Classics and the Western Canon discussion

One of the changes seems to me to be the development of HC as a thinker. From the first page of the section, "Hans Castorp turned these questions over and over in his mind ..." Would he have even thought about time, space, motion, infinity, before he came up the Mountain? Or, to move to the end of the section, would he have gone to Dr. K for analysis? Changes indeed.

Perhaps Hans' early experiences with death and his closeness to his grandfather prepared him for a sort of personal gravity in nature and bearing, but that's not necessarily an inclination to deep thought. It certainly seems correct, as you suggest, that his time on the mountain is what deepens him: not simply the contrast between his own (much insisted upon) health and the sickness of his colleagues, but also the sudden turns for the worse in some of those colleagues, the sometimes arbitrary appearance of the disease, his own lackadaisical attachment to his "adult" life below in contrast to his cousin's deep devotion to the military, the disputations with his "personal tutors". Hans not only has time to think, instead of act; the setting almost demands that he think. I've begun rereading Mann's story Tristan, from 1903, which I read a few years ago and pretty much forgot. It too is set in a sanatorium and features eccentrics among the inmates and a blithely "light" (at least so far--I'm only 1/3 into my rereading) attitude in the narrator. Perhaps in the remainder of the story there will be other commonalities.

Everyman wrote: "One of the changes seems to me to be the development of HC as a thinker. From the first page of the section, "Hans Castorp turned these questions over and over in his mind ..." Would he have eve..."

I'm putting a comment into a spoiler because I don't have the book with me and I'm a few chapters ahead, so I don't know if the following has been mentioned yet:

(view spoiler)[ Everyman, you mentioned that HC went to Dr. K. for analysis in Message 1 of this thread. I'm glad you mentioned this, because there were a few things that bothered me about this.

I was annoyed from two completely different perspectives:

1) Why did HC feel that he had to keep this a secret from Joachim? They were so close, and I felt that this "secret" (which Joachim discovered on his own) created a wall between the cousins (which HC didn't know about.) I wanted Joachim to speak with HC about this and let him know that he knew about Dr. K., but he didn't, which meant that they each were keeping a secret from the other. (And I also would like to think that HC and Joachim could "agree to disagree" on the issue of analysis, which I discuss in the next paragraph.) HOWEVER, I need to keep banging my head against the wall (not literally) and remind myself that most people in the world are not as "open" when it comes to communicating with each other -- even with close friends -- and especially not in the early 20th Century (or prior.) Personal communication has improved tremendously since that time, but it's still VERY far from perfect.

2) Now to completely change the point-of-view, I was upset with Joachim for being so annoyed with HC for going to analysis sessions with Dr. K. without telling Joachim. (Actually, I take this side more strongly than the previous paragraph.) Therapy/analysis is a personal and private thing, and when Joachim "found out" that HC was meeting with Dr. K., he could have been more understanding about the fact that HC was struggling with an issue that he felt could be helped with analysis. But Joachim took it personally, and not only seemed annoyed that HC didn't share this info with him, but Joachim also seemed to be annoyed about the fact that HC was meeting with Dr. K. for therapy sessions. Obviously Joachim was bothered by this because he's a soldier, and soldiers are "manly" and to him it's not manly to have emotional issues that need to be discussed with an analyst. Joachim would never let his guard down to the point of letting an analyst know his "feelings" because he would think that feelings don't count when you're a "big, strong, soldier" -- you can "tough it out" and get through any personal feelings. (HA!! Thank goodness it's 2013 and it's OK to go for analysis, although there STILL are people who consider it a "weak" thing to do.)

The two paragraphs above also apply to the situation with Frau Chauchat. (ooops -- I might have misspelled her name -- again, I don't have the book with me!!)

Anyway, Joachim was upset about HC spending the evening with Frau C., but he never said anything to HC. And again, I can see both sides of the story -- Joachim felt that his cousin was not "sharing" his secrets with him AND, as with the analysis situation, I think Joachim was upset about HC's "time" with Frau C., not just because HC didn't share the secret with Joachim, but for some other reason. Perhaps Joachim found it improper for HC to be intimate with Frau C.

I felt that Thomas Mann did not give the reader any closure on this wall that was created between the cousins. (Well, maybe the issue arises again, later in the book, but at this point I don't feel there was any closure on this, and it was all just swept under the rug.)

Maybe most readers don't feel that any closure is needed, but when it comes to close friendships, such as the one between HC and Joachim, I felt sad that there was no resolution.

Finally, I am left wondering exactly what HC and Dr. K. were speaking about, and I'm wondering if we will ever find out.

I find that Thomas Mann tends to drop certain subjects without ever offering any type of closure or resolution. I don't need to be "spoon-fed" every single thing that happens in a story. In fact, I prefer when authors give the reader space and room for their own imagination and conclusions throughout a novel. But there were certain things (which I will be able to discuss when I actually have a copy of the book in front of me) that seemed to be brought up for an important reason, but were suddenly dropped and forgotten about. (hide spoiler)]

Cooper wrote: "Perhaps Hans' early experiences with death and his closeness to his grandfather prepared him for a sort of personal gravity in nature and bearing, but that's not necessarily an inclination to deep ..."

The change that has taken place in HC's way of thinking is amazing. I'm looking forward to seeing how much more he will evolve by the end of the book. (Or is it possible that he will go back to his "old ways?" I have no idea what's in store for us, as readers, but I'm looking forward to finding out.)

Hans met Settembrini on his very first day "up there." I can't help but think that Settembrini may have had the largest influence on HC's change (at least up to this point.) And if Settembrini's influence was not the "largest," it was definitely the first. Hans may have behaved as though he was mocking Settembrini at the beginning, but I think all of the things Settembrini said, right from the start, were so new and different to Hans, and I think he wanted to be able to understand it.

I also think Behrens inspired Hans to want to "think" more and to learn more, because I think Hans might have been somewhat envious of Behrens.

And I also think that Frau Chauchat had a large influence (possibly the largest) on Hans and his way of thinking, because I believe he wanted to "fit in" with the others and make more of an impression on everyone up there (if for no other reason then to get Frau C. to notice him.)

I think once HC started to become a "thinker," he couldn't stop himself from turning "...these questions over and over in his mind."

HC's character was so simple and boring in the early part of the book, and as his time on the mountain continues he continues to become deeper, more compassionate, more open-minded, and so much more interesting. And, IMHO, a much better person.

Changes - that must be ironic, because not much changes in this chapter. A shattering thing happened in HC's life, but the world goes on like it did before. The weather remains unpredictable.

Some patients die, a few leave. JZ gets more and more impatient (he feels betrayed by HC), but with LS peace is restored. However, LS refers to the eating of pomegranates, implying that HC is now - like Persephone - forever tied up with the Underworld (putting CC in the role of Hades).

To avoid his frustrated love causing more harm HC starts visiting dr.K in the basement. Will it do him any good?

Barbara wrote: "Cooper wrote: "Perhaps Hans' early experiences with death..."

Barbara, I agree that before this section HC changed a lot, and I like your recapitulation of the major influences. My (time-)order:

* the conservative bourgeois background is the object of change - but it reasserts itself again and again
* the sanatorium - agrees with HC's fascination with death and with his indolence
* Settembrini - intellectually stimulating, but he is too much of a rationalist, emotionally too barren for HC
* Chauchat - has an emotional power that easily beats reason, but its more her attitude that counts (they never talk)
* Behrens - a minor influence, he directs HC towards his monism of life, love and death (his cynicism has little effect).

Joachim -- Hans's twin? The divine one, or more likely, the mortal one? I can't figure yet; perhaps one never can.

(See note 113 in Background and Resources.)

I'm reading, and nearing the end of, Hesse's The Glass Bead Game and it's interesting to think of the ways in which it mirrors aspects of Magic Mountain: the "cloistered" community (by choice in Hesse; by necessity in Mann); the issue of health in re the "outside world" vs the secluded society; the way in which the concerns of each world isolate it from the other and a kind of language and communication develop in the one which are somewhat unintelligible to the other; the time for philosophical musings and disputations among people who don't have to work in the ordinary sense.

Lily wrote: "Joachim -- Hans's twin? The divine one, or more likely, the mortal one? I can't figure yet; perhaps one never can.

(See note 113 in Background and Resources.)"

What an interesting question. Is it possible that Joachim is a kind of doomed god, like Baldur or Adonis or so many others? Or is he the grandeur and heroism of the past which can't survive in the modern world, which needs "practical and unimaginative" sorts like Hans?

Wendel wrote: "Changes - that must be ironic, because not much changes in this chapter. A shattering thing happened in HC's life, but the world goes on like it did before. The weather remains unpredictable. ..."

I agree, life goes on as usual, there are some changes but only within the known patterns, such as a new guest at the table, the change of weather, time goes by, etc. I interprete this as a time of transition, things settle down ... I already mentioned, it's like the transition from Goethe's Faust I to Faust II after Walpurgis night.

But at the very end of the chapter there is a real change: Hans Castorp visits Dr. Krokowski's psycho-analysis!

Here, I have two thoughts:

Why does even the reader not know more about Hans Castorp's visits to Dr. Krokowski? The reader is now in the role of Joachim, just knowing "that", but not more. - Why does the author do this? Something is going on with our protagonist but the reader does not know what! Strange.

This time not the word "Kabinett" (of Dr. Krokowski) is used, but the word "Grube", i.e. "pit". In German this could be an allusion to a "Fallgrube", i.e. "pitfall". Does this allusion work in English, too?

PS: Lowe-Porter has "lair", which is also interesting, but not quite correct.

Thorwald wrote: "...This time not the word "Kabinett" (of Dr. Krokowski) is used, but the word "Grube", i.e. "pit". In German this could be an allusion to a "Fallgrube", i.e. "pitfall". Does this allusion work in English, too? ..."

"Pit" is often used in English Biblical translations to indicate "Sheol" -- the land of the dead, so that was the allusion I wondered about -- perhaps a bit like Dante's or Odysseus's need to descend into the darkness of the underworld before re-embracing life. Or like many do with a bout of depression or deep self-examination.

Lily wrote: "Pit" is often used in English Biblical translations to indicate "Sheol" -- the land of the dead"

No, "Grube" cannot be a whole land of the Death, it's a rather small pit, so one grave would fit, but not more. Dr. Krokowski's room is indeed not a big one, as we are told, but it is - you are right - downstairs, you have to descend to go there.

Thorwald wrote: ""Grube" cannot be a whole land of the Death, it's a rather small pit, so one grave would fit, but not more. Dr. Krokowski's room is indeed not a big one, as we are told, but it is - you are right - downstairs, you have to descend to go there. ..."

Thorwald -- thanks for the feedback. Sometimes funky, sometimes crotchety, what happens to words -- and hence ideas and concepts -- as they cross the boundaries of languages.

(Not sure I found the word I wanted, either.)

Lily wrote: ""Pit" is often used in English Biblical translations to indicate "Sheol" -- the land of the dead, so that was the allusion I wondered about -- perhaps a bit like Dante's or Odysseus's need to descend into the darkness of the underworld before re-embracing life"

This fits well with Settembrini's comment to HC: "Well, my good engineer, how did you like the pomegranate?" In Settembrini's opinion, HC's fling with Chauchat is an affair with death, as if he had been abducted by Hades, like Persephone. S. has already warned HC about his fascination with death -- early on he tells him that thinking dualistically about death, as something disconnected from life, is dangerous, but as we've seen, HC has not heeded Settembrini's warning. And as we see HC descend into Krokowski's "pit", it's like he is returning to Hades to fulfill his obligation for having eaten the fruits of the underworld.

Thomas wrote: In Settembrini's opinion, HC's fling with Chauchat is an affair with death, as if he had been abducted by Hades, like Persephone."

Well-observed, an analogy of Dr. Krokowski's chamber downstairs with Hades is obvious, yet I have not seen such an analogy explicitly in the text.

I generally wonder why psycho-analysis is presented in such a bad light considered that the whole novel is on psychological things? Considering this you should assume that Thomas Mann painted Dr. Krokowski in the colours of the redeemer, but he didn't, there is no bright and light character at all in this whole novel - except maybe the good-natured naivety of Hans Castorp :-)

Goethe, Faust: "Der gute Mensch in seinem dunklen Drange ist sich des rechten Weges wohl bewusst" = "The good man in his dark impulse/urge is well-aware of the right way".

One of the sentences from Goethe's Faust I always liked most. Is the MM an illustration of this saying?

Thorwald: Goethe, Faust: "Der gute Mensch in seinem dunklen Drange ist sich des rechten Weges wohl bewusst" = "The good man in his dark impulse/urge is well-aware of the right way".


Thorwald, you said this is one of the sentences you like the most from Goethe. Independent of MM, I would be interested in its resonance for you. I know little Goethe, and don't fully appreciate the connection of it to MM, but the sentence itself is intriguing.

Thorwald wrote: "In German this could be an allusion to a "Fallgrube", i.e. "pitfall". Does this allusion work in English, too?"

Interesting. In theory, the allusion should work in English, assuming that there are going to be "pitfalls" to undergoing analysis for HC. But I can't say the word "pit" reminded me in any way of "pitfall." For me, "pitfall" is one of those words that is so common it has lost its metaphorical meaning until it is pointed out. Of course, a pitfall is like falling into a pit. But I confess I had never really stopped to think of it that way! Yet another oddity of language, that its familiarity masks the obvious. Maybe some other English readers did pick up on the potential allusion, though. I can't speak for everyone...

Zeke wrote: "Thorwald: Goethe, Faust: "Der gute Mensch in seinem dunklen Drange ist sich des rechten Weges wohl bewusst" = "The good man in his dark impulse/urge is well-aware of the right way".

Thorwald, you said this is one of the sentences you like the most from Goethe. Independent of MM, I would be interested in its resonance for you. I know little Goethe, and don't fully appreciate the connection of it to MM, but the sentence itself is intriguing. "

It is a core sentence of Goethe's metaphysics. It is some sort of belief in, hm, ~"fate" and good guidance by ~"the gods" if you just are good-natured and follow your inner impulses, all this on a cultivated basis (so no wild following of inner impulses). It's a kind of life optimism which you cannot justify by reasons and proofs but only by your experience with it over time. It's a kind of hope that all makes sense without knowing how, a successful "muddling through" something "dark".

Thanks Thorwald for @18. It kind of sounds like Dante updated to the Romantic Era? Instead of Virgil and the "right, Christian" patch, he has the resources within himself, as an individual to make his own "right" way.

Zeke wrote: "Thanks Thorwald for @18. It kind of sounds like Dante updated to the Romantic Era? Instead of Virgil and the "right, Christian" patch, he has the resources within himself, as an individual to make ..."

Hmmmmm, Goethe is not Romantic Era ... Romanticism came after Goethe. Romantics would phantasize on a world soul and that they clearly sensed the sense of life etc., whereas Goethe stays with the classical "dark" - he rejects to pretend to know what nobody can know, like Socrates.

Romanticism is Hölderlin, in his Hyperion e.g., I added it to the bookshelf.

I stand corrected on my use of "romantic". As I noted, I know very little about Goethe (other than from opera and music.) At the same time, Goethe being in the classical mode and living during the Enlightenment (?) may make the point even stronger. Salvation, even if just "muddling through" does not depend on an intermediary power any more.

Zeke wrote: "I stand corrected on my use of "romantic". As I noted, I know very little about Goethe (other than from opera and music.) At the same time, Goethe being in the classical mode and living during the Enlightenment (?) may make the point even stronger. Salvation, even if just "muddling through" does not depend on an intermediary power any more."

:-)

Also "salvation" is not the right word, because you have to fail first in order to receive salvation, and salvation means an end, a final telos.

Goethe is really thinking in a more classical mode, having no need to transform Christian thoughts into disguised ideas as did the romantics (including Karl Marx with his paradise on earth). Goethe is more under the perspective of nature, rationality and eternity, without a Christian telos. The sense stays dark.

We will need these thoughts in the next chapters! Goethe is more like Settembrini, we will see ...

@12 Thorwald wrote: "Lily wrote: "Pit" is often used in English Biblical translations to indicate "Sheol" -- the land of the dead"

No, "Grube" cannot be a whole land of the Death, it's a rather small pit, so one grave would fit, but not more. Dr. Krokowski's room is indeed not a big one, as we are told, but it is - you are right - downstairs, you have to descend to go there. ..."

Thorwald -- I got curious. You may also find the correspondences of these Psalm passages of interest (enclosed in a spoiler). Psalm 30.3 is where one sees most clearly the English association of "Pit" with "Sheol." But the footnote on Psalm 49.9 was where the association of "pit" with "grave" struck me.

(view spoiler)[

Psalm 28.1. (Ein Psalm Davids.) Wenn ich rufe zu dir, HERR, mein Hort, so schweige mir nicht, auf daß nicht, wo du schweigst, ich gleich werde denen, die in die Grube fahren.

Of David.
To you, O Lord, I call;
my rock, do not refuse to hear me,
for if you are silent to me,
I shall be like those who go down to the Pit.

Psalm 30.3 HERR, du hast meine Seele aus der Hölle geführt; du hast mich lebend erhalten, da jene in die Grube fuhren.

O Lord, you brought up my soul from Sheol,
restored me to life from among those gone down to the Pit.* *Or that I should not go down to the Pit.

Psalm 30.9 Was ist nütze an meinem Blut, wenn ich zur Grube fahre? Wird dir auch der Staub danken und deine Treue verkündigen?

‘What profit is there in my death,
if I go down to the Pit?
Will the dust praise you?
Will it tell of your faithfulness?

Psalm 35.7 Denn sie haben mir ohne Ursache ihr Netz gestellt, mich zu verderben, und haben ohne Ursache meiner Seele Gruben zugerichtet.

For without cause they hid their net* for me; *Heb, a pit, their net
without cause they dug a pit* for my life. *The word pit is transposed from the preceding line

Psalm 40.2 und zog mich aus der grausamen Grube und aus dem Schlamm und stellte meine Füße auf einen Fels, daß ich gewiß treten kann;

He drew me up from the desolate pit,* *Heb pit of tumult
out of the miry bog,
and set my feet upon a rock,
making my steps secure.

Psalm 49.9 daß er fortlebe immerdar und die Grube nicht sehe.

that one should live on for ever
and never see the grave.* *Heb the pit

Psalm 55.23 Aber, Gott, du wirst sie hinunterstoßen in die tiefe Grube: die Blutgierigen und Falschen werden ihr Leben nicht zur Hälfte bringen. Ich aber hoffe auf dich.

But you, O God, will cast them down
into the lowest pit;
the bloodthirsty and treacherous
shall not live out half their days.
But I will trust in you.

Psalm 57.6 Sie stellen meinem Gang Netze und drücken meine Seele nieder; sie graben vor mir eine Grube, und fallen selbst hinein. (Sela.)

They set a net for my steps;
my soul was bowed down.
They dug a pit in my path,
but they have fallen into it themselves.
Selah

Psalm 88.4 Ich bin geachtet gleich denen, die in die Grube fahren; ich bin ein Mann, der keine Hilfe hat.

I am counted among those who go down to the Pit;
I am like those who have no help,

The German is from Luther's Bible here: http://german.about.com/gi/dynamic/of...

The English is from NRSV here: http://www.devotions.net/bible/00bibl...

(hide spoiler)]

Wendel wrote: "Settembrini - intellectually stimulating, but he is too much of a rationalist, emotionally too barren for HC"

I hadn't picked up on the emotionally barren aspect of Settembrini, but I do see what you mean. HC seems to want to think of himself as rational -- after all, he's an engineer and self-selected researcher in health issues - but his infatuation with CC clearly shows that he is at heart very emotional -- whereas S clearly, as you say, isn't. In this respect, I am surprised to find myself thinking, HC may be in a position to become a fuller, more rounded man than S is, because he clearly has some aptitude, though so far undeveloped, for philosophical thought, while he also has the emotional side which, as you point out, S lacks. Thus he represents both sides of the body-mind duality.

Thorwald wrote: "Why does even the reader not know more about Hans Castorp's visits to Dr. Krokowski? The reader is now in the role of Joachim, just knowing "that", but not more. - Why does the author do this? Something is going on with our protagonist but the reader does not know what! Strange."

Well, there's still a lot of the book to come. We may find out. Or, then, we may not -- perhaps Mann is reflecting the psychological emphasis on confidentiality of the counseling relationship? (Did Freud emphasize this? Or Jung?)

Everyman wrote: "Well, there's still a lot of the book to come. We may find out. Or, then, we may not -- perhaps Mann is reflecting the psychological emphasis on confidentiality of the counseling relationship? (Did Freud emphasize this? Or Jung?) ..."

My stream of consciousness is likely to get me in trouble again, but one of the places my thoughts went is that psychoanalysis as practiced by Freud was largely digging in one's past. From there, I went to this was an age that was playing so heavily on what time is, from Einstein to Mann. It was still viewed that time moved in one direction only. The past was gone, "dead." Anyway, if this playfulness has any relevance, it may be another "rationale" as to why any psychoanalysis of HC is not shared -- it is from a time that is past. What are we allowed to know from the land of the dead from those who travel there?

I understand that line of thinking is "cracked" and in numerous other places HC looks back to the time of his grandfather, S calls on the classics, ....

Lily wrote: "Thorwald -- I got curious. You may also find the correspondences of these Psalm passages of interest (enclosed in a spoiler). Psalm 30.3 is where one sees most clearly the English association of "Pit" with "Sheol." But the footnote on Psalm 49.9 was where the association of "pit" with "grave" struck me."

"Grube" is used in two ways in these Psalms:

First, "in die Grube fahren" = "to go down into your grave". Of course, if you got to your grave, you go to hell, too (if you were a bad sinner), but "Grube" does not mean "hell", not at all.

Second, "haben meiner Seele Gruben zugerichtet". Here, "Gruben" means grains or scars carved into the soul.

As I said, "Grube" is a rather small pit. I looked up the "Elberfelder" translation which is allegedly a very literal one, they say "Grube", too.
http://www.wort-und-wissen.de/bibel/b...

PS: Septuaginta translates with "Hades" in Line 3, but with "diaphtora" in line 10. This indicates that the Hebrew text uses two different words where there is always "pit" and "Grube" in the English/German versions. (And Pslam 30 is Psalm 29, there, huh?)
http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/onlin...

Meaning of "diaphtora":
destruction, demolition.
http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid...

"Hades" is often different than "Sheol" -- Hades sometimes implies judgement has occurred, i.e., becomes similar to "Hell" or "Inferno", whereas "Sheol" usually is "pre-judgement" or perhaps better "without judgement," i.e., simply the place of the dead. Fortunately or unfortunately, Hades especially often seems very context dependent and not always obvious which interpretation to choose. "Grave" is frequently neutral, i.e., implies "death" without weighing in on conceptions of damnation or salvation.

Thorwald wrote: "Meaning of "diaphtora":
destruction, demolition..."

You get some interesting twists if you go to passages in other Books than Psalms, too, much closer to the "diaphtora" -- destruction,... "Grube" and "Pit" are not always interchanged.

Unfortunately, I can't follow you into the Greek. I have to turn to others, including you, for that! But thx for bringing it to us.

Everyman wrote: "In this respect, I am surprised to find myself thinking, HC may be in a position to become a fuller, more rounded man than S is, because he clearly has some aptitude, though so far undeveloped, for philosophical thought, while he also has the emotional side which, as you point out, S lacks. Thus he represents both sides of the body-mind duality."

Aboslute agreement!

I already said: "I dare to say that Settembrini has a lack of personal development! Maybe he is indeed a tragicomic figure, a "Drehorgelmann", i.e. an "organ grinder"?"
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

And: "In the light of an all-too simple optimism Settembrini's view on death as part of life could be too simple, too. How much consolation can somebody draw from this thought? Maybe not too much if death approaches. Settembrini is not wrong, but maybe it's too easy?"
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

PS: I had a sudden "Geistesblitz":
What does an organ grinder do?
He makes precise music - without soul.
Ingenious thought on Settembrini, isn't it?

Thorwald wrote: "What does an organ grinder do?
He makes precise music - without soul."

Nice! And he makes the same music over and over again. The "eternal soup" of music!

"Thorwald: Goethe, Faust: "Der gute Mensch in seinem dunklen Drange ist sich des rechten Weges wohl bewusst" = "The good man in his dark impulse/urge is well-aware of the right way".

Wonderful stuff here. I am unfamiliar with Goethe's Faust, but I am convinced that an understanding of both the Faust drama and also Goethe himself are very important in understanding MM. There are good plot synopses of Goethe's Tragedy of Faust Parts I and II on wikipedia for those like me with little time but for whom this is rather new and tantalising!

A side note: After a year being unemployed I have now got a job, which is generally good news all round of course, but it has severely curtailed my reading! I had to put in a huge effort to get most of MM out of the way before I started work, and I just finished it last night. Now I feel as if I have left the rarefied air of the sanatorium and gone back to the "flatlands", where there are much more mundane concerns! I have a lots to say and think about and I will try to chip in at appropriate times. In the meantime I am really enjoying following the discussions.

[Moved to proper thread.]

Peter wrote: ""After a year being unemployed I have now got a job, which is generally good news all round of course, but it has severely curtailed my reading! I had to put in a huge effort to get most of MM out of the way before I started work, and I just finished it last night. Now I feel as if I have left the rarefied air of the sanatorium and gone back to the "flatlands", where there are much more mundane concerns!..."

Congratulations, Peter! Good fortune to you in your new undertaking!

Look forward to whatever comments you are able to bring us back here on the mountain.

@ 15 Thorwald wrote: "Goethe, Faust: "Der gute Mensch in seinem dunklen Drange ist sich des rechten Weges wohl bewusst" = "The good man in his dark impulse/urge is well-aware of the right way".

One of the sentences from Goethe's Faust I always liked most. Is the MM an illustration of this saying? ..."

Great sentence. And isn't that Hans Castorp? Very possibly he has the potential to be a good man (I think he has glided through life too much at this point...but I do think that if he engaged...yes, he might become a good man)...and he has a dark impulse (his attraction towards the young Hippe, etc. Early on Settembrini had said something along the lines that if one didn't believe it to be a vice, then it wasn't a vice. Hans Castorp does believe his attraction to Hippe is a dark impulse. So for him it is a vice. I wonder, too, if HC is talking about this with Dr. K. And how Dr K deals with the subject...and what he tells HC).

I'm not sure yet whether HC knows the right way...or maybe he does: It seems he knows the "right" way would be to avoid her.

@ 25 Everyman wrote: "Thorwald wrote: "Why does even the reader not know more about Hans Castorp's visits to Dr. Krokowski? The reader is now in the role of Joachim, just knowing "that", but not more. - Why does the aut..."

I do have a theory. It started seeming important a few chapters in the future.