s.penkevich's Reviews > Chess Story
Chess Story
by
by

�The more one limits oneself, the closer one is to the infinite; these people, as unworldly as they seem, burrow like termites into their own particular material to construct, in miniature, a strange and utterly individual image of the world.�
*EDIT 12/20/21*
Chess, the ‘Royal Game�, �regally eschews the tyranny of chance and awards its palms of victory only to the intellect, or rather to a certain type of intellectual gift.� Stefan Zweig plunges the reader into this cold, calculating world through a simple premise of a chess match between the reigning world champion and a mysterious doctor who reveals an incredible knowledge of the game’s strategy despite his claims that he hasn’t touched a chessboard for over twenty years. In a mere 80 pages, Zweig’s Chess Story, reaches an emotional and psychological depth that leaves the reader shivering with horror through a haunting allegory of Nazi Germany where human lives are mere wooden pieces to be strategically moved and sacrificed by an indifferent hand.
Zweig’s grasp on human nature is chillingly accurate, and the few characters presented come alive through such simple descriptions of their psychology, made easily accessible through having a psychologist serve as the narrator. Czentovic, the reigning world chess champion, quickly develops into a lifelike monomaniac through the brief summary of his life. This apathetic, uneducated youth miraculously develops a keen intellect for chess, being described as ‘Balaam’s ass� when his talents are revealed, and quickly defeats chess masters across the world which �transformed his original lack of self-confidence into a cold pride that for the most part he did not trouble to hide.� Zweig presents us with a highly unlikeable adversary, a wealthy, self-important man who looks upon all those around him as if they �were lifeless wooden pieces� despite his vulgar manners and �boundless ignorance� towards anything intellectual aside from chess (there is a wonderful aside where the narrators fried remarks �isn’t it damn easy to think you’re a great man if you aren’t troubled by the slightest notion that Rembrandt, Beethoven, Dante, or Napoleon even existed?�). We can all put a face to this character, we’ve all encountered someone vain and offensive who, despite our disdain, will always be able to sneer down upon us because we are no match to the one talent they hold most dear. While aboard a steamship, the passengers arrange a chess match with the great Czentovic, him versus all others, in which he crushed them in the first game without hiding his arrogance of being the superior.
Enter our hero, Dr. B, an immediately likeable, shy and nervous man with an immense intellect that bestows a method for forcing a draw with the great chess master. For the majority of the novella, the reader must face the horrors of Dr. B’s pas to understand where his talents grew, somehow blossoming in the cracks of soul-crushing interment in the Gestapo headquarters. Often relaying the story in the second-person, the use of ‘you� brings the reader into maddening solitude of Dr. B, enduring his pain along with him, and even the most calloused of readers must come away with a residue of unbearable horrors and madness forever coating their consciousness. Zweig, having fled his home in Austria in fear of the Nazis, forces the reader to witness and endure a fate worse than the sickening dehumanization and deathly labor of a concentration camp, but to share in his solitude, emphasized in frightening proportions by Dr. B’s torment that is �a force more sophisticated than crude beating of physical torture: the most exquisite isolation imaginable�.
The allegory presented in the novella is sickening enough to rot any heart. We have Germany ruled by an inhumane, obdurate hand, cold and calculating in each move it makes, and we have the artistic mind going mad in solitude. Creativity and art is trampled by the sinister, calculating powers that march forward seeking victory, unshaken by the countless lives that must be sacrificed to achieve it. Chess, however, is a game of two sides, black and white, and Zweig pushes his allegory even further to represent this duality. As in the ‘blind� games played in Dr. B’s head, Germany undergoes schizophrenia of sorts, declaring war on itself by seeking to exterminate those within, be it for their religious or political views. While chess becomes a solace to Dr. B, it can also be observed as a metaphor of National Socialism � what had roots as something empowering, something to cling to in order to rise up from the depth of depression (ie. his solitude or the state of Germany post-WWI), can become something fierce, violent and destructive as history has revealed and as is seen in the mania that grips our hero in this tale.

Zweig displays a mastery over his writing much as his characters do over chess. While the subject matter is sure to weigh heavy on the mind¹, the writing comes across effortlessly and pleasingly, almost as if it were intended to purvey an uplifting, humorous tale. I had a laugh as Zweig probed my own literary pretentions, casting Czentovic’s vain disinterest and quick removal from the vicinity of a chess match between two �third-rate� players as being �as naturally as any of us might toss aside a bad detective novel in a bookstore without even opening it, he walked away from our table and out of the smoking room.� The language flows and manages to embrace the reader through its simplicity, although it drags along a heavy burden with it. There was one aspect of the narrative that specifically caught my attention, and as I am still just a blind child testing the waters of literature, I would like to present to those of you whom I look up to this query of mine. Zweig often has his narrator connect the dots for the reader, such as when Czentovic states that he allowed the draw to happen, saying �I deliberately gave him a chance�, a few lines later the narrator asserts that �as we all knew, Czentovic had certainly not magnanimously given our unknown benefactor a chance, and this remark was nothing more than a simple-minded excuse for his own failure.�
In my initial read of the book I had written that I found some elements to seem overly explanatory, though as Traveller so eloquently pointed out (see comments below), Zweig uses a nested-narrative style and the author and characters point of views are separate, with many of the dot-connecting moments being rational details the narrator would add. Something I enjoy about this website is the ability to connect and discuss books with people and gain a new perspective. Another thing I enjoy is being able to revisit my own thoughts and see how they have changed/developed/etc over the years. Thanks to everyone who has ever engaged on book chat here, it makes for a really fulfilling experience.
Chess Story is a tiny powerhouse of depth. The conclusion had me pacing back and forth in the snow smoking a cigarette to calm the ever-increasing beating of my heart. It is horrific, it is harrowing, it is pure brilliance floating from the page. Despite it’s small size, this is not a novella to be taken lightly, as it will leave a dark cloud over your thoughts once the final page has found its way into your heart. Zweig is a master of the human psychology, and a master and condensing such potent messages into a tiny novella. The clash between an uncaring, calculating intellect and the manic but human mind of a hero will grip you until the end, which comes both mercifully soon (this book is easily read in an hour), yet far too soon. The allegory is ripe and shakes you to the core.
4.5/5
¹ The fact that Zweig eliminated his own map shortly after completion of Chess Story will come as no surprise, for the darkness this story wallows in is something that an optimistic mind wouldn’t dare approach. As Nietzsche said: � if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you�. When I was at the edge of my teenage years, a former English teacher and close friend of mine warned me of wallowing in the darkness of literature and philosophy, telling me ‘the longer you flirt with darkness, the more it seeps into your soul�, which, while being a spin on the Nietzsche quote, has never left the back of my mind. From that I learned to climb out from the depths and appreciate things that satisfy a lighter side of myself, the white side of the chessboard, without spending all my time feeding the darker side. Without such guidance I wouldn't be here to write this today.
�But is it not already an insult to call chess anything so narrow as a game? Is it not also a science, an art, a unique yoking of opposites, ancient and yet eternally new, mechanically constituted and yet an activity of the imagination alone, limited to a fixed geometric area but unlimited in its permutations, constantly evolving and yet sterile, a cogitation producing nothing, a mathematics calculating nothing, an art without an artwork, an architecture without substance, the only game that belongs to all peoples and all eras, while no one knows what god put it on earth to deaden boredom, sharpen the mind, and fortify the spirit? Where does it begin, where does it end?�
*EDIT 12/20/21*
Chess, the ‘Royal Game�, �regally eschews the tyranny of chance and awards its palms of victory only to the intellect, or rather to a certain type of intellectual gift.� Stefan Zweig plunges the reader into this cold, calculating world through a simple premise of a chess match between the reigning world champion and a mysterious doctor who reveals an incredible knowledge of the game’s strategy despite his claims that he hasn’t touched a chessboard for over twenty years. In a mere 80 pages, Zweig’s Chess Story, reaches an emotional and psychological depth that leaves the reader shivering with horror through a haunting allegory of Nazi Germany where human lives are mere wooden pieces to be strategically moved and sacrificed by an indifferent hand.

Zweig’s grasp on human nature is chillingly accurate, and the few characters presented come alive through such simple descriptions of their psychology, made easily accessible through having a psychologist serve as the narrator. Czentovic, the reigning world chess champion, quickly develops into a lifelike monomaniac through the brief summary of his life. This apathetic, uneducated youth miraculously develops a keen intellect for chess, being described as ‘Balaam’s ass� when his talents are revealed, and quickly defeats chess masters across the world which �transformed his original lack of self-confidence into a cold pride that for the most part he did not trouble to hide.� Zweig presents us with a highly unlikeable adversary, a wealthy, self-important man who looks upon all those around him as if they �were lifeless wooden pieces� despite his vulgar manners and �boundless ignorance� towards anything intellectual aside from chess (there is a wonderful aside where the narrators fried remarks �isn’t it damn easy to think you’re a great man if you aren’t troubled by the slightest notion that Rembrandt, Beethoven, Dante, or Napoleon even existed?�). We can all put a face to this character, we’ve all encountered someone vain and offensive who, despite our disdain, will always be able to sneer down upon us because we are no match to the one talent they hold most dear. While aboard a steamship, the passengers arrange a chess match with the great Czentovic, him versus all others, in which he crushed them in the first game without hiding his arrogance of being the superior.
Enter our hero, Dr. B, an immediately likeable, shy and nervous man with an immense intellect that bestows a method for forcing a draw with the great chess master. For the majority of the novella, the reader must face the horrors of Dr. B’s pas to understand where his talents grew, somehow blossoming in the cracks of soul-crushing interment in the Gestapo headquarters. Often relaying the story in the second-person, the use of ‘you� brings the reader into maddening solitude of Dr. B, enduring his pain along with him, and even the most calloused of readers must come away with a residue of unbearable horrors and madness forever coating their consciousness. Zweig, having fled his home in Austria in fear of the Nazis, forces the reader to witness and endure a fate worse than the sickening dehumanization and deathly labor of a concentration camp, but to share in his solitude, emphasized in frightening proportions by Dr. B’s torment that is �a force more sophisticated than crude beating of physical torture: the most exquisite isolation imaginable�.
The allegory presented in the novella is sickening enough to rot any heart. We have Germany ruled by an inhumane, obdurate hand, cold and calculating in each move it makes, and we have the artistic mind going mad in solitude. Creativity and art is trampled by the sinister, calculating powers that march forward seeking victory, unshaken by the countless lives that must be sacrificed to achieve it. Chess, however, is a game of two sides, black and white, and Zweig pushes his allegory even further to represent this duality. As in the ‘blind� games played in Dr. B’s head, Germany undergoes schizophrenia of sorts, declaring war on itself by seeking to exterminate those within, be it for their religious or political views. While chess becomes a solace to Dr. B, it can also be observed as a metaphor of National Socialism � what had roots as something empowering, something to cling to in order to rise up from the depth of depression (ie. his solitude or the state of Germany post-WWI), can become something fierce, violent and destructive as history has revealed and as is seen in the mania that grips our hero in this tale.

Zweig displays a mastery over his writing much as his characters do over chess. While the subject matter is sure to weigh heavy on the mind¹, the writing comes across effortlessly and pleasingly, almost as if it were intended to purvey an uplifting, humorous tale. I had a laugh as Zweig probed my own literary pretentions, casting Czentovic’s vain disinterest and quick removal from the vicinity of a chess match between two �third-rate� players as being �as naturally as any of us might toss aside a bad detective novel in a bookstore without even opening it, he walked away from our table and out of the smoking room.� The language flows and manages to embrace the reader through its simplicity, although it drags along a heavy burden with it. There was one aspect of the narrative that specifically caught my attention, and as I am still just a blind child testing the waters of literature, I would like to present to those of you whom I look up to this query of mine. Zweig often has his narrator connect the dots for the reader, such as when Czentovic states that he allowed the draw to happen, saying �I deliberately gave him a chance�, a few lines later the narrator asserts that �as we all knew, Czentovic had certainly not magnanimously given our unknown benefactor a chance, and this remark was nothing more than a simple-minded excuse for his own failure.�
In my initial read of the book I had written that I found some elements to seem overly explanatory, though as Traveller so eloquently pointed out (see comments below), Zweig uses a nested-narrative style and the author and characters point of views are separate, with many of the dot-connecting moments being rational details the narrator would add. Something I enjoy about this website is the ability to connect and discuss books with people and gain a new perspective. Another thing I enjoy is being able to revisit my own thoughts and see how they have changed/developed/etc over the years. Thanks to everyone who has ever engaged on book chat here, it makes for a really fulfilling experience.
Chess Story is a tiny powerhouse of depth. The conclusion had me pacing back and forth in the snow smoking a cigarette to calm the ever-increasing beating of my heart. It is horrific, it is harrowing, it is pure brilliance floating from the page. Despite it’s small size, this is not a novella to be taken lightly, as it will leave a dark cloud over your thoughts once the final page has found its way into your heart. Zweig is a master of the human psychology, and a master and condensing such potent messages into a tiny novella. The clash between an uncaring, calculating intellect and the manic but human mind of a hero will grip you until the end, which comes both mercifully soon (this book is easily read in an hour), yet far too soon. The allegory is ripe and shakes you to the core.
4.5/5
¹ The fact that Zweig eliminated his own map shortly after completion of Chess Story will come as no surprise, for the darkness this story wallows in is something that an optimistic mind wouldn’t dare approach. As Nietzsche said: � if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you�. When I was at the edge of my teenage years, a former English teacher and close friend of mine warned me of wallowing in the darkness of literature and philosophy, telling me ‘the longer you flirt with darkness, the more it seeps into your soul�, which, while being a spin on the Nietzsche quote, has never left the back of my mind. From that I learned to climb out from the depths and appreciate things that satisfy a lighter side of myself, the white side of the chessboard, without spending all my time feeding the darker side. Without such guidance I wouldn't be here to write this today.
�But is it not already an insult to call chess anything so narrow as a game? Is it not also a science, an art, a unique yoking of opposites, ancient and yet eternally new, mechanically constituted and yet an activity of the imagination alone, limited to a fixed geometric area but unlimited in its permutations, constantly evolving and yet sterile, a cogitation producing nothing, a mathematics calculating nothing, an art without an artwork, an architecture without substance, the only game that belongs to all peoples and all eras, while no one knows what god put it on earth to deaden boredom, sharpen the mind, and fortify the spirit? Where does it begin, where does it end?�
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
Chess Story.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
June 21, 2012
– Shelved
February 19, 2013
– Shelved as:
americana
February 19, 2013
– Shelved as:
europe
February 19, 2013
– Shelved as:
austrian
February 19, 2013
– Shelved as:
crush-yo-soul
Comments Showing 1-50 of 107 (107 new)

Oh, yeah, it's Richard's review but I found it elsewhere on the internets. The 'don't do it!' title stuck with me for days, I then HAD to read it, tempting demons and all is only human nature right? Glad I did though.
But yeah, I wanted to make a comment that I didn't like that, but then I rationalized it that the narrator is a psychologist, and then I realized I have no right to lay any claims on this and would like to learn what people with a decent grasp on literature think. Hopefully it'll get a decent discussion going.

Oh, yeah, it's Richard's review but I found it elsewhere on the internets. The 'don't do it!' title stuck with ..."
It indeed is an interesting point. You also had the same issue with Life of Pi I think. I'd say it depends largely on the target readers, the subject matter and of course the writer. I'll look forward to the discussion.



Oh this book is quite short. I'll read it, also I love chess, haha.


Yeah, it was very tiny. I finished it in an hour sitting (okay, and standing. I was literally pacing the end had me so excited). Do you? I'm not too good, although I do play it against a friend over our Ipods. This book had me all excited to play it more.
I was psyched to see that you read Zweig. And you make the flow and enjoyment of it sound a lot like Beware of Pity, which I loved. Hope you read more of him!

Though... it's true, nowadays those opponents don't need to be human. If Zweig had been writing in 2013, he could have made the story more plausible by having Dr B locked up in solitary playing games against Fritz or Houdini on his laptop. Unfortunately, it would have ruined the metaphor.


I definitely will, I was actually thinking about ordering either Beware of Pity or Post Office Girl next.

Yeah, it was very tiny. I finished it in an hour sitting (okay, and standing. I was literally pacing the end..."
I love playing chess but I'm not great at it. It definitely gives a good exercise to the brain cells. But lately books like IJ and Ice are doing the equally good job :P

Though... it's true, nowadays those opponents don't need to be huma..."
Hah, quite true. I couldn't help think of the Deep Blue chess computer while reading it, but, as you mention, if a film were done that way it would spoil all the great fascist metaphors. Hmmm, I bet somehow it could be spun to be something cool and sci-fi though under the right hands
Yeah, I wondered that as well. He would only know how to play well against himself, anything he wouldn't have thought of would totally destroy his game.

True, that's usually my take on it too. I tend to think 'hey, I CAN figure it out, thank you very much', but then again I probably do miss a lot. Zweig may have done this intentionally though, but I'm not sure if that sacrifices the narrative in order to keep to the character, or if that wasn't in his mind at all.


Yes, they certainly do work that grey matter ha. People who are ace at chess really impress me though. My computer beats me most of the time, even when I get frustrated and start using the 'hint' button (although I suspect it secretly marches me into a trap when I use that... sneaky technology....)

Hmmm... I bet P.K.D. would have churned up some amazing story. Cold, calculating robots take over the earth (for nostalgic sake they have german accents), but we discover we can intimidate them with our chess abilities and realize that AI has emotions too. Okay, I give up, best to leave books like that to him.


As for the 'telling vs showing' question, I don't like it at all myself. At least, that's what I thought, until I read 'If on a Winter's Night a Traveler', which is essentially nothing but that. Granted, it's unavoidable due to the point of view, but still. It shows some flexibility regarding the issue, at least on my part.
So if it's done well enough, or has enough good bits balancing out the annoyance, I don't mind it so much. And, as you said, Zweig was a psychologist. He was likely interested in the psychology of his characters. I can't fault him for expanding on that within the story, no matter how much it interferes with the reader's own inferences.

A character's action reveals her/his psychology in the face of events resulting from her/his action and choices which is the plot depicted with verbs to describe action and dialogue to describe thought and access to the characters' thoughts only to reveal the character but not tell the reader.
If that makes sense. What I mean is that we can no longer discount film and unless a film is narrated we can't see the thoughts only actions of the character to figure out the thoughts and motivation and those character actions are what drives the plot given the circumstances in which the character finds her/himself - with the feedback loop operating that certain actions will predicate certain situations etc.

As for the 'telling vs showing' question, I don't like it at all myself. At least, that's what I thought, until I read 'If o..."
Good point, it really does all boil down to what are you trying to do with the narrative voice in that manner. Much of metafiction relies on showing your hand. Oh, and I apologize, looking back the bit about the psychologist was misleading. I'm not sure if Zweig was, I meant to say that 'the narrator, being a psychologist' (I fixed it), but it has the same effect. Especially coming from you, that really reassures and validates my thought that it is okay as it fits to how the narrator would tell a story. I do usually prefer to put things together myself though too. Thank you so much, that really puts a good light on the subject!
Also, hope you enjoy the book. It's short and, well, not sweet, but potent at least. When reading it I thought, oh thats not all that bad like I thought it would be, but then today I could not stop thinking about it.

A character's action reveals her/his psycholo..."
Woah, that's a really cool perspective. I especially like the notion of actions as verbs in a plot, well put. I suppose I like to see it and put things together, as in film, the narrator has to be a good commentator, engaging me, but not being too agressive as to guide me. It's like in Blade Runner, that movie is amazing in certain cuts. The versions with the voice overs tend to grate on me, as it seems like the voice overs are trying to hard to push me towards the direction of understanding instead of just enjoying it and finding my own balance in the world. Or it's like the directors cut of Donny Darko, the movie was amazing until they had that with the inserts that spoon-fed the meanings to things (especially the ending).

oh ja, ja! Das ist gut!

Now I'll look like a fool, argh!
When it comes to movies, I can't help thinking of David Lynch movies. That guy doesn't really bother whatever his audience would conclude, does he? I mean what the hell happened in Eraserhead. OK off-topic!

As for the 'telling vs showing' question, I don't like it at all myself. At least, that's what I thought, unt..."
Misleading your poor reviewers! Tsk tsk!
On a more serious note, I was scrolling up and spied the reference to 'Life of Pi' being an example of annoying tell tell tell. Which I absolutely agree with. But that was also a case of 'So there's this, and this, so it's only logical that you must be religious in at least some sense, else this and this this!!!'
There's a difference between pointing out reasons for characters doing the things they do, and foistering systems of belief upon the reader.
Also, if the telling gets to the point that the story lacks any kind of passages that provoke some sort of reaction in the reader beyond paltry emotional provocation, that's when things get dicey. But going by your review, I wouldn't say that that is the case here.


Try Postoffice Girl. It is very different from Chess.

Garima: Yeah, I really like that about Lynch. It's open for so much interpretation and personal identifying. I've heard he has rejected any theories of Mulholland Drive that have been presented to him. In a way, Ice really reminded me of him.
Aubrey: Great point. In this book the revealing does seem rather natural and flow well, the example I used does seem like something someone would say when telling a story, like 'yeah, we all knew that was bullshit!'. I guess in actual speech we all do that all the time, so since this is meant to read like someone telling a story, that does seem to make it quite forgivable. Pi on the other hand, it did seem to be used too much as a 'direct your attention to how cute and clever I am! Please, follow along!' Then again, he had a much wider audience aim for that book, and such a technique probably helped a lot of people get more out of the book, the type of people who only read one or two books every few years when they hear so much buzz about one.
Andrew: I'll definitely check that out, thank you. Ha, Nabokov did tend to hate everyone though (I love Nabokov but I love Dostoevsky the most, whom he thought was a poor author), but I do see how that is valid here. For me, it really worked because if hit levels on chess that I could follow, but seemed so lofty to me. I wondered it Zweig just thought 'hey, good metaphor' and learned a bit about chess or if he was actually extremely good and everything was plausible to only a small stretch of the imagination. Either way though, it had a haunting result.
Fionnula: Yeah, that is a really good point, I mean he died in what, 42? I wondered how much time had gone by between Dr. B's story and the novel's present, it seemed a bit strange for some reason to think of it as him writing in the future, several years after the authors own death. This definitely gives a full-frontal look at how scary the nazi regiem looked to an intellectual though. Czentovic comes across as so despicable! And thank you, I definitely will give that one a read soon!

Glad I could do so! It's a bit gritty, but it really struck me, so I hope it works for you (I've seen a many 3 stars for this though, I can see how something so short could simply fail to get its hooks into a reader since it is over so fast). And thank you! Can't wait to hear what you think of the book.



Those images are really cool. Very nice review.
I used to lean towards the show over tell spectrum (seeing as Hemingway was my first literary hero) but over the years my opinion has softened. I had a creative teacher who once said that the whole point of all these do's and dont's with writing is that they are supposed to help a person figure out craft, what she called the rules of the game. Then she said, but you're never going to get anywhere copying everyone else and following the rules. You learn them so you can know the best way to break them with style and getting away with it.
I used to lean towards the show over tell spectrum (seeing as Hemingway was my first literary hero) but over the years my opinion has softened. I had a creative teacher who once said that the whole point of all these do's and dont's with writing is that they are supposed to help a person figure out craft, what she called the rules of the game. Then she said, but you're never going to get anywhere copying everyone else and following the rules. You learn them so you can know the best way to break them with style and getting away with it.


The pictures in the review are amazing!!

Oh yeah, I remember you expressing dislike for that. It made me giggle the first few times he has used it, but I haven't yet made it to the explanation, which seems extremely unnecessary in that case (why wait so long, if he was to explain it, he might as well have done it the first time).
Kalliope: Thank you so much! I really appreciate it, the support and positivity of goodreads is what makes it so addicting and influential. But yeah, this one definitely seems like a good one to reread someday, it's so short! I probably will soon enough.
Ned: Oh, excellent, I hope you like the Vesaas novel. I'll check out Burning Secret, does sound like a good one. Zweig is definitely an author I want to explore more.
M.: Hope you enjoy it!
Anthony: Learn them to learn how to break them, I like that. That seems to really apply here too, he does show and then tell, but its so engrained in the style of how someone actually tells a story that it works. As if he learned the proper ways, but then said, hmm if works better if I do break the rule in this case. Thank you.
Tanuj: Thanks! Ha, yeah, it did make me realize how impossible some of this is, but I assure you it doesn't detract from the story too much (unless of course, you are very good at chess. I'm terrible, so it only worked to excited me to want to play!).
Oh, and the pictures are the woodcuts made for the story by German artist

Oh yeah..."
I should tell you that the review made me play 3 games with the computer, all of which I lost inside 20 moves.

I always thought Austrians said goodbye in a different way:

Here is a great essay on Zweig which led me to his work. Dalrymple makes the case for our Stefan as a great humanist. Sadly, his goodbye to the world was quite a tragic and seemingly senseless act.

I liked the Austrian way better.
Spenky wrote a fabulous review.
Steve responds that it's brilliant.
Great job, mein guter Mann.

Thank you for the article, that is really sad. Both him and his wife. Such a shame he was relatively unknown in his own life, despite being a friend of Freud (which makes sense seeing how intensely psychological this book was). Good to see he is geting some well deserved readership in the modern day though, I'm definitely going to be visiting his work again soon.
And thanks, Steve! I agree. Austrian way is much better. When Hitler autographs the Grail diary is one of my favorite scenes in all of cinema.
s.penkevich wrote: "Indiana Jones was my idol when I was a kid, I think I watched those even more than Star Wars."
Same here. I liked Star Wars as a kid but it couldn't compare to Indiana Jones fighting Nazis, or James Bond killing Russians in exotic places with exotic women.
Same here. I liked Star Wars as a kid but it couldn't compare to Indiana Jones fighting Nazis, or James Bond killing Russians in exotic places with exotic women.

Ha, way back in the latter 80s. 'twas good times then. That's okay, I'm starting to understand that feeling. The other day in class a bunch of my classmates mentioned being to young to remember 9/11 and that their elementary school didn't discuss it. I quickly refrained from telling my story as it involved being in high school. Not the same, but it's starting to creep up on me. (my thoughts of 'it's okay, I'm still cool and youngish' slightly thwarted though when I realized I was wearing an argyle sweater vest..)
s.penkevich wrote: "Yeah! James Bond was amazing too, I remember one winter as a kid when I rented a new Bond film every week. Sean Connery has always been a bigger action hero in my mind than Stallone and all that ga..."
They're all still enjoyable in a way, even the really bad ones. I actually used my library a couple of years back to get a hold of every one of the Bond films and watch them all in chronological order. It was an epic undertaking and made my girlfriend at the time want to murder me.
They're all still enjoyable in a way, even the really bad ones. I actually used my library a couple of years back to get a hold of every one of the Bond films and watch them all in chronological order. It was an epic undertaking and made my girlfriend at the time want to murder me.
And could you provide the link of that review you mentioned in recommended by column.