Classics and the Western Canon discussion

There's still a lot I want to say about the earlier chapters, but we also need to keep moving on. So.

Freedom and Mercury's Moods

I didn't see a whole lot of freedom in the section titled Freedom. Is the title ironic, or am I not reading it right?


PS -- I inadvertently posted this in the General folder. If you get it duplicated, sorry. I deleted it there, but it probably got sent out to those who get email copies of posts. This is the correct place for the discussion of these sections. My bad.

Nice example of the up/down imagery in the book in chapter "Freedom." Hans tells Dr. K that they participated in "illuminated anatomy downstairs on the ground floor." Dr. K responds, "Ah, so you have now scaled to that level too."

Up/down; Flatland/mountain; West/east....other antitheses recurring?

@Eman at 1: His "freedom" is from the flatland culture. "This third letter home was comprehensive, it did the job--not in terms of time valid down below,but in terms of those prevailing up here. It established Hans Castorp's freedom."

As we find Hans Castorp head over heels in love, Mann suggests that this in not to be taken as the reason for Hans' extending his stay. In an authorial insertion he tells us that he would have left, "if only some sort of satisfactory answer about the meaning and purpose of life had been supplied to his prosaic soul from out of the depths of time."

Now, to me, this sounds like a tall order for any three week vacation. Is Mann teasing Hans? Teasing us? Making a comment about the nature of love?

Zeke wrote: "@Eman at 1: His "freedom" is from the flatland culture. "This third letter home was comprehensive, it did the job--not in terms of time valid down below,but in terms of those prevailing up here. I..."

Ah. Yes. And perhaps also freedom from the lowland concept of time? We haven't talked much about all the references to time, and what Mann is doing with them, but the time will probably come when we can no longer avoid facing that issue head on.

Everyman, above: the time will probably come when we can no longer avoid facing that issue head on.


"...the time will probably come..." Depends on what we mean by time.

Joking aside, I agree.

It was interesting to me that in his rationalization for the need to stay Hans senses the flatlanders will not understand it in terms of time--not health, not necessity, but time.

Once more Settembrini warns. His themes are getting familiar by now, this time he variates on the risks of Irony and Paradox: "Where irony is not a direct and classic device of oratory, not for a moment equivocal to a healthy mind, it makes for depravity, it becomes a drawback to civilization, an unclean traffic with the forces of reaction, vice, and materialism."

But now HC starts to fight back! The Italian's lecture reminds him the of the earlier outrage on music. And they go on arguing about Settembrini calling disease and despair forms of depravity and (psycho-)analysis "as unappetizing ... as death". About the value of X-rays and dr. Behrens integrity. Finally Settembrini intentionally hurts HC with a scathing remark about Parthians and Scythians. That is: Chauchat.

It is counterproductive. HC goes to his room and writes the definite letter home. On doctors orders he will have to stay on the mountain. Please send money and cigars. When the letter is finished he feels free: Free from the regulated & demanding life of the plains, free from time.

Zeke wrote: "As we find Hans Castorp head over heels in love, Mann suggests that this in not to be taken as the reason for Hans' extending his stay. In an authorial insertion he tells us that he would have left..."

I do think HC's fascination with Chauchat (which only mirrors his inner longing to escape time - I'm starting to like the idea) is the cause for his extended stay. What Mann tells us here is that there was nothing (no rooted convictions) to hold him back (actually: to sent him home).

'On the one hand his passion dwelt, with an immediacy that left the young man pale and staring, upon Frau Chauchat’s knee, the line of her thigh, her back, her neck-bone, her arms that pressed together her little breasts—in a word, it dwelt upon her body, her idle, accentuated body, exaggerated by disease and rendered twice over body. And, on the other hand, it was something in the highest degree fleeting and tenuous; a thought, nay, a dream, the frightful, infinitely alluring dream of a young man whose unspoken, unconscious questioning of the universe has received no answer save a hollow silence.'

We have seen how HC's holiday flirt changed into a passion for the exotic, the timeless. In the words of Settembrini: the barbaric and the depraved. And HC is (at times) very well aware of the situation:

'He looked at Clavdia Chauchat—at the flaccidity of her back, the posture of her head; he saw her come habitually late to table, without reason or excuse, solely out of a lack of order and disciplined energy. He saw the same lack when she let slam every door through which she passed, when she moulded bread pellets at the table, when she gnawed her fingers; and he had a suspicion, which he did not put into words, that if she was ill—and that she was, probably incurably, since she had been up here so often and so long—her illness was in good part, if not entirely, a moral one: as Settembrini had said, neither the ground nor the consequence of her “slackness,” but precisely one and the same thing'.

I am probably not the only one when I find this moral background for her illness 'a bit stiff'. And the racial determinism may have been not unusual at the time (and later), but it sounds strange coming from Settembrini's (enlightened) lips.

Wendel wrote: ":hurts HC with a scathing remark about Parthians and Scythians. That is: Chauchat. "..."

Why is that an insult/ an innuendo? I couldn't find anything.

I did enjoy, however, how, whatever it insultingly meant, it wasn't enough to do away with the class differences between the "good" Russians and the "bad" Russians. That distinction is there for a reason. :)

Wendel quoted ".And, on the other hand, it was something in the highest degree fleeting and tenuous; a thought, nay, a dream, the frightful, infinitely alluring dream of a young man whose unspoken, unconscious questioning of the universe has received no answer save a hollow silence.' .."

This surprised me greatly. I had had no idea that Hans Castorp was looking for the meaning of life. I hadn't even considered him to be the kind of young man who wants to know...who's willing to make the effort.

I rather felt that this HC and [info from "Research" chapter] (view spoiler)[the one studying his way through all those medical-type books (hide spoiler)] is a completely different character than the HC of previous chapters.

Ha! This HC may look the same ( like Chauchat looks like Hibbe) but, right now, it feels like a substitution to me.

Adelle wrote: "Wendel wrote: "Settembrini hurts HC with a scathing remark about Parthians and Scythians. That is: Chauchat. "..."Why is that an insult/ an innuendo? I couldn't find anything..."

“You are going up to the roof now, Herr Settembrini? It must be more fun to lie in company than alone. Do you talk? Are they pleasant people?''
“Oh, they are nothing but Parthians and Scythians.”
“You mean Russians?”
“Russians, male and female,” said Settembrini, and the corner of his mouth spanned a little. “Good-bye, Engineer.'

He had said that of malice aforethought, undoubtedly. Hans Castorp walked into his own room in confusion. Was Settembrini aware of his state? Very likely, like the schoolmaster he was, he had been spying on him, and seen which way his eyes were going. Hans Castorp was angry with the Italian and also with himself, for having by his lack of self-control invited the thrust.

Sorry, Wendal. I still don't get get. ?? Why is "Parthians and Sythians" some kind of insult? I tried googling.... But I don't see anything particularly insulting or innuendo-ish about them. What am I missing?

Adelle wrote: "Wendel quoted "And, on the other hand, it was something in the highest degree fleeting and tenuous; a thought, nay, a dream.."

Yes, it does seem a bit unexpected, I'm sure that is why Zeke commented on it in the first place. And why I tried to downplay it: for instance, if Calvinism (we discussed that the other day) had really meant something in his life he would not have stayed.

But I do feel HC's development is consistent. From the hand over his eyes during the train journey up and his questioning Joachim the first evening, to his receptive attitude towards Settembrini and his fascination with Hippe's exotic eyes. HC may be an average young man to begin with, but he certainly has talents.

Mmm, "male and female"

Is he suggesting that they behave as though as both sexes? Interchangably?

Wish there were something specific to Parthians and Sythians.

Adelle wrote: "Mmm, "male and female"."

Some Russians liked to call themselves Scythians, after the valorous tribesmen that for a long time dominated the southern plains of Russia. In fact there was no ethnic or cultural continuity, but that didn't matter. Settembrini uses the same association in a pejorative way, to express his contempt. He is implying that the Russians are barbarian and depraved. All of them, irrespective of table or sex. And including Chauchat.

Scythians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians
I'm not sure how the reference to the Parthians would make the Russians even more barbarian. They were the dominant people in the latest edition of the Persian Empire, causing serious problems for the Romans. For an Italian that may be reason enough to loathe them. But I believe the Parthians fought with the Scythians as well.

Thank you, Wendel! That helps tremendously. Makes sense, too, as Settembrini keeps circling round to the theme of depravity.

Wendel wrote: "Some Russians liked to call themselves Scythians, after the valorous tribesmen that for a long time dominated the southern plains of Russia. In fact there w..."

The way Settembrini talks about the Russians does not fit to his humanistic standards, it's a blanket judgement. If Settembrini directed his judgement on the bad Russian table, only, it would be more understandable, maybe.

Adelle wrote: "Sorry, Wendal. I still don't get get. ?? Why is "Parthians and Sythians" some kind of insult? I tried googling.... But I don't see anything particularly insulting or innuendo-ish about them. What..."

Settembrini says in the Encylopedia chapter, "They ought to erect a statue of Pallas Athena here in the lobby -- as a kind of self-defense." He calls himself a "classical humanist" and identifies with classical Greek civilization, for whom the Scythians were barbarians. The Parthians fought with the Persians, the great enemy of ancient Greece. He also calls the Russians "Mongolian Muscovites," in case his racial prejudice isn't already clear enough. In this context, I think those terms definitely count as insults, and prejudicial ones. (As Zeke pointed out earlier, this prejudice seems to conflict with his idealistic political theories.)

Thomas wrote: "He calls himself a "classical humanist" and identifies with classical Greek civilization, for whom the Scythians were barbarians. The Parthians fought with the Persians, the great enemy of ancient Greece. He also calls the Russians "Mongolian Muscovites," in case his racial prejudice isn't already clear enough. In this context, I think those terms definitely count as insults, and prejudicial ones. (As Zeke pointed out earlier, this prejudice seems to conflict with his idealistic political theories.) "

Good observation. You *can* see less developed peoples as counterparts to more developed peoples, as obviously Settembrini does, but I doubt that you can say this for the individual members of these peoples? My understanding of a classical humanist is that of a cosmopolitic approach. So Settembrini should search the contact of the "barbarians" in order to find out whether they are "barbaric" or not, and if they are, he could try to inject some enlightenment into their minds? Instead, he stays with his prejudices ...

Thomas wrote: "As Zeke pointed out earlier, this prejudice seems to conflict with his idealistic political theories"

I believe I commented earlier already that disdain for and fear of backward Russia was the main argument for progressive Germans to support the war in 1914 - liberals as well as social-democrats. I would not be surprised if this had been Mann's position at the time.
But other than Settembrini they might have paid tribute to the difference between Russian people and their Asiatic government.

A generation later it was the political right's turn to fear Russia. Hitler saw himself as the defender of Europe against Bolshevism. Still later Ronald Reagan discovered the Evil Empire in the east.

I thought about Hans Castorp's childhood again. I had renewed sympathy for him. He's going to write that final letter. As to the first two letters he sent, "You may be perfectly sure they took it calmly--it didn't upset them" (197).

And now he writes the final letter. And he doesn't even write it to his guardian, the man in whose home he was raised. He wrote instead to his Uncle James Tienappel, "and asked him to pass the news on to the Consul" (224).

And the housekeeper sends what he asked for.

But no mention of a note of concern for him from his relatives or anything.

That seems so sad to me.

A passage that caught my attention, here in the Lowe-Porter translation (p. 156 online):

"Whims of Mercurius

"OCTOBER began as months do: their entrance is, in itself, an unostentatious and soundless affair, without outward signs and tokens; they, as it were, steal in softly and, unless you are keeping close watch, escape your notice altogether. Time has no divisions to mark its passage, there is never a thunder-storm or blare of trumpets to announce the beginning of a new month or year. Even when a new century begins it is only we mortals who ring bells and fire off pistols.

"To Hans Castorp the first day of October and the last day of September were as like as two peas; both were equally cold and unfriendly, and those that followed were the same."

Just a neat reminder of a reality we all "know."

From Woods (which I prefer for this passage, thought I could avoid by copying the one above, but... A reasonable example of the difference translation can make, here in nuance more than in meaning.):

"Mercury's Moods

"October began as new months are wont to do--their beginnings are perfectly modest and hushed, with no outward signs, no birthmarks. Indeed, they steal in silently and quite unnoticed, unless you are paying very strict attention. Real time knows no turning points, there are no thunderstorms or trumpet fanfares at the start of a new month or year, and even when a new century commences only we human beings fire cannon and ring bells." p. 268

[For fun, replace "mortals" and "we human beings" with "people." Perhaps one can sample the millions of quandaries and decisions a translator must face. Maybe: "no thunderstorms or trumpet fanfares announce the start of a new month or year."]

Wendel wrote: "Thomas wrote: "As Zeke pointed out earlier, this prejudice seems to conflict with his idealistic political theories"

I believe I commented earlier already that disdain for and fear of backward Rus..."

The "East" always was a threat. Starting with the quarrels of Athens and the Persian Empire (or even earlier as Herodotus points out), until today with Islamic fanaticism. So the threat is real, the question is only: How to deal with it?

The art of humanism should be to bring the "West" to the "East" without prejudices that this was not possible. Settembrini is far from this. Maybe we can count Alexander the Great into the number of those who tried, and the neo-conservative approach to Islam and Middle East policies, too, of course. (Whereas Obama's policy concerning Islam and the Middle East I simply do not understand but this if off topic.)

Hitler ... I don't like the example because his ideology is very confused, so everything can be said about him and the opposite, too :-)

We have to be aware that our novel was written before the Hitler party gained ground in Germany. Hitler was not taken seriously until approx. 1930 when he had sudden success in elections. Then, 1931, the political right "engaged" Hitler with the illusion just to profit from his success without granting him too much power.

Our novel was published in 1924, when Hitler was put to trial and was in prison for one year.

Lily wrote: "A passage that caught my attention, here in the Lowe-Porter translation (p. 156 online):

I find this comparison really striking. Yes, the passages "mean" essentially the same thing, aside from the nuances Lily mentions. But look also at how different the rhythm of them is! For a writer, diction and rhythm are just as important as "meaning." This is a stark reminder of why I always feel one step removed from a literary work when I'm reading it in translation. Whatever rhythm and pacing exists in Mann's original sentences is lost to us in English.
I prefer the Woods of the two, as far as the rhythm of this particular passage, with the exception of the opening clauses. Notice, for example, how much more smoothly this clause reads in Woods than in Lowe-Porter: "their beginnings are perfectly modest and hushed, with no outward signs, no birthmarks." It's beautiful, in terms of rhythm at least (not so sure about the "birthmarks" imagery in this context).
Another example:
"Real time knows no turning points" has a much nicer rhythm to it than "Time has no divisions to mark its passage."
Of course, the writer doesn't always want something to have a lyrical, pretty rhythm to it, but I think it's safe to say that this passage calls for it. Yet, who but the German readers knows what Mann was really up to here? It's all lost to us. For me, that does water down the pleasure of reading.

I'm with you, Kathy, I wish I could read it in the original.

Ah, After that, it's such a subjective call which translation to go with.

;) We're fortunate to have a choice.

(i really like the Lowe-Porter, but with The Iliad, Divine Comedy, etc., I've learned that people have different preferences.)

@ Lily: Yes, thank you for showing two translations of the same passage. It does evidence how important a good translation is for purposes of conveying a mood, an idea, the essence etc.. However, I guess I am rather in the minority: I prefer the L-P translation of that passage. Perhaps this is because that is how I first read it . But alas...I know the German version is best...if only I could read it! But I did find the two English versions/their differences interesting.

Also, I suspect the reason S and CC take their "rest cures" on the roof is because their rooms are on the side of the sanatorium that appears to have no balconies (per an earlier posted photo of the Davos sanatorium, if I recall correctly). The side of the sanatorium facing the other direction appears to have balconies (must be where J and HC are located). So it appears to not be a matter of choice but necessity to take one's cure on the roof (with its pros and cons)(this for some reason had not been obvious to me until I saw those photos!).

I know much is lost in translations -- however, I am grateful for the work of conscientious translators. I have little patience with wanting to read "in the original" for even someone fluent in several languages is unlikely to have the same depth of life experiences across those languages and hence may or may not be more limited in comprehension than the person reading a translation. I may want to be a German one month to read Goethe and Mann, a Russian for half a year to plummet Pushkin, Tolstoy, and Dostoyevsky, ad infinitum. But it isn't going to happen. All reading is translation, even in one's native tongue -- ah, I resonated with this idea so much, in retrieving the article below, I realize I have appropriated it from Michael Cunningham for expressing so well what I have long felt.

For fun, see Cunningham's article on translation here, accessible by using the "Look Inside" feature:

http://www.amazon.com/Death-in-Venice...

None of this is to deny the joy of reading a text in the language in which it was written. Sometimes bits of that joy can even be found in a very mangled read of short passages -- to savor, perhaps, a different way of seeing or thinking about a particular piece of the world.

Sue wrote: "Also, I suspect the reason S and CC take their "rest cures" on the roof is because their rooms are on the side of the sanatorium that appears to have no balconies (per an earlier posted photo of th..."

We need to be a bit careful. My understanding is that there were a number of sanatoriums in Davos, particularly in Mann's day. We don't even know, or at least I don't even know, whether MM was based on one specific one, and if so whether that one still exists. So for a general view of the sanatorium community and life, the photos are very valuable. But for trying to understand specific details of the book, I'm not sure it's safe to rely heavily on them.

If that all makes sense?

(And now Lily will put me to shame by finding photos of the actual Sanatorium that Mann in some letter or essay said he specifically based MM on.)

These are mostly grown people, paying to stay at the sanatorium.

How come, I wonder, they can't choose for themselves which table to sit at?

After a week or month or two, wouldn't they want to vary their dining companions?

Adelle wrote: "These are mostly grown people, paying to stay at the sanatorium.

How come, I wonder, they can't choose for themselves which table to sit at?

After a week or month or two, wouldn't they want to va..."

Good observation. I assume that this strict order was normal in these days. It was your place, you have been appointed to it by the authority, so you sat there, not creating any thought that it could be different. Asking for a change would mean questioning the authority and making unnecessary problems. Here we can see an example of the believe in the goodness of authority and the modesty of realizing own desires, which is totally gone today, of course (today we face the opposite: Impertinent recklessness in realizing one's own desires).

But Settembrinii, at least, has some autonomy. He doesn't get to choose his own table to eat at, but at least he gets up and engages in conversation at another table. He's stopped by to chat at HC's table more than once.

Enlightmentment rebelling against despotism?

In some ways, this is another (let me look up the word...dichotomy). The physical lives are strictly regimented: seating arrangements, daily schedule, exact length of time to keep the thermometer in one's mouth;

but the moral life, the licentiousness of the place, is not just overlooked, but almost encouraged. The gossip and scuttlebutt the ladies especially enjoy; the Hofrat's asides and activities.

(The gossip would probably be improper in good society down below...but would be engaged in behind closed doors with more intimate friends...but here at the sanatorium one is always behind closed doors...and none of these people seem truly to be intimate friends...but the surface atmosphere --- every day at the same table, for instance--gives them the illusion that they are intimate friends...so improper behavior results.)

Lily wrote @29: "I know much is lost in translations -- however..."

Thanks for the Cunningham link, I enjoyed that. Readers are a far greater source of variety than translaters. Though living in a small-language-country I do see some pretty bad translating done (few readers, small budgets).

But what about this remark of Cunningham: "it’s hard to imagine a more humorless great writer than Mann". Pardon?

I love what Cunningham says about every work being a translation: "We are creatures whose innate knowledge exceeds that which can be articulated."
I also ascribe to his belief that every text is a little bit different to every reader, who necessarily reads it through his or her own lens of beliefs and experiences, even to the same reader at different points in his or her own life.
But the translator has the additional burden of trying to make the translation approximate as closely as possible the intent of the original author. So even though I don't imagine to be reading exactly the same Magic Mountain as all of you, nor imagine that the German readers are reading exactly the Magic Mountain that Mann understood, I do sometimes feel that extra separation between myself and the original text as a loss--again, especially as it relates to language at the sentence level. As Cunningham puts it, sentences have become "musical and meaningful in and of themselves. They [are not] asked to serve primarily as columns or pedestals." I'm heartened, though, by the reminder that this wasn't so much the case in literature in Mann's time. So maybe I'm not missing as much in this translation as I might be in translations of later work. I know, for example, that I distinctly felt it when reading Gabriel Garcia Marquez. I thought, this work must sound very different in Spanish, because in English it's so clunky I can hardly get past the language to appreciate the ideas!
Thanks for the link, Lily!

I had thought at the close of "Sudden Enlightenment,"
that Hans Castorp was possibly going to do some soul searching.

["My God, I see!
"...he looked into his own grave"
"...for the first time in his life he understood that he would die"]

Sadly I have given up that hope by the close of "Freedom."


The author writes that the sense of exhilaration that Hans Castorp feels when he thinks of the freedom he will have at the sanatorium "had little to do" with freedom in the sense in which Settembrini thinks of freedom. Then we see the manipulative/opportunistic side of HC.

Contrary to what HC wrote in his letter home, it was NOT the act of writing which strained HC and pushed his temperature up. What drove his temperature up were the thoughts which shook his breast and excitedly drove up his temperature when he thought about this freedom--this non-Settembrini approved freedom---he would have.

And THEN he "measured" [in quotes. a fake measurement.] "as though to make use of an opportunity/"


The last sentence reads, "The analytic grave then opened was closed again" (225).

I am again disappointed in Hans Castorp. I'm still rooting for him, but he frequently disappoints me.

For what it's worth. In "Whims of Mercury," it would appear that one aspect of Madame Chauchat that turns Hans Castorp off is her age.

I know. She's perhaps 28 at most, yet that really puts HC off.

"Hans Castorp was aware, and had even spoken of the fact, [how ungallant], that Madame Chauchat's profile was not her strong point, that it was no longer quite youthful, was even a little sharp.

And the consequence? [Typically HC]

"He avoided looking at her in profile, he literally closed his eyes when he caught that view of her, even at a distance; it pained him" (227).

"Why?"

Unfortunately, it's not Hans Castorp asking "why?"
It's the author/narrator asking "why?"

"Parthians and Scythians"

Sigh. I'm back to thinking that this means a lot more. The phrase comes up more than once. Why? If not to convey some sort of information.

No spoilers. (view spoiler)[

(1) S: "Oh, they are nothing but Parthians and Scythians." HC: "You mean Russians?" S: "Russians, make and female,'...and the corner of his mouth spanned a little" (223). One doesn't tend to smile knowingly simply through insulting someone, by implying they are fierce barbarians. It just seems it has to be more.

I'm back to thinking it refers to sexuality. And that HC knows that it's a jibe against himself. Why else would he become angry over the remark? HC himself thinks she's below him socially, ethnically.

"Hans Castorp was angry with the Italian and also with himself, for having by his lack of self-control invited the thrust" (223).

What? Simply by asking if Settembrini meant "Russians"?
If Settembrini simply means that they are barbarians, how is that a thrust against Hans Castorp? HC is not a barbarian.

There's something in that "male and female."

HC continues to "whip up his anger" over this remark. Why? Hans Castorp categorizes the remark as "innuendo," NOT insult, but innuendo (223).

While still angry over this remark and thinking of the freedom he will have "his cheeks burned" and his temperature when up.

And then there's a subsequent mention of "Parthians and Scythians." This phrase must be really bothering HC.

Parthians and Scythians are mentioned in the same paragraph which deals with depravity. (Begins the bottom of page 227.)

HC "pretended to himself" that he didn't understand what Settembrini meant. His next immediate thought is of Clavdia Chauchat. "He had a suspicion, which he did not put into words"...that her illness was a moral one. He thinks of her "slackness."

And in the immediate following sentence, same paragraph, "He recalled the contemptuous gesture of the humanist when he spoke of the "Parthians and Scythians" (228). So there's a direct linkage between moral "slackness" and the P&S.

And then there is a 3rd mention.

HC used to be offended at the unmannerly behavior of Frau Chauchat, but "It was now the Italian who was the object of his irritation, because"...when Settembrini "had spoken of Parthians and Scythians" Settembrini had not {emphasis by HC) meant thereby the persons at the 'bad' Russian table" (228).

So Settembrini didn't mean the barbarian type Russians.

And then a 4th mention. "Hans Castorp assured himself that he felt only contempt for any propagandist of the republic and the bello stile who...lumped the members of both tables together under the title of Parthians and Scythians. Hans Castorp understood only too well the sense in which he [Settembrini} used it, since he [Hans Castorp] had begun to understand the connection between Frau Chauchat's illness and her 'slackness'" (228-229).

4 mentions

(hide spoiler)]

Adelle wrote: "These are mostly grown people, paying to stay at the sanatorium.

How come, I wonder, they can't choose for themselves which table to sit at?."

Hmmm. Maybe because this is an institution of rules, and if they start allowing too much personal liberty in the area of dining, they would start wanting it in other areas. Or maybe they don't want "cliques" to form, or some people being avoided at meal times and feeling unwelcome in the sanatorium (and thus leaving with their money)? Or maybe just because structure and obedience to rule seems to be the Swiss way of life?

Or something totally other than that?? I don't know; just speculating.

Adelle wrote: "I am again disappointed in Hans Castorp. I'm still rooting for him, but he frequently disappoints me. "

He's still quite young, in maturity at least. I see some signs of growth in him; don't give up on him too soon. (After all, something has to happen to fill the next 600 or so pages!)

At 39 Everyman wrote: "

Hmmm. Maybe because ..."

Oh, sure, absolutely, could be...



But especially in conjunction with the posted "schedule"...

...that's an awful lot of control over people's lives for people who pay for the privilege of staying there.

And then...later...I was thinking about the dichotomies someone mentioned. Great control in some areas/ and in other areas... lack of control seems almost encouraged.

Or maybe just because structure and obedience to rule seems to be the Swiss way of life?

LOL. I'll grant you the Swiss army knife is very structured!

What about the Germanic parallels?

At 40 Everyman wrote: "
He's still quite young, in maturity at least. I see some signs of growth in him; don't give up on him too soon. (After all, something has to happen to fill the next 600 or so pages!)
..."

I actually agree with you there.
And I try to cut him extra slack due to his childhood and upbringing...and I'm a-thinking he's going to HAVE to make some big mistakes because he really hasn't been allowed (or later, allowed himself) to make the little mistakes one makes and learns from.

Fear not, I'm rooting for him to the end. I mean, it's his story.

Adelle wrote: "But especially in conjunction with the posted "schedule"...

...that's an awful lot of control over people's lives for people who pay for the privilege of staying there.
"

But, something just occurred to me. There is a temptation to think of doctors as almost divine figures, godlike. That may well have been even more true when there was less general knowledge about medicine; I know it was broadly true in the 1950s, for example, and for many people is still true today.

So. We've had several comments in MM about the Sanatorium being compared to a monastery. Medicine and religion. We haven't talked much about that yet, but the time will come to. But in the meantime, the sanatorium is run much like a monastery in terms of the rigid schedule (in the monastery of work and prayer, rather than eating and resting, but in both cases strict scheduling of the entire day), and in both cases questioning the authority figure or challenging the schedule and rules is not even considered. (Except for Settembrini, and I think we'll see more about that later.)

I'll give you all that you say, but those other items...rest, take your temperature, eat at prescribed times, etc.... any and all of those could be viewed as what the doctor thinks is best for one's physical cure. But WHO sits at which table?? I can't see that -- in any circumstances -- as having an effect on one's cure.

And especially as the new people are simply plopped into the places that open up. So it's not as though there were some sort of psychological sorting going on.