The Thomas Mann Group discussion

This is for the discussion of the section until Part VII, chapter 6.

For anybody looking at this Thread separately, part of the discussion pertaining to this weeks section already started in the previous Thread (Week 3, from message #85 onwards).

I was amused when Lola Montez was mentioned. She was the mistress of the Bavarian King, Ludwig I.

Here is a painting by Joseph Karl Stieler:

Reading of Book VI, chapter 7, will also benefit from Jan-Maat's input...!!!

:)

I am also watching the filmed series produced in 1979 the late 70's and early on, in a street scene, I had noticed lamps hanging from some kind of cord in the middle of the street....

Now we come to this sentence:"... I can't tell you what satisfaction it gives me to see that they've finally begun work on the gas lanterns and are getting rid of those ghastly oil lamps hanging from chains."

The series production has paid attention to details...!!!

At the beginning of last week I was wondering if the lack of new or successful marriages might show that Mann believed marriage was necessary for a family's vitality. Interesting how a week or so later marriages are no longer in short supply.

The main house where Elizabeth lives is becoming a quieter place, which is a sign of decline, I suppose. The money is still there though. I guess I was assuming the decline would include a slow loss. Maybe it'll be a big one...

What do you think of Tom's wife? I was almost wondering if she'll eventually feel snookered like Tony. I also have a bad feeling that she will require "more maintenance", despite the large dowry, than the Buddenbrooks can spare.

I'm also getting bad vibes from her. She's seems creepy and unavailable. Maybe she's just put off by Tony's smothering behavior.

She definitely seems of the high maintenance variety but certainly appeared that from the start. She has now produced the much desired heir, though not easily. And yes I now it's a partnership effort but those were still the days where so much was placed on the wife.

The child himself seems like a symbol of the decline, doesn't he; small, slow to develop. And this child is the future of the family.

So true Sue.
And with Tony, back with her tail between her legs, also to depend on her brother.
It seems Thomas is now alone dealing with the firm and the family, everyone is counting on him for support, his wife, detached and distant; his brother, gone to Hamburg to live the good life; and childish Tony with her shattered dreams and her dowry lost once again.
And now this weakling baby seems such a bad premonition...

Sue wrote: "She definitely seems of the high maintenance variety but certainly appeared that from the start. She has now produced the much desired heir, though not easily. And yes I now it's a partnership effo..."

And he is also the offspring of both a father from a family in decline and a mother who is of a decadent, artistic temperament, a double whammy, so to speak.

Gundula wrote: "Sue wrote: "She definitely seems of the high maintenance variety but certainly appeared that from the start. She has now produced the much desired heir, though not easily. And yes I now it's a part..."

Well said Gundula.

Kalliope wrote: "Reading of Book VI, chapter 7"

My general sense of that section was how much was passing the Buddenbrooks by. There are new business opportunities - the railway, the telegraph, street lighting and while Tom claims to have a head for this sort of thing his involvement is limited to the political side.

The other news was the development in the Schleswig-Holstein crisis. There are several things here, big political changes are altering the landscape and affecting the Buddenbrooks in their small pond, but also here is another business opportunity. While the greatgrandfather earnt money supplying grain to the Prussian army (or was it the French? or both?) Tom doesn't see an opportunity or a need to align the firm with one side or the other.

The Buddenbrooks are increasinly exposed to a wider world but are not successful in how they engage with it, they are looking to be left behind despite the gas light.

There was a rather ominous sentence at the end of part five. Thomas and Gerda had just returned from their honeymoon, to the house that Tony had decorated for them. (Does anyone else find that strange?). She and Tom are talking, and Gerda rises from her nap and appears in the doorway. "It was Gerda, the mother of future Buddenbrooks.". That line gave me chills. And any description of Gerda mentions the bluish shadows in the corners of her eyes.

Jan-Maat wrote: "Kalliope wrote: "Reading of Book VI, chapter 7"

My general sense of that section was how much was passing the Buddenbrooks by. There are new business opportunities - the railway, the telegraph, st..."

Thank you Jan-Maat, great comment.

Yes, I found it interesting that the elder BB, who was critical of the Prussians, had made a considerable part of his fortune supplying grains to the Prussian army.

You are right in that, although Tom is a businessman, his sphere of influence in wider issues is restricted to the political. As a trader firm, they are too much part of an established economic chain to be able to step out of it.

Tom does not have an easy task. What you call the wider world is getting more and more outside his grasp.

Will have to find out more about the Schleswig-Holstein crisis.

Diane wrote: "There was a rather ominous sentence at the end of part five. Thomas and Gerda had just returned from their honeymoon, to the house that Tony had decorated for them. (Does anyone else find that st..."

I found that to be alarming as if the weight of the future were on her---not a good sign with the way things are going in this novel. And the child has the same bluish shadows.

Sue wrote: "Diane wrote: "There was a rather ominous sentence at the end of part five. Thomas and Gerda had just returned from their honeymoon, to the house that Tony had decorated for them. (Does anyone els..."

But it also kind of assumes that Gerda is defined (at least within the family itself) as primarily due to her present and future motherhood (and that her own needs and desires, like her musicality and desire for music and art are at least to the core of the Buddenbrooks family, secondary).

Gundula wrote: "Sue wrote: "Diane wrote: "There was a rather ominous sentence at the end of part five. Thomas and Gerda had just returned from their honeymoon, to the house that Tony had decorated for them. (Doe..."

Yes, I think it does in many ways. Tom must have a Buddenbrooks heir, must continue the name. All have given up on Christian though he has been up to all sorts of things in Hamburg (none of it good for the family). Gerda's personal strengths seem to have been good for the marriage market and their married life but do not extend the family's beloved heritage.

Again, I feel sympathy for Tony. She is so lonely that she throws herself intoTom's world and harps on a close friendship with Gerda which seems mostly one-sided. I once knew a women who returned from her honeymoon to find a fully-furnished apartment and a new car provided by her in-laws. She never recovered. Gerda's distance may be warranted by the peculiarities of the family.

Gary wrote: "Again, I feel sympathy for Tony. She is so lonely that she throws herself intoTom's world and harps on a close friendship with Gerda which seems mostly one-sided. I once knew a women who returned f..."

Death by a thousand hooks (and at least Gerda is not as hooked in to the family as poor Tony, she is able to keep her distance, and her music, although it might be seen as decadent by Mann, is her way, her method of keeping herself hook-less and sane, thus it is maybe not as decadent as all that, and perhaps the hooks of the Buddenbrooks, the Buddenbrooks themselves are the truly decadent and destructive, not Gerda).

Kalliope wrote: "Tom does not have an easy task. What you call the wider world is getting more and more outside his grasp.

Will have to find out more about the Schleswig-Holstein crisis.
"

The S-H crisis was rather intricate, like '48-'49 though it is interesting how little it features in the novel.

In brief Schleswig, Holstein and Denmark were all part of the Danish Crown but each had a different constitutional status. The Danish king was attempting to bring Schleswig and Denmark closer with a view to creating a unified Danish nation-state. This was unpopular in S-H and is the political background to Theodor Fontane's novel, Irretrievable, Theodor Storm also had to leave his native Schleswig at this time because of political views (ie liberal, vaguely German and distinctly unenthusiastic about Danish intentions).

Creating a unified German nation-state was the great dream of German liberals at this time and S-H with its more German than Danish population while constitutionally part of the Danish Crown was a flash point. Ultimately Bismarck will seize on this and take on the great liberal cause of German unity as a way out of the impossible situation of trying to be Prime Minister of Prussia backed only by a tiny minority conservative party and unable to pass legislation in the Prussian parliament by declaring war on Denmark in '64 (though it takes until '66 and another war to split the Liberals and achieve a parliamentary majority).



Anyhow - interesting how by the end of this week's section Tom is really feeling ground down by life and his place in the world, he seems to be in the middle of a spiritual crisis poor fellow.

Thanks for the background details,Jan. Tom is my fav character in this book & he has got too much on his plate. Poor fellow indeed! Spiritual crisis is needed cause it'll help Mann bring in philosophy!

Gary wrote: "Again, I feel sympathy for Tony. She is so lonely that she throws herself intoTom's world and harps on a close friendship with Gerda which seems mostly one-sided. I once knew a women who returned f..."

Yes,it's hard not to be moved by Tony's plight- all early promise of a sunny,carefree nature is snubbed by a fickle fortune. But Tony is a fighter!
I don't think Gerda minded the house being prepared by Tony- as long as she got her late morning sleep & got to practise her music,she wasn't complaining!

Gundula wrote: "Gary wrote: "Again, I feel sympathy for Tony. She is so lonely that she throws herself intoTom's world and harps on a close friendship with Gerda which seems mostly one-sided. I once knew a women w..."

Music is not seen as decadent,definitely not by Mann & surely not by us readers. You've read enough Mann to already know that his books are high on music & Gerda married Tom on certain conditions:" She would never have married him if she had not been certain of his virtual approval in such ( the way she wants to live her life)matters." P.351.
Compared to the horrible husbands that Tony got,Tom is such a considerate husband to Gerda!

Jan-Maat wrote: "Will have to find out more about the Schleswig-Holstein crisis.
"."

Thank you for this post, Jan-Maat.

Mala wrote: "Thanks for the background details,Jan. Tom is my fav character in this book & he has got too much on his plate. Poor fellow indeed! Spiritual crisis is needed cause it'll help Mann bring in philoso..."

Yes, Tom is one of the most interesting characters...

But I am enjoying that they all tend to be a mix of black&white. The narrator keeps his distance, there is sometimes an ironic tone, but it is neither a parody nor is it moralistic (so far).

Kalliope wrote: But I am enjoying that they all tend to be a mix of black&white. The narrator keeps his distance, there is sometimes an ironic tone, but it is neither a parody nor is it moralistic (so far).

That's very true. It seems very modern compared to Dickens-or even Hardy.

One of the things I am liking the most about this book is the way the characters constantly surprise us. Just when you think you've got someone pegged, they do something you never suspected of them, but they never go outside the possibilities of their personalities.

I was wondering about Tony's failure to acclimatise to Munich life - considering that Mann had succeeded in transplanting himself.

He seems to be closing off any possibility of his Buddenbrooks being able to escape their small pool.

Jan-Maat wrote: "I was wondering about Tony's failure to acclimatise to Munich life - considering that Mann had succeeded in transplanting himself.

He seems to be closing off any possibility of his Buddenbrooks be..."

As for Mann's relation with Munich, see post #113 from Week 3.

Jan-Maat wrote: "I was wondering about Tony's failure to acclimatise to Munich life - considering that Mann had succeeded in transplanting himself.

He seems to be closing off any possibility of his Buddenbrooks be..."

Lobstergirl posted this extract from a letter by mann in week 3 (comment # 113)

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Ted wrote: "Jan-Maat wrote: "I was wondering about Tony's failure to acclimatise to Munich life - considering that Mann had succeeded in transplanting himself.

He seems to be closing off any possibility of hi..."

Thanks Ted, we both answered the same way...!!

Yes I saw that, doesn't help at all given he seems critical of those southerners with their strange ways!

I think Tony may have missed being part of an important family, especially after her husband's decision. (I'm not sure if we're up to that yet so I won't elaborate.)

What really got me about the story at this point was the surprise which came with the realization that I had completely misfired about the motives of the decline of the firm/family. I had wrongly assumed that abuse or neglect by those spoiled children presented in the banquet scene would be the reason of the family downfall.
I found "responsible" characters instead, Tony marrying when she was asked to, Tom taking the business on his shoulders, even Christian trying to fulfill his deeds when the Consul passed away.
And in a way it makes the whole decaying process seem more real and cruel, there's no one really to "blame". The characters become victims of time and circumstance. And that idea won my respect for each one of them, I wonder if the distanced tone of the narrator contributed to that feeling though.

I was surprised by that as well, Dolors! I was expecting Tony to be a spoiled and coy debutante, squandering the family fortune on the latest fashions. And Tom I expected to be rather heartless and ruthless. I had more hope for Christian, but also saw him as lacking in direction and drive. Their characters have been anything but predictable -- at times worse than I expected, but most often better. I've definitely grown in my respect for a number of the characters.

Jan-Maat wrote: "Yes I saw that, doesn't help at all given he seems critical of those southerners with their strange ways!"

I guess that goes both ways because according to many Bavarians, anyone not Bavarian is a Prussian

Gary wrote: "That's very true. It seems very modern compared to Dickens-or even Hardy."

That's how I feel.

Dolors wrote: "I found "responsible" characters instead, Tony marrying when she was asked to, Tom taking the business on his shoulders, even Christian trying to fulfill his deeds when the Consul passed away. And in a way it makes the whole decaying process seem more real and cruel, there's no one really to "blame". The characters become victims of time and circumstance."

Yes, it's as if the decline is due to a lack complex skills and attributes that prevent them from rising to the occasion, which definitely makes it harder to "blame" them.

Dolors wrote: "What really got me about the story at this point was the surprise which came with the realization that I had completely misfired about the motives of the decline of the firm/family. I had wrongly a..."

You are right, Dolors! Apart from Christian, Thomas and Tony are very responsible towards their firm and family status.
It makes me wonder what would have happened to our discussion if Mann hadn't mentioned the word decline in the title. I bet it would have looked different. I am curious why he did that - projecting the end in advance.

Ema wrote: "It makes me wonder what would have happened to our discussion if Mann hadn't mentioned the word decline in the title. I bet it would have looked different. I am curious why he did that - projecting the end in advance. "

I think we wouldn't have a novel, we'd just have a bunch of stuff that happens with no narrative. That one word "decline" makes the novel I think because it leads us to ask why and to look for the causes and consequences of decline in everything that happens.

Explaining the inevitable end becomes the central concern of the reader and the reading experience simply because of the choice of one word in the title.

Ema wrote: "Dolors wrote: "What really got me about the story at this point was the surprise which came with the realization that I had completely misfired about the motives of the decline of the firm/family. ..."

I agree. I have been wondering from the beginning about this because it makes the read project things on the narrative, all based on the expectations.

What I have been wondering is if the word "decline" is meant to be ironic, and that what we are going to see is a transformation of a family which puts mercantile concerns as the most important to one in which other values, such as art or sentiments etc.., become stronger.

Jan-Maat, the novel would still stand even without the subtitle, although the reading experience would be different, I guess. I'm just wondering how the reader would perceive the book without the hint word "decline"... But you are right, we get a sort of purpose in reading the novel and we pay closer attention to what is happening.

Kalliope, you have a point here, "decline" may not necessary mean the disintegration or bankruptcy of the Buddenbrooks, but a totally different sort of change. We'll have to read and see!

Kalliope wrote: "What I have been wondering is if the word "decline" is meant to be ironic, and that what we are going to see is a transformation of a family which puts mercantile concerns as the most important to one in which other values, such as art or sentiments etc.., become stronger. "

Possibly - we know the story of the rise. The family chronicle is about the growth and respectability of the family, decline could simply be relative to the values enshrined in that chronicle.

This novel is a new experience for me, I have to admit. I wasn't so much into classics, so I can't compare this book to anything. What I find disconcerting is that the characters take stage, are given a thorough description, give the impression that we'll stick to them till the end, but then they leave the stage through dying or in other ways. However, it's the story of a family, spanning through a big length of time, so I tried to get used to this.

For example, I was projecting much expectations for the character development of Thomas' father, but then he simply died! His approach to family and business remained unchanged. His traits passed onto Thomas (devotion to the firm, sticking to money, unrelenting attitude towards the faults of the family members), so I'm thinking that maybe he will be the one to undergo a change in his views... But I'm not sure of anything!

Thomas clearly tells Tony that he has come to understand the meaning of decline. The following quote sums it all up:

"'But Senator and house are superficialities, and I know something else that you weren't even thinking bout that day, something I've learned from life and history. I know that the external, visible, tangible tokens and symbols of happiness and success first appear only after things have in reality gone into decline already.'"

Verfalle

Mike wrote: "Thomas clearly tells Tony that he has come to understand the meaning of decline.

Yes, I've found this quote casting an interesting light upon the notion of decline, but I was hesitant as to post it, seeing that it belongs to next week's slice of text (or is it? Until chapter VI means excluding that chapter, isn't it?). I have a different English translation, which is a weird one (luckily I'm reading a really good Romanian translation):

I know, from life and from history, something you have not thought of: often, the outward and visible material signs and symbols of happiness and success only show themselves when the process of decline has already set in. The outer manifestations take time - like the light of that star up there, which may in reality be already quenched, when it looks to us to be shining its brightest.

Speaking of soul-searching conversations between siblings, does anyone else find the intimacy between Tony and Tom as odd? Tony seemed to have an almost romantic relationship with her father after her first divorce and she seems to have substituted Tom for him. Is she just showing respect to the head of the family or is this there something more: a lusting in the heart in Jimmy Carter's words?

Kalliope wrote: "What I have been wondering is if the word "decline" is meant to be ironic..."

This would be very interesting. I'd be surprised though if it refers to an embrace of the arts.

I haven't sorted out the references to religion yet, so I have no theory about how that fits in. So far, the comments I've seen about religion haven't convinced me one way or another yet... I was actually beginning to wonder if this could be considered a business novel or something like that, a business thriller of sorts.

Gary wrote: "Speaking of soul-searching conversations between siblings, does anyone else find the intimacy between Tony and Tom as odd? Tony seemed to have an almost romantic relationship with her father after ..."

I was thinking along similar lines, I had the feeling that Tony would have ideally liked to have been married to Tom, or at least his carbon copy with a different surname.

Gary wrote: "Is she just showing respect to the head of the family or is this there something more: a lusting in the heart in Jimmy Carter's words?"

Tom is amused by her and is fond of her, I think. Tony respects and, to some extent, fears him, it seems, but I haven't had any feeling that there's any lust between them.