Classics and the Western Canon discussion

In which we learn something about our – will he be a hero, or just a protagonist?

(Each section of the discussion from here on will be “through” because while I think it is useful to break the discussion into major theme sections, all the book up through the section is grist for the discussion, so content from the Foreword and Chapter 1 can also be used in discussing this chapter, and so on. Hope that makes sense!)

I haven't figured out what the Baptismal Bowl is all about. It seems to link the generations of HC's family, and gives an excuse for his great-uncle to review some history, but many other things could have done that; I expect there is more to the symbolism of the baptismal bowl than that, but I don't know what. Any ideas?

Mann starts by saying that the story of Hans Castorp is "covered with the patina of history." The baptismal bowl seems to be a concrete symbol of that.

What is vaguely disturbing to me is that the bowl is associated with death. In spiritual terms, one would think a baptismal bowl should be a symbol of life -- eternal life, in fact -- but for Castorp, "these religious feelings got mixed up with a sense of death and history."

Thomas wrote: "What is vaguely disturbing to me is that the bowl is associated with death."

That's an excellent point. But perhaps not surprising given that even at 8 years old Hans has already experienced the death of both is parents. It would be no wonder that he is still to some extent obsessed with death.

It's clear from the text that this isn't the first time he has seen the bowl, and indeed the grandfather "recites a story he has told many times before." So this bowl obviously holds more than a casual interest for Hans.

And speaking of death, is it relevant that his room 34 is one where a woman has just died? Or is that normal given the nature of a sanatorium?

Isn't baptism supposed to welcome the baby to the church and its promise of life for eternity in heaven with Jesus?

At the end of the chapter the young boy views his grandfather in the coffin and is struck by how the arrangements seem designed to show that his grandfather has now" passed on forever to his authentic and true form (i.e. baptism's fulfilled promise). Yet, at the same time, Hans senses that they are there to "gloss over the other side of death, the one that is neither beautiful nor sad, but almost indecent in its base physicality."

Thomas, there is an example of the "authorial indirect style" I mentioned. No way an eight year old consciously sees this juxtaposition. Bur psychologically (and this is the time of Freud and Jung), why not? It will be interesting to see if the twin faces of death continue as a theme in the book.

Chapter 2 is a kind of "Buddenbrooks in one chapter". The setting is the world of wealthy Hanseatic merchants. And we see the fall of the protagonist's family - he is not any more the wealthy merchant, he is then a ship construction engineer, an employee of other wealthy Hanseatic merchants.

My interpretation of the death-connection of the baptism bowl is a hint to the fall of the family. Maybe a deeper reasoning will be possible after some more chapters?

Everyman wrote: "Thomas wrote: "What is vaguely disturbing to me is that the bowl is associated with death."

That's an excellent point. But perhaps not surprising given that even at 8 years old Hans has already e..."

Baptism is a picture of dying to self with Christ, being buried with Him and rising with Him to new life. ( The promise of Easter.)

Laurele wrote: "Baptism is a picture of dying to self with Christ, being buried with Him and rising with Him to new life."

Interesting. So it does indeed have a connection with death, though an infant would have no idea of that at the time.

Zeke wrote: "Thomas, there is an example of the "authorial indirect style" I mentioned. No way an eight year old consciously sees this juxtaposition. Bur psychologically (and this is the time of Freud and Jung), why not? It will be interesting to see if the twin faces of death continue as a theme in the book. "

Nice observation about the authorial indirect style. (Didn't we also see this in the Divine Comedy?)

Good reminder that this is exactly when Freud and Jung were turning the world of psychology upside down (or maybe it's fairer to say they were creating it). Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams came out in 1899 and he was publishing frequently during the twelve years it took Mann to finish TMM. Jung started publishing about the same time, and he was a frequent lecturer and journal editor again during the time of Mann's writing.

I hope those who are better acquainted with Freud's and Jung's work than I am will alert us to sections where they see the influence of either coming out. (Or if one wants to dig into the literature of TMM I expect there are essays on this. Unfortunately, I don't have the eyesight to spare for that endeavor.)

Everyman's comment above about Freud and Jung make me wonder whether their work (and not WWI) may represent the real rift from the past that occurred in the early 20th century. As we read we may wish to keep this in mind as we read on. Perhaps we are too facile in accepting WWI as the break point (though it was clearly traumatic and with an aftermath that led to many problems we see to this day).

Does anyone know if there was such a thing as "psychology" before them (William James comes to mind) or does their work describe a new way of looking at human nature? A comparable "rift" might be that caused by Darwin. His work is another example of a rift between "before" and "ever after."

Good points.

James has been called The American Father of Psychology. He published "Principles" in 1890.

http://psychology.about.com/od/profil...

Darwin's work, too, was changing the way people thought about the world. Yes.

Now then, my possibly poppy-cocked view of Hans's love of food was established in Chapter 2. Hans barely remembers his father and mother. He remembered, though, his grandfather, "a man of tough constitution, and firmly rooted in life" (19).

[Hans, at the time of his visit to Joachim, you will recall, "was still too young to have thrust his roots down firmly into life" (3).]

Mmmm. Hans's father, too, "not being of the strongest himself." I wonder if grandfather's strong, dominant personality overshadowed that of both his son and his grandson to an extent that they never became strong men themselves?

(Maybe later in the book I will revise this view.)

"...his grandson, opposite, watched in silence, with deep, unconscious concentration. Grandfather's beautiful, thin, white old hands, with their pointed nails, and on the right forefinger, the greel seal ring with the crest; watched the small, deft, practiced motions with which they arranged a mouthful of meat, vetetable, and potato on the end of his fork, and with a slight inclination of the head conveyed it to his mouth.

Then he [Hans] would look at his own hands, and their still clumsy movements, and see in them the hope foreshadowed of one day holding and using his knife and fork and Grandfather did" (20).

Hans has rathered detailed memories of his grandfather eating.

"Even after he was grown, he recalled it with pleasure; something in the depth of his being responded to it" (20).

Maybe Hans pleasure in eating gives him an emotional link with his grandfather?

Hans remembers Grandfather smoking cigar from his "office". Sometimes little Hans was allowed into the "office." A fairly bare room except for the etagere which held Grandfather's treasures,,,items Hans saw as "attractions"...including Grandfather's cigar case and cigar holders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ta...

Also. "laughing" I just tell you...I wonder. There may be nothing to it, but I wonder. When the subject of the dead bodies came up, Hans laughed violently, almost uncontrolably.


Now we have the death scene of his mother described. Hans had been 5-years-old. It is very possible that Hans saw her die. "the mother, quite suddenly, on the eve of a confinement..."

Hans's mother hadn't been confined yet. She would have been sharing the regular house space with the rest of of the family. And her death came "suddenly," so there wouldn't have been reason or time to get the little boy out of the room IF he had been there with her. There's no indication that the doctor had been there... We simply have the doctor's diagonis.

"She had just been laughing, sitting up in bed, and it looked (to who? to little Hans?) as though she had fallen back with laughter, but really it was because she had died" (19).

DID Hans see his mother die? (Will we find out later in the book?) If so, did anyone explain to him what had happened? His father disengaged, grieving, how would little Hans have processed his mother's death? And is that possibly?? why he laughs when the subject of death comes up???


Just thoughts. Mine.


Hans smokes cigars.

Adelle: Hans smokes cigars.

Indeed! No spoiler, but stay tuned. Keep an eye out for his responses to his cigars.

Zeke wrote: "Adelle: 'Hans smokes cigars.'

Indeed! No spoiler, but stay tuned. Keep an eye out for his responses to his cigars."

One can't help but wonder at the differences in reactions of TMM's readers in 1924ff to all the smoking by lung diseased patients to those of ours today, at least in the U.S.

At 2 Everyman wrote: "the Baptismal Bowl... It seems to link the generations of HC's family, and gives an excuse for his great-uncle to review some history, but many other things could have done that; I expect there is more to the symbolism of the baptismal bowl than that, but I don't know what. Any ideas.

I think you are on the right track, Everyman. I think it is as you suggest: to link the generations.

Our Hans Castorp was named for his grandfather, Hans *Lornez Castorp, not his father, Hermann Castorp.

7-year-old Hans has lost the rest of his family. Grandfather---whose name he shares---is all he has left. In some ways, Grandfather has lived with Hans all of the little boy's life---since the painting of Grandfather was at the home of the little boy's parents until they died...and then the painting moved to Grandfather's house with little Hans.

Here's where I think the linkage for little Hans came into play:

"Plate and basin, one could see, and as the little one heard once again, had not originally belonged together; but, Grandfather said, they had been in use together for a round hundred years, or since the time when the basin was made" (21).

Young Hans loves to hear his Grandfather tell the story: "...it seemed the expression of a piously cherished link between the present, his own life, and the depth of the past!" (22).

"...he received therefrom an ineffable gratification" (22).


Plate and basin had not originally belonged together.

Grandfather and Hans had not originally belonged together either. I think Hans loves the basin and the story because I think it gives him the emotional thought that he and Grandfather will be together for a long time too.

*Lorenz. I couldn't find the year the company was established... looks like early 1900s... There seems to be a Swiss company or a Swiss watchmaker named Lorenz. Nice connection given the theme of time.

Zeke wrote: "Everyman's comment above about Freud and Jung make me wonder whether their work (and not WWI) may represent the real rift from the past that occurred in the early 20th century...."

I am not a history student, but I would suggest holding the relevance of WWI as question, especially given the devastation of the trenches at Somme and Verdun and given the subsequent impacts of the terms of settlement on political structures and on economies. I think it is hard for us in the U.S. to comprehend. And I don't downplay significant other forces at play, from science to evolution to psychology to industrialization to forms of deployment of human labor and justice....

Not a particularly "good" source, but note even just the opening paragraphs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

Two things.

I don't know how the sentence reads in German, but in English:

"...expressly the flowers, and of these more expressly the hosts of tuberoses..." (27).

tuberoses sounds so similar to tuberculosis,
and the people with the disease are the hosts of tuberculosis...



Also,

Little Hans is there observing closely. As Everyman points out, this is his third funeral. Others of course may disagree or reject this theory outright, but I wonder if Hans tendency (as I see it) to avoid unpleasant subjects doesn't stem from these early experiences of death?

It does seem probable that when his mother died, his father didn't want to talk about it. I don't see Grandfather talking about the death of Hermann. And now Grandfather is dead.

The flowers, the little boy is awarw, are "there to palliate the other aspect of death....to slur it over and prevent one from being conscious of it" (27).

"A fly had settled on the quiet brow, and began to move its proboscis up and down. Old Fiete shooed it cautiously away...putting on a seemly air of absent-mindedness--of obscurantism, as it were..." (28).

Maybe...I wonder...did Hans thus learn to avoid the disagreeable? To cover the disagreeable with the proper polite words or a change of subject, brushing unpleasant conversations away as Fiete brushed away the flies... Knowing...but pretending he didn't know...that the fly was there???

Adelle wrote: "Hans has rather detailed memories of his grandfather eating....Maybe Hans pleasure in eating gives him an emotional link with his grandfather?"

Certainly there is a lot about food and eating in these early pages. The description, as you quoted, of all the attention given to eating with his grandfather. Then almost the first thing he does when arriving at the Sanatorium is sit down in the restaurant, with fairly extensive detail you also made a nice analysis of. And then the breakfast room and breakfast, with its lengthy details of the things they are eating. A lot of attention to food and eating.

The meaning? Well, Thomas Foster has a book How to Read Literature like a Professor which I read some years back but pulled off the shelf because of a memory of a section I want to mention elsewhere, but he also has several chapters on eating (Chapter 2: "Nice to Eat with You: Acts of Communion and Chapter 3: Nice to Eat You: Acts of Vampires). He says

"Sometimes a meal is just a meal, and eating with others is simply eating with others. More often than not, though, it's not. Once or twice a semester at least I will stop the discussion of the story or play under considertion to intone (and I invariably intone in bold)whenever people eat or drink together, it's communion."

Not religious communion, necessarily -- he cites the eating scene in Tom Jones (which if you have ever seen the movie is burned into your retinas) as a totally different kind of communion. But he notes that literary versions of communion can interpret the word in quite a variety of ways.

But it's true that most faiths come together in some way to break bread together, and the family meal is, or at least used to be in the US and still is, I understand, in Europe, about much more than just ingesting bodily fuel.

He has an interesting comment: "writing a meal scene is so difficult and so inherently uninteresting, that there really needs to be some compelling reason to include one in the story. And that reason has to do with how characters are getting along."

Thinking of the breakfast, I can see his point. It's a much more interesting way of introducing the characters at his table, and some of their quirks, than just meeting them in a lobby or meeting or outdoors or wherever. The meals with his grandfather show a side of their relationship that would have been more challenging to show without the meal. And eating with Joachim is a good way for him to give them an excuse to sit down together to catch up with each other in a relaxed setting that has a primary purpose other than talking, and so can treat talking more casually than it could if they were sitting in a drawing room. And, for goodness sake, it takes three plus pages for them to eat a brief meal!

Adelle wrote: "Here's where I think the linkage for little Hans came into play:

"Plate and basin, one could see, and as the little one heard once again, had not originally belonged together; but, Grandfather said, they had been in use together for a round hundred years, or since the time when the basin was made" "

Ooh, I like that. After all, a seven year old child and his grandfather don't originally belong together; they were brought together only by death.

Zeke wrote: "Thomas, there is an example of the "authorial indirect style" I mentioned. No way an eight year old consciously sees this juxtaposition. Bur psychologically (and this is the time of Freud and Jung), why not? It will be interesting to see if the twin faces of death continue as a theme in the book. "

Thanks for that. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what the style is. What is the difference between "authorial indirect style" and omniscient narrative? In the example cited it reads to me like omniscient 3rd person narrative.

At 19 Everyman wrote: " a seven year old child and his grandfather don't originally belong together; they were brought together only by death. ..."


They were brought together by death... but they were linked by life. They shared a name. And they were both baptized as babies with the same christening bowl. Both their names would have been engraved on that plate.

mmm. When I had googled christening bowl I got some explanation that it's used to symbolize spiritual cleansing. Maybe??? this is an early indication to the reader that Hans will undergo some sort of spiritual cleansing. There's water, too, involved in christening. Symbolically representing change. With 700 pages to go, Hans will undoubtedly change.

For Thomas @20: I may be making a distinction without a difference. Still, as I read it, an omniscient narrator would have told us about the two sides of death without putting the thought into Hans' head (or subconscious) as I think Mann does. The omniscient narrator might have informed us as more of a digression. And, indeed, as noted, there are places where Mann enters this novel not only indirectly or omnisciently but as a character himself speaking directly to the reader.

I think it will be interesting to see if we can discern any pattern to how/when/why he does this. I couldn't on my first reading.

Everyman @18: "Sometimes a meal is just a meal, and eating with others is simply eating with others. More often than not, though, it's not. Once or twice a semester at least I will stop the discussion of the story or play under consideration to intone (and I invariably intone in bold)whenever people eat or drink together, it's communion."

I enjoyed that book too!

Reflecting on the dining room at the sanatorium however, I wonder if it may not be the exception that proves the rule. I don't see much communion going on in these early chapters.

from L-P page 32:

"Now, if the life about him, if his own time seem, however outwardly stimulating, to be at bottom empty of such food [personal aims, ends, hopes]..."

Maybe a part of the reason Hans puts such emphasis on his meals?? Maybe Hans is spiritually empty... empty of spiritual food... but he doesn't know WHY he feels empty... and looks forward to his meals/food because he thinks that might fill him. ??


Also, a line or two further: " then, in such a case, a certain laming of the personality is bound to occur, the more inevitably the more upright the character is question; "

I immediately thought of the lame, the limping man in chapter 1. And then I thought of Dante, who was spiritually lame, and tried to limp up that first mountain.

Zeke wrote: "For Thomas @20: I may be making a distinction without a difference. Still, as I read it, an omniscient narrator would have told us about the two sides of death without putting the thought into Hans..."

Thanks again. I'll keep my eye out for authorial "intrusion", if that's the word for it, and I have Woods' book on order at the library. You have piqued my curiosity!

Thomas wrote: "Maybe a part of the reason Hans puts such emphasis on his meals?? Maybe Hans is spiritually empty... empty of spiritual food... but he doesn't know WHY he feels empty... and looks forward to his meals/food because he thinks that might fill him. ??
"

At least twice in this chapter the narrator talks about how "the times" can affect a person physically. The suggestion is that the times are hopeless, and they have this affect on Hans. Moreover, he does not have the personality to overcome this -- he is somewhat indecisive, uninspired, and dispassionate. Work is something that gets in the way of his enjoyment of a cigar.

So I take his appetite to be an indication of his physical health. I'm not sure where he is spiritually at this point, or if he is even a spiritual person. He seems to me, at this point anyway, rather shallow.

Thomas wrote: "He seems to me, at this point anyway, rather shallow.."

He does seem to be that way to me, too.

I'm trying to figure out why he's that way.

Adelle wrote: "Two things.

I don't know how the sentence reads in German, but in English:

"...expressly the flowers, and of these more expressly the hosts of tuberoses..." (27).

tuberoses sounds so similar to ..."

German: "... die vielfach vertretenen Tuberosen, ..."

So the analogy could work!

Thomas wrote: "At least twice in this chapter the narrator talks about how "the times" can affect a person physically. "

Worth keeping in mind, perhaps, that Mann has set the book before WWI but most of the book is written with the experience of WWI fresh in his mind.

At 28 Thorwald wrote: German: "... die vielfach vertretenen Tuberosen, ..."

So the analogy could work! .." (27).

.."

Yea! Thank you, Thorwald.

Thank you for looking it up in the German.

Ha Ha. Silly me. First I wrote, "Thank you for translating." THEN I remembered that you're reading original language and I'm reading the translation!

@3 Thomas wrote: "Mann starts by saying that the story of Hans Castorp is 'covered with the patina of history.' The baptismal bowl seems to be a concrete symbol of that.

What is vaguely disturbing to me is that the bowl is associated with death. In spiritual terms, one would think a baptismal bowl should be a symbol of life -- eternal life, in fact -- but for Castorp, 'these religious feelings got mixed up with a sense of death and history.'"

I added to Background several Biblical passages that suggest the linkages of golden bowls to connotations of death as well as to life and to other holy considerations. Especially relevant here would seem to be this one from Ecclesiastes 12:1-8:

(Enclosed in (view spoiler)[

1 Remember your creator in the days of your youth, before the days of trouble come, and the years draw near when you will say, ‘I have no pleasure in them’; 2 before the sun and the light and the moon and the stars are darkened and the clouds return with* the rain; 3 on the day when the guards of the house tremble, and the strong men are bent, and the women who grind cease working because they are few, and those who look through the windows see dimly; 4 when the doors on the street are shut, and the sound of the grinding is low, and one rises up at the sound of a bird, and all the daughters of song are brought low; 5 when one is afraid of heights, and terrors are in the road; the almond tree blossoms, the grasshopper drags itself along* and desire fails; because all must go to their eternal home, and the mourners will go about the streets; 6 before the silver cord is snapped,* [is removed] and the golden bowl is broken, and the pitcher is broken at the fountain, and the wheel broken at the cistern, 7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the breath* returns to God who gave it. 8 Vanity of vanities, says the Teacher;* all is vanity.

(See link for other footnotes: http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Eccl...)

I became aware of this passage last Friday night when we were viewing a Great Courses series on Wisdom Literature. It caught my ear because Henry James's novel is high on my TBR right now. It was written in 1904. I do not know if Mann might have been aware of it.

(hide spoiler)]

Another potent image in this chapter is the portrait of Hans' grandfather. We haven't discussed that yet. The fact that Hans finds more veracity in the portrait and in the wax museum-like treatment of the corpse than he does in his actual physical grandfather strikes me as possibly significant in some way.

"the distant view"

Grandfather Hans Lorenz Castorp and Hans Castorp held such different positions on progress. The eyes of Grandfather in the painting were "diected toward the distant view" (25), and Grandfather looked backward, too, "he had held far more with the ancestral ways and old institutions than with ruinous schemes for widening the harbour, or godless [interesting word choice] and rubbishing plans for a great metropolis" (24).

Hans, on the other hand, had bragged up the city's plans.

Lack of mothering

The housekeeper...who had already been with Counsel Tienappel's household "for many years" ... She may well have been an older woman who had a number of responsibilities even before the care of Hans was added to her duties.

"and it was she, so far as in her lay, took the place of a mother to little Hans Castorp.

I was also struck by the fact of the lawn "in which not the tiniest weed was suffered to florish" (L-P 29). And I wonder if Hans was allowed/suffered to florish.

Also, I googled porter. It was a strongish drink. Hans starts drinking rather young.

Why is Hans Castorp always called by both of his names?

Laurele wrote: "Why is Hans Castorp always called by both of his names?"

That's an excellent question. I have no idea -- does anybody else?

And it continues at least into the next section of our reading, and perhaps the entire book.

I have wondered that, too.

And Grandfather, when named, is always Hans Lorenz Castrop.

Yet Joachim Ziemssen, is Joachim.

from Wikipedia:

Castrop, since 1 April 1926, is part of Castrop-Rauxel, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.

The name comes from trop/torp for village (German Dorf) and chasto/kast for shed. The oldest mention is from 834 as Villa Castrop.

??? Maybe Mann just liked the name for some reason.

??? Maybe Hans is a common name, like our John... so maybe Hans is like John Doe... Since this is Hans's story/ yet it's Everyman's story, too. and with the Castrop. (village).. ??? Maybe it's some sort of "It takes a village" kind meaning??


Hopefully we will find out.

I just learned last week that every word in a short story is of importance. At only 700+ pages, this is practically a short story, yes? So all the words are important.

I figure Mann must tell us stuff for a reason.

It does seem stupid to me to tell us about Hans's teeth unless there is something there for us to discern from that information.

"His {Hans's} teeth were rather soft and defective and he had a number of gold fillings" (L-P 31).

What does that tell us?

HIs teeth indeed may have been rather soft and defective. Maybe. Or, maybe that was the "explanation" that was more socially acceptable. That it wasn't Hans's fault: Hans had "soft" teeth.

This "explanation" seems to me as though it might fit due to what I read on page L-P 34 regarding military service. Consul Tienappel ... due to his position ... could make sure that Hans didn't have to serve in the military.

"It may be, too, that Staff Medical Officer Dr. Eberding, who visited at Harvestehuderstrasse, heard from Consul Tienappel, in the course of conversation, that young Castorp was leaving home to begin his techinical studies and would find a call to the colours a very sensible interruption to his labors."

It seems important to me, too, on another level.

It would seem to me to indicate that while living at Consul Tienappel's house {I hesitate to call it a home], there was no one who cared enough about Hans to make sure his core needs were met.

Maybe it was easier to simply allow Hans to indulge in sweets than to restrict his diet---and thereby save the teeth and probably teach Hans some self-discipline, too.

{Perhaps, too, it was easier to serve Hans a strong beer before and after school...drinks which MM points out kept Hans half-dozing. A dozing little boy would have been less work than one who ran around and wanted to do things.}

Perhaps the effort wasn't put into Hans. But money to fix the resulting external problems... that was OK. Hans "had a number of gold fillings."

And isn't that the Hans we see now?

The exterior trappings are perfect....They show refinement.

But the interior of Hans... I don't think there as been as much refinement of the inner Hans.

In the days of yore people used the blank pages in the back of old fashioned bibles to record the highs and lows of family life. Tony Budenbrook, in a moment of deep crisis, tries to pick up her life by studying the notes in the Budenbrook bible.
Isn't young Hans, asking his granddad to recount the familiar story of the bowl, doing something similar? Reestablising some lost link?
I think this scene is about the embracement of conservatism, rather than an association with death (though of course some people would think conservatism is just that).

Zeke @32: "... that Hans finds more veracity in the portrait and in the wax museum-like treatment of the corpse than he does in his actual physical grandfather strikes me as possibly significant in some way." 

Doesn't that make Hans an idealist? I am sure we will hear a lot more about this two-fold guise: the material vs. the essential, reality vs. things spiritual.

Adelle wrote: "I just learned last week that every word in a short story is of importance. At only 700+ pages, this is practically a short story, yes? So all the words are important.

I figure Mann must tell..."

One of the things I've noticed about Mann is that he loves details. Indeed, he tells us that himself, in the Foreword: "We shall tell [the story] at length, in precise and thorough detail ... Unafraid of the odium of appearing too meticulous, we are much more inclined to the view that only thoroughness can be truly entertaining."

And indeed he does tell it in precise and thorough detail. From the details of the baptismal bowl to the lengthy description of the first breakfast, and in many other places, he almost fondles the details as he lays them out before us.

In a way, it seems almost like pointillism in painting: looked at up close the details overwhelm, but when you step back from the story a few steps, they merge into a finished picture.

Nice.

"So much, however, was true, that he had always liked ships. As a small boy he had filled the pages of his note-books with drawings of fishing-barks, five-masters and vegetable-barges. When he was fifteen, he had had a front seat at the christening ceremony of the new double-screw steamer Hansa. He had watched her leave the ways at Blohm and Voss’s, and afterwards made quite a happy water-colour of the graceful ship, done with a good deal of attention to detail, and a loving and not unskillful treatment of the glassy green, rolling waves."

This ship was build for the Hamburg-Amerika Linie in 1900, which fits in Mann's story. Not at Hamburgs Blohm+Voss though, but in Stettin. And originally it was not named Hansa, but Deutschland (with four funnels): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Deuts...

Thx, Wendel!

This is a bit out of discussion order, but I noted in an earlier post the question regarding why were people not worried about catching TB when visiting or why visitors were allowed (that was a question I had whilst reading TMM in '09; it always puzzled me). In a reading last evening, I chanced upon the following for maybe partial explanation (with clarification in brackets added):
"...he turned his attention to the scourge of of tuberculosis-traditionally known as consumption-a lethal disease that was at the time [1906] the country's [England] most urgent health problem. It was highly contagious among cattle , and humans were thought to contract it through drinking raw milk".
Source: p. 111 of "Nancy, the Story of Lady Astor" by Adrian Fort.
But also as to earlier discussed matters, I do think that WW1 was a pivotal time leading thereafter to much stunned horror, despair, bitterness and anxiety. Such brought rebellion as to the values of their fathers/forebears and traditional notions went out the window leading, inter alia, to Dada'ism and Surrealism and as evidenced in the writings including that of Thomas Mann.
Why Thomas Mann wrote this book as such, may be at least partially evidenced by one of his quotes: "All interest in disease and death is only another expression of interest in life."
As to the discussion regarding cigars, Thomas Mann said: "I never can understand how anyone can not smoke. It deprives a man of the best part of life. With a good cigar in his mouth, a man is perfectly safe, nothing can touch him, literally." Perhaps Hans brought plentiful cigars for protection against well...a rather poorly understood disease of which he may have felt some anxiety or at least protection against sadness of the situation.
Apologies for being a bit off track as just catching up now.

Sue wrote: "...I noted in an earlier post the question regarding why were people not worried about catching TB when visiting or why visitors were allowed (that was a question I had whilst reading TMM in '09; it always puzzled me)...."

Sue -- glad you are with us! Many have been prolific this week, so the backlog probably seems a bit much. But it should be worth it.

Sue, on TB infection, you will probably also find interesting Week 1.1, Msg 48, Wendel's comments on ease of transmission versus virulence of the pathogene as they influence contagiousness.

Laurele wrote: "Why is Hans Castorp always called by both of his names?"

I've been thinking about this as I read further on in the novel. Mann gives us a number of details about Hans which make him seem cold and distant. Hans and Joachim do not call each other by their first names, for example. Their first meeting is very stiff and formal. The narrator refers to Joachim by his first name, but Hans is more distant, and using both of his names lends a formality to his character in the reader's mind as well.

Thomas wrote: "using both of his names lends a formality to his character in the reader's mind as well. .."

That theory resonates with me.

Now that you mention it, I find that when -- in notes -- I have referred to him simply as "Hans" he ... feels ... More approachable. Guess I will have to refer to him as "Hans Castorb."