The Thomas Mann Group discussion

This is for the discussion of until Section IV, chapter 8.

Reactions to Morten's character? What did you think was added to the story by the fact that Tony couldn't catch his name for the first few days of her visit?

Beth wrote: "Reactions to Morten's character? What did you think was added to the story by the fact that Tony couldn't catch his name for the first few days of her visit?"

Interestint question. I did not give it much thought, but now thinking more about it and about their friendship, I think it contributes to the impression Morten creates of being different, of bringing new ideas into Tony's world.

Beth, I didn't give it a second thought, but reading Kall's comment I thought the question struck the right chord.
I googled the meaning of the name, and voilà:

Morten:
Word/Name: Latin
Meaning: Of Mars,Warlike

What do you make of that? He is certainly an idealistic nonconformist who will fight for the new values.
I wonder if he might be the embodiment of the forthcoming new era which will entail the fatal shift for the Buddenbrook family.

Dolors wrote: "...I googled the meaning of the name, and voilà:

Morten:
Word/Name: Latin
Meaning: ..."

It's just the Norwegian for Martin. But you might be interested to know that the Rheinsche Zeitung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinisc...) he mentions was a newspaper edited by Karl Marx before it was closed down by the Prussians.

He is and is not a non-conformist, he is the archetypal German student of the period, politically radical, member of a Burschenschaft - nationalist student associations that had been banned, being a member could get you sent to prison in Prussia because they were calling for things like constitutions and freedom of the press.

Jan-Maat wrote: "Dolors wrote: "...I googled the meaning of the name, and voilà:

It's just the Norwegian for Martin. But you might be interested to know that the Rheinsche..."

Yes, in the novel he says he was given the name of his Norwegian grandfather.

Jan-Maat wrote: "Dolors wrote: "...I googled the meaning of the name, and voilà:

Morten:
Word/Name: Latin
Meaning: ..."

It's just the Norwegian for Martin. But you might be interested to know that the Rheinsche..."

Thanks for the info Jan-Maat, now you say it, Morten's "speech" to Tony sounded very much like the communist ideal. What I don't know is whether it will have further consequences for the Buddenbrooks or it's just a simple mention of these student associations, to give more historical background to the story.

I also was thinking that her difficulty in catching his name may have been symbolic of the future of their relationship. Then there is the parallel relationship Tom has with the shop girl that ends so differently.

I wonder if Morten will reappear at some future time in the plot? I never could quite bring myself to like him, he was so intense and nervous, but Tony found herself with a friend who had nothing to do with her family. That must have been liberating for her, but I never got the sense that she felt a deep love for him. The summer, for her, was a vacation from her real life and what she knew was expected of her.

Diane wrote: "I wonder if Morten will reappear at some future time in the plot? I never could quite bring myself to like him, he was so intense and nervous, but Tony found herself with a friend who had nothing ..."

I had mixed feelings about their relationship--it was a teenage summer fling of sorts and a welcome relief from Grunlich. But once she arrives home, she assumes her "duty" quite easily, apparently.

The scene with Grunlich confronting Morten's family really seemed to bring out the essence of Grúnlich (or what I'm assuming is his essence). He made my skin crawl.

Sue wrote: "Diane wrote: "I wonder if Morten will reappear at some future time in the plot? I never could quite bring myself to like him, he was so intense and nervous, but Tony found herself with a friend wh..."

Grünlich's name really does speak volumes, doesn't it. He makes me sick (I think Tony would have to a point been happier with Morten, but her family and actually his own family as well would never have approved and I also doubt that she would have been lastingly happy if being with Morten would have caused a permanent break with her family).

Sue wrote: "The scene with Grunlich confronting Morten's family really seemed to bring out the essence of Grúnlich (or what I'm assuming is his essence). He made my skin crawl. "

Yes, fantastic wasn't it for nastiness - he goes without the Buddenbrooks knowing and pulls rank on Schwarzkopf - who bows to him! That summed up the social situation I thought.

Jan-Maat wrote: ...he goes without the Buddenbrooks knowing and pulls rank on Schwarzkopf - who bows to him! That summed up the social situation I thought.

It seemed to me that Diederich Swarzkopf bowed in a mocking way - he knows his place in society and has no desire to cross borders. He bowed shortly, jerkily, with the air of one conforming to the conventions as he understood them.
As he states later, he has too much respect and too much pride in order to be making any such plans of which Grunlich accuses him.

Changing subject, I've noticed the use of color when describing the same blue eyes in a different way: Diederich Swarzkopf has sharp blue eyes, the color of the sea, while Herr Grunlich's eyes were as blue as a goose's. Funny, eh?

You could sort of see the whole fling with Morten coming a long way even in last weeks chapters. If not Morten then perhaps any other man in Tony's age. She was alone with no chaperon on the sea-side... It was just bound to happen.

I've found interesting this powerful feeling of belonging to an old family, the seriousness and pride with which its members approach their history and legacy. As Jean Buddenbrook says, Tony is like "a link in a chain", which ultimately fills her with reverence for herself and the feeling of personal importance.
To me, this sounds like the consul is denying Tony's freedom, one of the facets of the freedom of which Morten speaks. The Buddenbrooks don't have the right to happiness if that gets in the way of the unwritten rules of their family.

My child, we are not born for that which, with our short-sighted vision, we reckon to be our own small personal happiness. We are not free, separate, and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way.

I try to understand how Tony, with her tendency to rebel and after listening the whole summer to Morten's opinions, could not have reached a different sort of understanding. Is she too young, too influenced by the greatness of her family, too blinded by her responsibilities?

Tony's summer get away served as a welcome interlude both for her & the readers,considering the irritation that preceded it & the storm that might follow.
As others have duly noted here,Tony's summer romance with Morten,though charming,has all the fleetingness of such romances so you know it's ending while it's still on! While reading it,I remembered Atonement– could almost visualise Morten as Robbie Turner/James McAvoy– the same class differences there & the related sensitivity & (view spoiler)[ the impossibility of a future together. (hide spoiler)]

Now who would've thought that the Family Chronicle would play such an important role in the plot development here! I would still maintain that it's desirable for a family to have awareness of its roots & to be linked to its history but not at the cost of individual happiness.
(view spoiler)[ There was something stagey about Tony coming home from the Schwarzkopf residence & finding the family chronicle unlocked in the open secretary! Makes you wonder if the earlier meeting with Grünlich,when he surprised her all alone in the house,was also pre-arranged! The moment when Tony picks up the pen to make an entry there is so full of dramatic tension– you are rooting for her to write Morten S's name but she chooses a bed of thorns. (hide spoiler)]

These lines make her decision clear:
"Given her pronounced sense of family,any notion of free will or self-determination was alien to her so that she knew and could acknowledge the traits of her character with almost fatalistic equanimity,even her faults,and had no intentionof correcting any of them. She believed,without knowing it,that absolutely every character trait was a family heirloom,a piece of tradition,and therefore something venerable and worthy of her respect,no matter what."
P.211

Mala wrote: "Tony's summer get away served as a welcome interlude both for her & the readers,considering the irritation that preceded it & the storm that might follow.
As others have duly noted here,Tony's summ..."

Very good quote, Mala.

Thanks. I got plenty to say but (view spoiler)[ once bitten,twice shy! I got such a horror of unwittingly giving away plot surprises that now I would rather wait for others to touch upon those topics so I can somewhat freely comment on them! (hide spoiler)]

Also one should see the general populace's feelings of unrest & protests on the streets as symptomatic of changing times– just as the broader society needs political & social reforms,the family unit too,as symbolised by the Buddenbrooks, needs to march with the times. A family that fails to accomodate the wishes of its various members,can't hope to function as a progressive,healthy unit of society.

Jeanette (jema) wrote: "You could sort of see the whole fling with Morten coming a long way even in last weeks chapters. If not Morten then perhaps any other man in Tony's age. She was alone with no chaperon on the sea-si..."

Yes...I wondered about the lack of a chaperone. How realistic was that with someone of Tony's class? I'm going to guess not very realistic. I can't remember in what book I read about the difference between the higher ranking Bürgertum and the newer merchant class, the bourgeoisie, but the Buddenbrooks of this generation belong to the former, and the latter are more recent and their money is newer (and they include more Jews). I thought Tom had accompanied Tony to Travemünde specifically to act as chaperone, but he seems to disappear as soon as they get there.

Even Thomas Mann, when he was courting Katia Pringsheim around 1905, always had a chaperone.

Lobstergirl wrote: "Jeanette (jema) wrote: "You could sort of see the whole fling with Morten coming a long way even in last weeks chapters. If not Morten then perhaps any other man in Tony's age. She was alone with n..."

And of course the obvious thing for a parent to do when they have a young daughter of twenty or thereabouts whom they are trying to "persuade" to marry their unwelcome candidate, is to send her to stay with a family one of whose members is a twenty year old young man, who is ineligible to boot!

On checking, I've discovered that Thomas Mann was a mere 26 when he had this novel published. For all his formidable accomplishment in writing Buddenbrooks, perhaps these 'lapses' can be ascribed to youth and relative inexperience?

Lobstergirl wrote: I wondered about the lack of a chaperone. How realistic was that with someone of Tony's class? I'm going to guess not very realistic.

Yes, you are right, it doesn't sound so realistic, but I'm not familiar with the habits of the day.
This reminded me of another thing I didn't understand: why did the consul send Tony to stay with the Swarzkopfs instead of a hotel? It is because of his always complaining about the lack of money? (He mentions that he will find a way to pay them.)

Yes Ema & Mariel, it's the same discussion we had when Grünlich visited Tony and she received him alone. It seems unfitting for the time.
And Ema, maybe the Consul thought Tony would be better taken care of at the Schwarzkopf's, it seems as if the families had known each other for years, because he talks about him as "old Schwarzkopf" I don't think it has to do anything with the expenses.

But what really strikes me about Tony is her frivolity when, even welcoming Morten's advances, she writes to her dad complaining about the poor gold, and too narrow ring that Grünlich sends to her.
She is a complex character, sacrificing for the family (although she is filled with reverence to herself for the familiar feeling of personal importance possessing her) and being spoiled and capricious at the same time. I still have to make my mind up whether I like her or not.

I agree Dolors re Tony having contradictory qualities but I wonder if that is because of the atmosphere in which she was raised. She was allowed so much freedom except when it came to marriage.

Sue wrote: "I agree Dolors re Tony having contradictory qualities but I wonder if that is because of the atmosphere in which she was raised. She was allowed so much freedom except when it came to marriage."

That's my take on Tony. And I think she has also been raised to be dependent but then gets chastised for being naive and childish.

Marina wrote: "On checking, I've discovered that Thomas Mann was a mere 26 when he had this novel published. For all his formidable accomplishment in writing Buddenbrooks, perhaps these 'lapses' can be ascribed to youth and relative inexperience? "

Certainly it's possible, although he did a lot of research, personal/family and historical, before sitting down to write it. For instance, there was one uncle he got lots of information on 19th century business and trade practices, business in Lübeck, the Mann family business, etc., from. Whether a very young woman would be able to conduct a near-love affair undiscovered seems like something he wouldn't leave to chance.

I find Tony annoying. Very spoiled and sheltered, which results in her not being able to make sound decisions for herself. You can certainly argue that she won't need to make decisions for herself, her parents and then her husband will, her duties will lie elsewhere. Yet not every single woman in Tony's class is this way; you do have the occasional proto-feminist.

Lobstergirl wrote: "I find Tony annoying. Very spoiled and sheltered, which results in her not being able to make sound decisions for herself. You can certainly argue that she won't need to make decisions for hersel..."

I actually find Tony annoying as well, but I also find her parents massively annoying, especially her father, for having raised Tony to be dependent, sheltered and naive. Tony is a product of her time and a product of her upbringing, and while someone with a stronger personality might have rebelled, Tony is unable to do this. Yes, she is and can be frustratingly naive and immature, but she is also a victim of society, of her family, an adjusted, conformed person perhaps, but still a victim.

I haven't liked any character yet, excepting Morten.

Lobstergirl wrote: "I haven't liked any character yet, excepting Morten."

Me too, actually, Morten is the only character whom I have liked so far.

I am neither liking nor not liking ang character yet. I see them all very much a product of their age. My impression will probably change as we proceed.

Well, Morten is the most different from all the characters, his radical ideas and his honest entuthiasm is contagious! I do not dislike Thomas, although I found his treatment of Anna, the shopgirl, disgusting and selfish... But then, I guess women were seen as a way to get a dowry or a position or both.

I got the impression that the Schwarzkopf's were chosen because the family had stayed with them before. Tony reminds me of a German Scarlet O'Hara, never a thought for anything except what would benefit her or the family/ firm. Maybe Margaret Mitchell had read Buddenbrooks and used Tony as a model.

Diane wrote: "I got the impression that the Schwarzkopf's were chosen because the family had stayed with them before. Tony reminds me of a German Scarlet O'Hara, never a thought for anything except what would b..."

I like your interpretation of Tony as a Scarlett O'Hara! She is very self centred.

Laima wrote: "Diane wrote: "I got the impression that the Schwarzkopf's were chosen because the family had stayed with them before. Tony reminds me of a German Scarlet O'Hara, never a thought for anything excep..."

While I would definitely consider Tony Buddenbrook self-centred, I don't think that she is as self-absorbed as Scarlett O'Hara.

I remember when Tony was at the beach and was very glad she didn't have to return to the hotel with her acquaintances, instead returning to the Schwarzkopf's home. She also had such contempt for some of them, though outwardly friendly to them. Class and status had certainly been bred into her.

Her father seems to have been instrumental in creating many, if not most, of her attitudes. Her mother seems so passive.

I found the Consul's image of "links in a chain" in his letter to Tony to be a striking one.He uses it to portray a very positive sense of continuity, of belonging to something greater than oneself. And that image -- the pride and importance of being a continuing link in her family -- is ultimately what sways Tony in her decision about marriage. Yet the image of a chain is also one of restraint and imprisonment.

It seems particularly ironic for her to choose the life of the chain after her moment of clarity on the beach with Morten, the moment when she feels herself "united with Morten in a great, vague, yearning, intuitive understanding of what 'freedom' meant." I found myself wishing that she had more time with Morten, more time to absorb some of his sense of freedom, his willingness to question the status quo. It's not that loyalty to one's family is innately bad -- even Morten wouldn't say that. But Tony seems unable to hold firmly to her own thoughts and decisions; she seems swept along by the tide of life and pressures of social obligations, chained to a long line of unquestioning investment in money, status, and pride.

Beth wrote: "I found the Consul's image of "links in a chain" in his letter to Tony to be a striking one.He uses it to portray a very positive sense of continuity, of belonging to something greater than oneself..."

Exactly, but unfortunately, I also strongly suspect that if Tony had declared herself for Morten, if she had actually rebelled and chosen Morten over Grünlich, she would likely not have been able to cope with her family rejecting and disinheriting her (which is what most probably would have happened).

He needs to write the story of a family in decline, so which suitor fits that narrative better, Morten or Grünlich? Or maybe that's a bad way of putting it, since he's modeling Tony on his real-life aunt regardless, and on her real-life relationship which he already knows the outcome of.

Beth wrote: "I found the Consul's image of "links in a chain" in his letter to Tony to be a striking one.He uses it to portray a very positive sense of continuity, of belonging to something greater than oneself..."

Yes, had she had more time with Morten she would have formulated more of her own views but I do not get the sense that she would have necessarily been more happy with him.

Apart from having to put up with family and social pressure we do not know if he would have turned up to be a fanatic.

I thought the issue of social status was interesting. There in the 1840s a medical student was totally unacceptable as a potential husband for the Buddenbrooks, but by the time Mann was writing the general status of Doctors in society was much higher.

This is the era before Germ theory, Morten is I think alluding to miasma when he talks about the air changes up at Travemunde.

Agree that the chain is a great image suggesting both strength and unity as well as burden and obligation.

I was really struck in this section by the way in which chapters 2 and 3 of Part IV dealt with the Revolution of 1848-9 in such a fragmentary, almost an invisible, manner.

I can think of a couple possible reasons. One would be that Mann wanted to characterize the bourgeoisie in Luebeck as being rather far away from the real action of those years. The events of these chapters, while causing a certain amount of consternation in both the Buddenbrooks household, and in those attending the council meeting, actually turn out to be rather laughably minor - a brick through a window is about the extent of it.

A second possibility for the light treatment could be that Mann knew the back story of the Revolution, even fifty years later, would be so familiar to his audience that there was no need to expend words on it.

Finally, it could be that inclusion of more detail about this political context would have dragged the book back into the mold of German romanticism which Mann was attempting to leave. Thus, frame the Revolution in the book as nothing but an amusing episode, and move on with the realism of the Buddenbrooks story itself?

Ted wrote: "I was really struck in this section by the way in which chapters 2 and 3 of Part IV dealt with the Revolution of 1848-9 in such a fragmentary, almost an invisible, manner."

My feeling was that this probably reflected Mann's political views and should be considered alongside how he presents Morten.

Thematically I think it ties into the issue and importance of status and social hierarchy.

I don't know about Luebeck, but although technically likewise a republic its sister city-state of Hamburg had a very restricted franchise, you had to own property of or more than a certain value, have at least a certain level of income and you had to
pay a citizenship charge in order to be able to vote for the burgershaft/lower house.

The protesters in Luebeck are almost certainly all without the vote, but their desires are treated as inarticable, laughable and as group they can be reduced to a proper attitude of deference by a joke.

I'm not sure that Mann's presentation of '48-'49 would be particularly strange from the perspective of a wealthy, conservative German in the 1890s. It was abortive. Liberalism and constitutionalism lost.

I haven't reached Part IV yet and wish I could comment on that. As for liking the characters... mmm, I'm liking so much about the prose itself (descriptions, incredible details that really seem to characterise quickly and definitively) that I guess I hadn't noticed that I'm not identifying too much with the characters. I was surprised that people are so fond of Morten. I identify with him the most, I think -his anger, his politics, his disgust - but am not so sure I like him any better than the others, not yet anyway. I really liked the contrast between him and his father though. And how effortlessly Mann established it. Some of you were writing about his father's bow... I remember it as if I'd seen it!

I've really enjoyed realising again while reading how much people and certain experiences have not changed over the years: the beach, attraction, being young with various choices to make, etc. That's hitting me a lot more than the differences.

I was delighted when Morten referred to H2O. That that could be dinner talk at that time was not something I had kept in mind.

Kalliope wrote: "I am neither liking nor not liking ang character yet. I see them all very much a product of their age. My impression will probably change as we proceed."

I think it took a lot of guts for a young writer writing his first novel to not go for cute,cuddlesome characters,the kind that readers like to identify with but as befits a realistic tradition of fictioning,to give us flawed,vulnerable characters,people who are good & also bad,the black & the white. I'm liking it more that way but at the same time,not having an identifiable character has led to a curious kind of detachment– I don't feel that involved in their destiny. Don't know if that's a good or bad thing!

Also the image of the chain as a double-edged sword is such a common image for link to the past,the idea of unbroken continuation ( also the handing down of family heirlooms as seen in the ring that Thomas wears etc), that I wonder aren't there better,newer images for conveying such thoughts?

Mala wrote: "Kalliope wrote: "I am neither liking nor not liking ang character yet. I see them all very much a product of their age. My impression will probably change as we proceed."

I think it took a lot ..."

Being detached is also what Berthold Brecht calls "Entfremdung" (estrangement) and it is one of the main points of his theory of drama (that in order to comprehend, in order to be able to analyse and criticise society, social conditions etc. one needs to be detached from the characters, even from the plot of a work). Now Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks is of course nowhere as absurd as some of Berthold Brecht's dramas are, but by not really having an identifiable character, by being detached, one does have the tendency to view both the Buddenbrooks and their society with a much more critical and analytical eye than if one were able to totally identify with the characters or even some of the characters.

But Brecht was an anti-realist! The whole concept of Epic theatre & Alienation effect were to keep the audience aware all the time that they are not watching reality on stage rather an illusion- so in order to properly evaluate it,stay detached from it.
Whereas Mann is a realist- engagement is necessary here! I'm not feeling the characters' pain as say I felt in Bleak House cause even while being a realist,Dickens incorporated touches of fantastic imagination.
And I don't find Brecht's plays absurd,maybe dated,yes, but he gave a new direction & energy to the theatre & Avant Garde movement in cinema. I did my drama speciality on him so retain a soft spot for him :-)

Mala wrote: "But Brecht was an anti-realist! The whole concept of Epic theatre & Alienation effect were to keep the audience aware all the time that they are not watching reality on stage rather an illusion- so..."

Brecht was an anti-realist, but the disengagement one feels or tends to feel with both Brecht and Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks have some similarities, in my opinion.

Does a writer really try to make readers "like" characters? I think a character that is not interesting to at least some degree becomes questionable, but even there, some characters are only in a story because they play a part in the story, not because they need to be interesting.

Certainly in a realistic tradition, would it not be the case that many characters will not be "likeable"? Just like in real life?

Ted wrote: "Does a writer really try to make readers "like" characters? I think a character that is not interesting to at least some degree becomes questionable, but even there, some characters are only in a s..."

I find I agree with you Ted. I'm enjoying this book very much to see what these characters are going to do next, what actions or reactions will happen. Whether I like or dislike them doesn't factor into my enjoyment. I'm interested! Mann has made them interesting.

Oh if anyone is interested in getting a feel of the scope of the 1848 revolutions there is this radio programme http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b019gy9p
Very general, not German specific.