The Thomas Mann Group discussion

Sue wrote: "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..."

Yes I too am finding it a very enjoyable read.

I have to admit that the many excellent "lit-crit" comments that have been submitted, though very interesting to me, are outside the boundaries of where I feel my own competence extends, so I content myself with enjoyment, and the occasional weird comment, generally not enlightening in any useful way.

Jan-Maat wrote: "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."

Jan-Matt, this looks really good. I've never seen (heard) one of these broadcasts before. And the Further Reading list looks very good too.

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

Then it's also fair to say that certain characters will also be "likeable" just like in real life,no?
To give example from Dickens again- his bad characters are far more interesting than his good ones- still they are both able to hold the readers' interest. Mann's psychological insight into character motivation is acute, maybe cause many figures here are taken from real life as pointed out by Lobster Girl,there are "interesting" characters too- Grünlich,when he says:"You know that I am industrious and inventive." P.231

Somehow these words echo Harold Skimpole's " But what do I know about worldly matters, I am but a child"!
And his banker Herr Kesselmeyer- they both could easily pass off as Dickensian. Thomas' portrayal is another achievement– but when I think of the family tragedy as a whole ( I'm around p 500), there's a sort of clinical detachment & that's bothering me- but we'll see.

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.

I can think of a couple ..."

Ted, my interpretation was that Lübeck was far from the mainstream of the 1848 Revolutions, and the whole episode is turned a bit into a farce, since the rebels are demanding a "Republic", which is what they already have, and which then becomes a general joke.

Will listen to Jan-Maat's BBC link now, though.

Sue wrote: "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..."

I second this opinion too. I am not concerned on whether I like the characters or not. I am enjoying the depiction of the society and the concerns of this family as a cornerstone of this society.

There is a detachment from my part but I would not speak of alienation.

Ted wrote: " this looks really good"

it is an entertaining bit of background, really backs up your point that it is odd that more is not made of the '48-'49 revolutions.

Kalliope wrote: "my interpretation was that Lübeck was far from the mainstream of the 1848 Revolutions, and the whole episode is turned a bit into a farce, since the rebels are demanding a "Republic", which is what they already have

The protesters really don't have a republic in that they are politically excluded from it (I am presuming that the constitution is similar to Hamburg's). I'm not sure how far Mann is here making fun of people of a lower class than himself or how far this is showing us how quick witted Consul Buddenbrook is.

I am interested in what is being said about feeling a distance or alienation from the characters. I'm certainly noticing that too. Is there too much irony to feel sympathetic towards the characters maybe?

Jan-Maat wrote: "Ted wrote: " this looks really good"

it is an entertaining bit of background, really backs up your point that it is odd that more is not made of the '48-'49 revolutions.

Kalliope wrote: "my inter..."

Yes, I am aware that the political representation of the inhabitants of Lübeck could have been improved, but their situation was very different from Prussia or from France, and that is why both the Consul (and Thomas Mann) could so easily belittle and present it as just an incident.

I agree that irony is a major factor for creating distance in this novle (alienation is for me far too strong).

I agree, Kalliope that alienation is too strong for how I feel about these characters. I think my feelings are continuing to evolve. However Grundlich definitely appears to exist on the level of pond scum and his banker isn't much better as he seems to have known all about the marriage deception from the beginning.

I agree on Grundlich as pond scum. Never liked this character. He treated his engagement to Tony as a business transaction. Then again, Tony married him because it was best for the family and firm.

This issue of whether or not we "like" characters is interesting. "Like" may not even be the most accurate word for it. But my suspicion is that I find myself thinking about whether I like any of a novel's characters when the novel itself is failing to hold my attention and interest me on all levels. So when a character like Morten comes along, I think with relief, "Oh, finally someone I like and can identify with a bit, I hope he sticks around for some more pages." This novel for me doesn't rise to the level of The Magic Mountain, which was more of a slog but also more interesting and captivating, thematically, in terms of the ideas presented, and its characters. As I read The Magic Mountain I wasn't thinking about whether I liked each character, because there was so much else going on in the text. Buddenbrooks is less like that, and more of a series of loosely connected episodes, or sketches, across generations. For me its structure and narrative is less captivating.

Consider the behavior of the council members inside the building during the mob scene. They were terrified until Buddenbrooks took matters into his hands. Aren't they just as much prisoners of popular opinion and societal mores as poor Tony being pushed into marriage with Grundlich? The fear seems to have finished off Buddenbrook's father-in-law. And I agree with the Dickens comparison; Grundlich and his banker are both pond scum over the top characters that Dickens would have been proud of. The story takes precedence for me over liking or disliking the characters. The scene with Tony and her father in the drawing room was riveting.

I agree the scene of Tony and her father was riveting. For me it redeemed him from any possible accusations and made him a much more interesting character.

Diane wrote: " The scene with Tony and her father in the drawing room was riveting. "

Yes, a real sense of Tony saying what she thought she should say...until the dreaded word 'bankrupt'.

Jan-Maat,

Exactly! That is why I think that we cannot assume that she would have been necessarily happier with Morten. She has many of the values of her family. She is not a victim of them. She is a woman of her milieu.

I was going to say that, apart from irony, I also note a continuously premonitory tone. I get the feeling that whatever the characters do, their fate is sealed. For the moment, Tony's dowry is lost along with her failed marriage.

And now, reading the comments above about the scene where the consul comes to Tony's rescue, I also think the vivid way in which the characters, their relationships and their motivations are drawn make me sense deeper feelings than "tradition" or "responsibility" behind their actions. I do think they love each other, each in their own way. And even if Tony is spoiled, dramatic and prone to "act" she is not deceitful with her father, at least in that scene.

Diane wrote: "Consider the behavior of the council members inside the building during the mob scene. They were terrified until Buddenbrooks took matters into his hands. Aren't they just as much prisoners of p..."

Diane, I agree with you re the story taking precedence as it does for me also. My feelings about the characters tend to be in flux while I'm enjoying the progression of the story.

Dolors wrote: "I was going to say that, apart from irony, I also note a continuously premonitory tone. I get the feeling that whatever the characters do, their fate is sealed. For the moment, Tony's dowry is lost..."

So true. That was a really well done scene and finally we see Tony and her father being honest with each other. The consul appears somewhat shocked by what he hears.

Ema wrote: "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"

Funny that you noticed the eye color. I did too, but what struck me was the color of Julie Hagenstrom's eyes. Black? Isn't that unusual? How often do you see black eyes? Almost never. Dark brown is more common. Or was the black alluding to an "evil" nature with racist overtones?

"The harbor pilot's son?" Julie Hagenstrom asked, her bright black eyes sending a sharp glance to where Morten was sitting...."(130)

ReemK10 (Paper Pills) wrote: "Ema wrote: "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"

Funny that you noticed the eye color. I did too, but wha..."

Yes, interesting on the black eyes.. we have seen several grades of blue eyes.. I wonder if this is because the author is less sensitive to the gradations of dark eyes, while he is very much to those of a blue tint...

Dolors wrote: "I was going to say that, apart from irony, I also note a continuously premonitory tone. I get the feeling that whatever the characters do, their fate is sealed. For the moment, Tony's dowry is lost..."


I am not noticing the premonitory tone... I am not saying that it is not there, just that I do not notice it. My be because my understanding of the subtitle (Decline/Verfall) is that the supposed "decline" is probably judged from a mercantile point of view. So, may be the family’s wealth will suffer with the younger generations, but not the production of talent (induced by what probably happened in the Mann family).

Lobstergirl wrote: "As I read The Magic Mountain I wasn't thinking about whether I liked each character, because there was so much else going on in the text. Buddenbrooks is less like that, and more of a series of loosely connected episodes, or sketches, across generations. For me its structure and narrative is less captivating."

I haven't finished Buddenbrooks yet and don't know how I'll feel then, but I agree that they are loosely connected episodes, across generations. For me though, those episodes are like pearls. I'm really enjoying them. I just read about Consul Buddenbrook and Gosch the broker's encounter with the mob. There's so much to think about.

I may get frustrated at some point that there is not enough detail for me to decide where the author stands, what his sympathies are. Or maybe I'll need to reread it someday.

Right now I'm curious about how these episodes will eventually come together, or if it'll bother me if they don't. The episodes are so different, the wide swath of what he's capturing seems to have the potential to be great.

In this section there's a mention of the Eimsbuettel suburb of Hamburg and I thought I'd share a few details from R.J. Evans' book Death in Hamburg about it. It is as poor and cheap an area as one could live in without being down on the docks (St.Pauli) or in the countryside (Horn). Predominately working class. Much lower percentage of households with servants than the well to do areas of the city around the Aussen Alster Lake.

Picking up on what Lobstergirl and Jonathan wrote about the episodic nature of the chapters, I am somewhat awed at Mann's ability to write such satisfying and descriptive prose. Each chapter seems capable on standing alone, almost like a short story. His sense of drama is breathtaking. I just caught up with the reading and I'm tempted to read ahead, but I think I'd better stay with the group because the discussion so far has been fascinating.

I've been thinking about which literary character Tony resembles. I know she's been compared to Emma Bovary but to me she seems more like Emma Woodhouse-playful and romantic but also dutiful and acutely aware of her social standing. The scene between Tony and her father when he comes to rescue her seemed liked a conversation Emma might have had with Mr.Knightly. He was always trying to shape Emma's thinking and get her to own up to her mistakes. (view spoiler)[I was shocked that divorce was even an option for Tony. I guess the family fortune was more important than her reputation. Maybe German society was more tolerant than in England or America. (hide spoiler)]

I like the descriptive language very much. What I'm struggling with a bit - and it's only a bit - is some of the dialogue. It strikes me as rather stilted. I don't know if that's just me, an effect of the translation, or part of the distancing effect that others have commented on.

Kim wrote: "I like the descriptive language very much. What I'm struggling with a bit - and it's only a bit - is some of the dialogue. It strikes me as rather stilted. I don't know if that's just me, an effect..."

It seems natural to me. That is, in this family, in those times, it fits with my expectations.

The dialogue does change occasionally, also I think naturally, to a more informal style.

But the conversations that the children (Tony, Thomas) have with their elders would have often been in a formal style ... or anyway so I think.

I guess I want to believe that Mann was writing the dialogue very specifically the way he wanted to write it. Of course the translation could be affecting this in ways I don't comprehend at all.

When I read a novel such as this, written in and about the 19th century, I try to just absorb the dialog without expectation that it will be at all like contemporary speech. Even with great translations that try to make works accessible, the work is still of another time and, in my thinking, should feel different. This is a subjective approach, not a critical one. (Haven't taken any criticism courses in about 40 years)

I'm sure that Mann wrote the dialogue the way he wanted to write it and I certainly don't expect it to sound like contemporary speech. But even taking those factors into account, to me the characters don't always sound like real people actually talking to each other. Which of course, they're not. They're characters in a novel talking to each other, which is not the same thing, so I don't really know where my reaction comes from.

As for Tony, she initially struck me as a bit like Maggie Tulliver, but no longer. Maybe she is, as Gary suggests, a bit like Emma Woodhouse. However, for all her faults, I like Emma Woodhouse better than Tony. The older Tony gets, the less attractive I find her personality. Maybe that will change.

Apropos stilted dialogue, when my great grandmother was a child, the children had to use formal address (Sie) to talk to their parents, while the parents used informal address (du) to talk to their children (and this was a farming family, I believe), so the formal, unnatural seeming dialogue should probably be seen as normal and as common for both the time and the social position of the family.

I find Tony a bit annoying and naive, but I also think of her as very much a victim of both her family and society in general. That does not mean that I find her an attractive character, just that I do feel rather sorry for her at times (and more so than I feel for other members of the Buddenbrooks, except maybe Christian).

Gundula wrote: "I find Tony a bit annoying and naive, but I also think of her as very much a victim of both her family and society in general. That does not mean that I find her an attractive character, just that I do feel rather sorry for her at times (and more so than I feel for other members of the Buddenbrooks, except maybe Christian)."

I don't disagree with anything you've written, except maybe that Tony was a victim of her family. Although I suppose she was, now that I think of it, because of that marriage. I thought her father did his admirable best to make amends, given the situation.

I like Christian and empathise with him, but I don't think I feel sorry for him.

They both have it great compared to people of their times from lesser families, that's for sure. What would have happened to Tony in that case, I wonder, or Christian, without a job provided by his brother?

Jonathan wrote: "Gundula wrote: "I find Tony a bit annoying and naive, but I also think of her as very much a victim of both her family and society in general. That does not mean that I find her an attractive chara..."

She should never have been forced to marry Grünlich in the first place. All of this could have been avoided, had she not been driven (forced) by her family on pain of being disinherited (and losing contact with her family forever) to marry Grünlich.

And sorry, just because someone is from a rich family, does not mean that they cannot have problems or that their problems and issues should not be taken seriously. In many ways Tony and Christian have these problems because of the fact that their family is one of means (they have been raised to be dependent and especially with Tony, she has been raised to be nothing but a pretty ornament). And if Tony had actively rebelled, she would have likely lost her family completely, which I don't think she would have been able to handle (and she would have suddenly been without anyone, especially if Mortenhad decided not to marry her or if Morten's family had rejected her because they did not want to offend the Buddenbrooks).

Gundula wrote: "And sorry, just because someone is from a rich family, does not mean that they cannot have problems or that their problems and issues should not be taken seriously."

I agree, though without getting specific, I think I personally may consider fewer of their problems as being serious.

In the case of Buddenbrooks, I haven't been able to determine whether or not I think Mann wants us to see Tony and/or Christian as victims. Maybe I'll have a stronger opinion about that as I read more.

Jonathan wrote: "In the case of Buddenbrooks, I haven't been able to determine whether or not I think Mann wants us to see Tony and/or Christian as victims. Maybe I'll have a stronger opinion about that as I read more."

The characters in this book are as much a victim of their own making ( esp.so in Christian's case) as that of circumstances/fate. The conflict here seems to be of how much can a person be true to themselves while upholding the family traditions & others' opinions of them– & they are constantly getting defeated by this 'expectation' thing,more so in Thomas' case whom everyone seems to demand so much of simply cause he's capable of delivering the goods,at least till now.

Mala wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "In the case of Buddenbrooks, I haven't been able to determine whether or not I think Mann wants us to see Tony and/or Christian as victims. Maybe I'll have a stronger opinion about..."

I agree, Mala.

This debate is continuing in week 3!!..

The individual vs society...

Mala wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "In the case of Buddenbrooks, I haven't been able to determine whether or not I think Mann wants us to see Tony and/or Christian as victims. Maybe I'll have a stronger opinion about..."

And Thomas is also the oldest (and male), so there is never even a question of him not following in his father's footsteps of his not taking over the family business. Thomas might be capable of delivering the goods, but that does not necessarily mean that deep in his soul he really wants his position or that he might not be better off doing something else. At least with Christian, he has somewhat of an opportunity to try other types of jobs and lifestyles.

Kalliope wrote: "I agree the scene of Tony and her father was riveting. For me it redeemed him from any possible accusations and made him a much more interesting character."

Hello everyone, old friends and new. I've just caught up with the reading, and the discussions as far as this point.
That scene with the Consul and Tony actually scared me a little - the shrewdness displayed by the Consul in the whole affair, and we were shown a little of that strategical thinking in the affair of his stepbrother Gotthold's letter to their father in Part I, the ability to remove all emotion and even moral scruples from his thinking, and he normally indulges in so many of them, and then just simply act, regardless of the consequences for others besides his own. It is the kind of cool thinking that makes me understand how atrocities can be justified by ordinary men and women all over the world through history.

Fionnuala wrote: "Kalliope wrote: "I agree the scene of Tony and her father was riveting. For me it redeemed him from any possible accusations and made him a much more interesting character."

Hello everyone, old fr..."

Welcome to the group Fionnuala.

That is an interesting read. I felt a mix between relief that the Consul knew how to proceed and pity for him. To realize that he had been taken in by the Hamburg business community and that the fraud had damaged the life of his daughter must have been a very bitter pill to swallow.

Kalliope wrote: ".That is an interesting read. I felt a mix between relief that the Consul knew how to proceed and pity for him. To realize that he had been taken in by the Hamburg business community and that the fraud had damaged the life of his daughter must have been a very bitter pill to swallow. .."

But he didn't know he had been taken in when he made his decision on how to proceed.

Fionnuala wrote: "Kalliope wrote: ".That is an interesting read. I felt a mix between relief that the Consul knew how to proceed and pity for him. To realize that he had been taken in by the Hamburg business communi..."

True... soon after... I am now conflating both scenes in my memory..!!

It was only during the interview with Grünlich and the banker, such a well drawn character, that the extent of the 'long con' became obvious, and certain aspects only revealed at the very end when the banker has one of his 'hilarious' moments.

What surprised me is that the Consul had made inquiries with the business community AND with relatives...

I have a question about Tilda-why is she so hungry and capable of eating a lot of food and still so skinny? There are several references to this fact, so far. In this last read it was mentioned that she is even skinner than before. Is she ill? What is Mann trying to tell us about her?

Just a thought.

..in Hamburg where the banker had prepared the ground well so that Grünlich's difficulties were well hidden. Bankers haven't changed much, have they?

Fionnuala wrote: "..in Hamburg where the banker had prepared the ground well so that Grünlich's difficulties were well hidden. Bankers haven't changed much, have they?"

No, Bankers have not changed much... no...

Fionnuala wrote: "Kalliope wrote: "I agree the scene of Tony and her father was riveting. For me it redeemed him from any possible accusations and made him a much more interesting character."

Hello everyone, old fr..."

You are so right Fionnuala! I was also impressed by these glimpses into the Consul's thought process, these two scenes in particular.

Laima wrote: "I have a question about Tilda-why is she so hungry and capable of eating a lot of food and still so skinny? There are several references to this fact, so far. In this last read it was mentioned tha..."

One of the novels leitmotifs... I read somewhere that this aspect of Tilda is a metaphor for the family that is also hungry in a different sense, yet never satisfied. I am not very good at recognising these things, but it sounds plausible. I'd want to read to the end to see how far this might apply.

Marina wrote: ".One of the novels leitmotifs... I read somewhere that this aspect of Tilda is a metaphor for the family that is also hungry in a different sense, yet never satisfied. I am not very good at recognising these things, but it sounds plausible. I'd want to read to the end to see how far this might apply. .."

Your theory is interesting, Marina, and needs some thought.
I had figured Tilda's endless hunger was simply a physical symbol of her poor relation status, a kind of metaphor Mann uses, tongue in cheek. There is a lot of subtle humour in the book and the humour is one of the aspects I like most about it.

And there are also individuals who have a very high metabolism (there are individuals who eat continuously, are continuously hungry, but cannot gain weight). Of course, Tilda's hunger might well be at least partially (and for Tomas Mann) a symbol of lack of satisfaction, but there might well be a physiological reason for this as well.

Fionnuala wrote: "Kalliope wrote: ".That is an interesting read. I felt a mix between relief that the Consul knew how to proceed and pity for him. To realize that he had been taken in by the Hamburg business communi..."

Saving his money from these two characters,was the uppermost thought in the Consul's mind & he proceeded accordingly. In that sense,his control & manipulation of the situation & the characters involved in it ( including Tony) was superbly depicted & the high point of irony coming in only when the consul is smug in his handling of the situation & then the banker pricking the inflated balloon with his disclosure– that's called 'timing'–masterful!

Kalliope wrote: "What surprised me is that the Consul had made inquiries with the business community AND with relatives..."

In an arranged marriage scenario,this is a normal practice.

Laima wrote: "I have a question about Tilda-why is she so hungry and capable of eating a lot of food and still so skinny? There are several references to this fact, so far. In this last read it was mentioned tha..."

This hunger can be taken as a metaphor– as a poor relation,relying on the support of her relatives,with nothing really to look forward to in life– she is filling with food the lack that is her life. It's a poor substitute. Food is her mainstay like family business & family honour are for Tom & Tony respectively.