staying there. (What the poor who had TB did is of course another question entirely, and one I doubt Mann addresses, though we'll see.)
Contagiousness depends on two factors: the ease of transmission and the virulence of the pathogene.TB bacilli can be transported by air, as miniscule drops of sputum (coughing, talking), so from this point of view the disease is highly infectious. However, a healthy immunesystem is generally able to overcome a simple infection. Or the infection may be surpressed into a latent state (without symptoms, and not able to spread any further). So TB is not especially virulent.
In the early 19th century opinions on the contageousness of TB were divided. The medical establishment in northern Europe saw no proof for it, and considered the widespread fear of the disease in, for example, Italy to be superstitious. Many doctors, exposed to multiple infections, paid with their life for this mistake - medical heroes like Laennec, as well as literary heroes like Chekhov.
The infectuous nature of TB became a certainty only in 1869. And was not really understood before Robert Koch discovered the villain bacillus in 1882. About the same time, but initially independent from these discoveries, the sanatorium movement developed. Later the sanatorium was of course also understood as a way to isolate infectious patients. But there were far too many of them to make this a viable general solution.
Even if TB was not very virulant, and disciplined precautions went a long way to prevent infection, I agree that the relaxed attitude in the Mountain is remarkable. But I have no doubt that Mann gives a correct picture of the prevailing attitude. Still, hasn't HC's obvious nervousness something to do with fear - a fear that a civilized person would rather not mention?
Wendel wrote: "Contagiousness depends on two factors: the ease of transmission and the virulence of the pathogene..."Thank you for your succinct and clear summary, Wendel.
(One of my father's brothers died from TB as a young man -- about ~1941. It is a piece of family lore about which I know little beyond that it apparently impacted my parents' wedding date. Those who knew those stories are gone now.)
@20 Thorwald wrote: @19 "Laurele wrote: "Adelle, I think it means that they are Germans. People of Northern Europe are customarily said to be far more reserved than those of the south...." ".....members of Hanseatic merchant families! Very reserved people ... indeed!..."For those interested in descriptions of ethnic differences, I suggest Ethnicity and Family Therapy. While I remain skittish about the risks of undue stereotyping, I have found this reference to sometimes suggest the deeper historical experiences and the cultural mythological traditions that have shaped our human differences as groups.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again: Essays and Arguments (other topics)The House of Thunder (other topics)
Infinite Jest (other topics)
Death in Venice (other topics)
Man and His Symbols (other topics)
More...
