The Thomas Mann Group discussion

Thanks for all the theories on Thilda. They are all plausible.

@Fionnuala I agree with you about the humour. There have been times when I was picturing Thomas Mann having a quiet laugh on his own as he was writing this. He seems to be gently poking fun at his characters but deliberately doesn't draw attention to his little jokes.

@Gundula When we were first introduced to Tilda, I thought that it was just a question of metabolism. But Mann never mentions her without mentioning her hunger, and there must be a reason for that beyond super fast metabolism. Fionnuala's theory is just as plausible as the one I read about and mentioned earlier. I wonder if anyone can come up with another explanation?

Mala wrote: "..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! ..."

Yes, Mala, the Consul's control and manipulation is superbly depicted but it is also very chilling. And yes, the banker's final disclosure makes for a great dramatic scene.

Marina wrote: "@Fionnuala I agree with you about the humour. There have been times when I was picturing Thomas Mann having a quiet laugh on his own as he was writing this. He seems to be gently poking fun at his ..."

I am actually wondering wether Mann is trying to combine both medical/physiological and more symbolic reasons (we know that Mann was always interested in medicine and the like, which is probably most obvious in The Magic Mountain).

Gundula wrote: "Marina wrote: "@Fionnuala I agree with you about the humour. There have been times when I was picturing Thomas Mann having a quiet laugh on his own as he was writing this. He seems to be gently pok..."

I see what you mean now, and you may have a point. Do you think he was also interested in physiognomy in the sense that an individual's appearance reflected his inner character?

Marina wrote: " ..I see what you mean now, and you may have a point. Do you think he was also interested in physiognomy in the sense that an individual's appearance reflected his inner character?"

That's a possibility, Marina. He seems to place great importance on detailed physical description. Perhaps also, he might be playing around with notions of phrenology, very popular in Germany in the nineteenth century but discredited as a science by the later decades. The theory maintained that human characteristics could be inferred from the shape and prominence of certain bumps on people's skulls.

Fionnuala wrote: "Marina wrote: " ..I see what you mean now, and you may have a point. Do you think he was also interested in physiognomy in the sense that an individual's appearance reflected his inner character?"
..."

And this might explain why he was so obsessed with describing the state of his characters' teeth? I know this is describing physical appearance really, but teeth are also part of the bone structure.

Mala wrote: "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."

Mala, what I meant is that in spite of having also inquired outside the business circle that hat plotted the fraud, that is, by asking the relatives, the Buddenbrooks were taken in.

The Consul did all he could to inquire about Grünlich.

Maybe that's a plot hole or maybe those relatives couldn't really care less!
That was a real con job. Happens in India all the times,esp.with regard to NRI grooms where the girl's parents don't always have the reach to get information/ background check from abroad.

Mala, what are NRI grooms?

Non Resident Indian- someone living abroad,hence better prospects,better life style– thus a better catch. Groom as in bridegroom- parents pay huge dowry to get such a son-in-law. Am I clear now,Jan?

Mala wrote: "Non Resident Indian- ..."

Great, thanks :)

Mala wrote: "Maybe that's a plot hole or maybe those relatives couldn't really care less!"

That the inquiries didn't work did strike me as a plot hole at times, especially when the Buddenbrooks prominence is considered.

Kalliope wrote: "in spite of having also inquired outside the business circle that hat plotted the fraud, that is, by asking the relatives, the Buddenbrooks were taken in"

I have this sense of the Buddenbrooks being a big fish in a small pond, but once they get into Hamburg or Munich - they are out of their depth, small town guys. Problem is that the nineteenth century is doing away with all these little specialised ponds.

Jan-Maat wrote: "...but once they get into Hamburg or Munich - they are out of their depth, small town guys. Problem is that the nineteenth century is doing away with all these little specialised ponds."

This sounds very possible to me. It hints at Grunlich's deviousness too. I wonder how many big fish families in small ponds he scoped out before settling on the Buddenbrooks.

I have the sense that the Buddenbrooks are bigger in their own minds than in the eyes of the public.

Diane wrote: "I have the sense that the Buddenbrooks are bigger in their own minds than in the eyes of the public."

I think you may be right (I'm thinking ahead to future developments that seem to confirm this in the next section).

People interested in Morten might be interested in this:

"Early sketches for the novel suggest that Morten was to have had the function of objective commentator on the family's decline, standing above events and at a sovereign distance from the central characters....Noticeably, however, Mann settled on a much more discreet and understated function for the character, and allowed him to fade rapidly from the novel." Mann: Buddenbrooks, p. 18.

And another interesting excerpt from the same book, pp. 18-19:

"There is more than a hint that certain of the ideas of '48, notably those on the emancipation of women, relate directly to the situation which Tony experiences as her parents thrust upon her the repulsive Grunlich. Yet Tony is more than a victim of such attitudes. Mann's exposure of the narrowness of outlook in which Tony is confined is not personal, but directed at her whole class and upbringing. Her renunciation of Morten in favour of Grunlich, her choice in favour of tradition - the 'link in the chain' (3,13) - rather than innovation represented by new ideas and classes, is the Buddenbrooks' 1848 failure, their failure to link with the politically progressive elements of the middle classes; it slams the door on their alliance with the spirit of the age, and Tony's marital disaster drags the family down with her. After all, the Buddenbrooks were not prominent enough a family to insist so strongly on their social superiority to the professional middle classes. Their prosperity went back little further than war-profiteering in the Napoleonic period, and Morten's romantically coloured view of Tony...as a 'princess' (3,8) in no way corresponds to reality. Tony is pleased at the title as it corresponds once again to the 'feudal' (2,2) views of her Kroger grandparents, which she finds so attractive, but which repeatedly have dire consequences for her. In rejecting Morten she is following a historically fateful course..."

This is excellent stuff,thanks for sharing.

Lobstergirl wrote: "And another interesting excerpt from the same book, pp. 18-19:

"There is more than a hint that certain of the ideas of '48, notably those on the emancipation of women, relate directly to the situa..."

Yes, I agree with Mala. Wonderful information.

As for the name Morten, in Savage Reprisals: Bleak House, Madame Bovary, Buddenbrooks, Gay suggests that Mann is making an allusion to Armin Martens, a fellow pupil when Mann was around thirteen and who had been his "first love"

Kalliope wrote:"As for the name Morten, in Savage Reprisals: Bleak House, Madame Bovary, Buddenbrooks, Gay suggests that Mann is making an allusion to Armin Martens, a fellow pupil when Mann was around thirteen and who had been his "first love".

Oh God,so many first loves here! (view spoiler)[ I read the same thing abt Hanno's friend Kai. Would post that detail when it comes up in the discussion thread. (hide spoiler)]

Lobstergirl wrote: "And another interesting excerpt from the same book, pp. 18-19:

"There is more than a hint that certain of the ideas of '48, notably those on the emancipation of women, relate directly to the situa..."

That is extremely interesting, my impression was that Mann was politically considerably further to the right than Morten was shown as being here for Morten to be an authorial stand in - but then I suppose if Morten is, unlike the Buddenbrooks, in tune with the Zeitgeist then he would be drifting rightwards as the news of him settling down in Breslau/Wroclaw suggests.

I like the feudal/princess business because it seems to me that the problem of the Buddenbrooks as the 19th century progresses is that they are neither fish nor fowl. I mean from Morten's perspective they are an elite, in Luebeck Princes and Princesses however as the bigger wider Germany shapes up around them then they simply aren't comparable to the sharks of the commercial world let alone the aristocrats with dueling scars, monocles and pedigrees that would put a prize-winning dog to shame. They are bourgeois, simply a wealthier version of Morten and wealth, it emerges, is a terribly transitory phenomenon.

Jan-Maat wrote: "That is extremely interesting, my impression was that Mann was politically considerably further to the right than Morten was shown as being here for Morten to be an authorial stand in - but then I suppose if Morten is, unlike the Buddenbrooks, in tune with the Zeitgeist then he would be drifting rightwards as the news of him settling down in Breslau/Wroclaw suggests."

Yes, I would agree that at this early stage of his life (his twenties) Mann was considerably to the right of Morten. Mann was strongly pro-German and pro-war in the run-up to WWI, and made statements against democracy. He didn't begin to turn left until the Weimar era, and even then he was significantly to the right of his brother Heinrich, and his children Klaus and Erika.

I would take issue though with equating the idea of Morten as an objective commentator standing above events, and an authorial voice. I wouldn't take the objective voice of the novel (or an objective voice of the novel) to be the author's voice, necessarily.

Lobstergirl wrote: "Jan-Maat wrote: "That is extremely interesting, my impression was that Mann was politically considerably further to the right than Morten was shown as being here for Morten to be an authorial stand..."

And the voice of the author, which is always only one voice of many, does not even have to be present in a specific character (or all that easily discernible or even present at all).