欧宝娱乐

I admire people who dare to say that a classic didn't move them!

Thanks for this comment Chrissie. It means a lot to me. You ought to see some of the comments I got for this review on amazon (.co.uk and .com)!

People think differently, and thank God they do!

Lance Greenfield wrote: "Thanks for this comment Chrissie. It means a lot to me. You ought to see some of the comments I got for this review on amazon (.co.uk and .com)!"

In my experience Amazon comments are not worth paying attention to, and even here at 欧宝娱乐 there is healthy disagreement about many books. Of course we're not all going to like the same thing. Just because a book is a classic doesn't mean it will be everyone's cup of tea, and it doesn't always mean it's worthy of being a classic either.

I totally agree, and that is why I love the 欧宝娱乐 community so much. We seem to have healthy discussions and it is not so bad that we disagree from time to time. We accept the opinions of others, even if they are diametrically opposed to our own. I find some of the rhetoric on amazon to be downright nasty!

Lance, I avoid Amazon reviews...... I like a good discussion about a book. Some people tend to shy away from such and I think that is unfortunate. Even in a polite and healthy conversation, one has to accept that people see differently. Some get very sensitive and assume a difference of opinion is a personal criticsm. It isn't! It is simply a different pov. Just as in real life, on GR too one meets all different kinds of people. Some people are more open to discussion, others less so. C'est la vie!

Again, I agree with you. I have always welcomed criticism, as it is the only way that I can ever hope to improve. If people grumble in the background, nothing ever gets better, and the grumblers and listeners just get very depressed.

Ooops, Lisa, I didn't see your comment. I agree.

It is typical of the arrogance of our times that any Tom Dick and Harry can denounce whatever they please as "drivel". It is one thing to say that you cannot enjoy Thomas Mann's Zauberberg. It is quite another to denounce it as drivel. In the one case you are describing a subjective reaction, in the other case you are making an objective judgement. Which is it to be? If it is a subjective emotive reaction, there is nothing more to be said, and I have much the same emotive reaction to DH Lawrence's novels (which personally bore me but which I would not presume to denouce as drivel without an intense and well argued justification. )

Thanks for your view Esdaile.

Perhaps I should have justified my definition of drivel as something that dribbles from the pen, drags on and on, seeming never to end. It is just my humble opinion, and I totally respect the opinions of the majority, including yourself, who think so highly of this book. Such widely differing opinions should lead to a healthy, and lively, debate.

I compared our book ratings, and was pleased to see that we almost agree on several books.

On the subject of D.H. Lawrence, I see that you rated
Lady Chatterley's Lover at two stars. I only rated that book as a one star read.

Fine, then I shall start the debate off, first by saying that to enjoy "Der Zauberberg" I think at least one of three following interests should be the reader's
1) A knowledge of and interest in the theses in Oswald Spengler's "Untergang des Abendlandes"
2 Personal knowledge and experience of a closed institution
3 A love of debate for its own sake

If someone starting out on this book does not have any of those three what I would call prerequisites of enjoyment, I think the chances of enjoying the book are close to nil and vice versa, if one can tick all three, it is almost inconceivable that one will not enjoy der Zauberberg! Der Zauberberg I would argue, is the examination of Spengler's belief in cultural metamorphosis debated and examined in the "hot house" world of a closed community where people only reflect and are too sick to be practical doers. There is also at work a fearful cynicism and world wearniness, for the inctitute is also our little world and out little Europe. The goings on in the hospice remind me very much of a British Public School. Apart from that, Thomas Mann's charactzerisation is superb. I much prefer the colourful figures of this novels to the literally incredible but predicatable eccentrics who strut about in the novels of Charles Dickens

I think all classics suck pretty much. Dull, dull, dull. In THEIR TIMES, they were big and well received. That does mean we have to love them, now, however, and if we want to call them drivel, well we can. Freedom of speech. :)

Tara wrote: "I think all classics suck pretty much. Dull, dull, dull. In THEIR TIMES, they were big and well received. That does mean we have to love them, now, however, and if we want to call them drivel, well..."

Freedom of speech should not be confused with the license to do or say anything that you please. A person may call it freedom of speech top hurl abuse at someone, I would call it ignorance and incivility. However, freedom of speech and the licence to abuse and denigrate are often confused, unfortunately. It is true that what might have seen exciting in for example a novel or piece of music at a time of great restriction or repression might seem dated or just tedious today, because of changing mores or expectations. Nevertheless, that does not give someone the "right" to abuse achievements which the great majority of people could never attain to. People fail to separate their subjective emotional reaction to say a novel and their objective assessment of it, or worse, to even understand that there is a need to do so. I personally do not enjoy the novels of either DH Lawrence or Charles Dickens and I admit it. That is one thing. It is another thing to claim, that just because I do not enjoy their novels, said novels "suck" or are "drivel". (The very language makes me think of a school playground). I would not dream of describing them in such a way because I am sufficiently modest to balk at abusing works which so many people have highly assessed. That does not mean there is never a case for a reassessment but if I am going to attempt a radical reassessment I owe it to myself and to the many admirers of the work I claim is overrated, to provide a good case. A person who sneers at works of art and cannot give reasons is not worthy of any kind of respect or regard so far as their opinion is concerned. Free speech is sometimes used as a pretext to justify what is effectively just rudeness and conceitedness about art which is above a person's head.

Are we having an essay writing contest? I didn't get the memo. Lol I may have to hit the law books and do one myself. May be fun. I used to enjoy that.

Esdaile, Ah, nothing has been said in this review or in this discussion thread by Lance or the rest of us that could be considered out of line.

Using the term drivel to describe a book is as subjective as using any other word. If it seemed like drivel to Lance, then that opinion is as valid as any other.

Each 欧宝娱乐' member can love, hate, feel ambivalent about, like, dislike any and all books, and I get something valuable from reading all the above.

Being judgmental about others' opinions of books and how they state their feelings (with some rare exceptions such as hate speech toward an individual, and those should be flagged for 欧宝娱乐 to see) doesn't make any sense to me. We're all entitled to our opinions.

I found Lance's review very helpful. His review is not the only thing I'd use to help me decide whether or not to read this book.

Lance, You might appreciate this pithy review:

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

Oh dear! I am beginning to regret starting this debate. Parts of it are becoming very boring. WAKE UP IN THE BACK ROW!

But I am enjoying the interspersal of short snappy comments.

Drivel and Suck . That's a great name for a drainage cleansing company!

Shall we lighten up?

Thanks for the latest comments.

You are right Lisa. I followed the link to Ruth's review, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. She is much cleverer than me. To sum up my feelings about this book in so few words is utter genius!

Lisa wrote: "Esdaile, Ah, nothing has been said in this review or in this discussion thread by Lance or the rest of us that could be considered out of line.

Using the term drivel to describe a book is as subj..."

"Out of line" I remember that expression from Trade Union days, have never heard it used to accept or reject comments on literature. You are completely wrong, in my opinion, to say that using the term drivel is as subjective as any other word. If you honestly believe that, please reconsider. Imagine someone goes to an evening of Indian music. Surely you can see the difference betweeen somone saying that they were bored and could not empathise with the music, which would be a wholly understandable and honest reaction and someone else who said the music "sucked" and was "drivel". The first person was simply saying how they personally felt about something, the second person is sitting in judgement on the music, with maybe no qualification and in that case no right to sit in judgement. When someone says that arguably one of the greatest novels of the last century bored them or they could not understand or enjoy it, that would be an honest description of their reaction which nobody can quarrel with because it is a statement about their personal reaction and how they felt, but when someone dismisses Der Zauberberg and says it "sucks", then they are throwing abuse and being gratuitously offensive. I disagree with your statement that one person's opinion is as valid as any other. If you asked people about knocking down a wall in your house, one person an architect, who warned you not to do it (because the wall was needed to hold up the ceiling) and your local newslagent who said go ahead it's a good idea, you would treat the two opinions as "equally valid". Toi take a crass and very simple example: a person who cannot speak Spanish will not enjoy trying to read a novel in that language and could understandably say they were bored, but they would not say the novel "sucked" because as they did not understand it, they were in no position to judge it. Ditto with the Der Zauberberg. Someone who does not understand German (relies on translation, already a poor start but ok) has not read and knows nothing about Oswald Spengler, has never been to and is not interested in closed societies and who has always been physicallyand psychologically fit and confident, to throw in another element, does not have the "personal equipment" to judge this novel in any way whatsoever. They should reserve their judgement for what they know. But as I say, saying something like "it meant nothing to me-I am not interested in Spengler and cannot read German or French" is quite different, a wholly understandable comment which would help people in a similar situation to not waste their time by attempting to read what is certainly a dense and demanding work of art. Judgements pronounced by a judge who judges what he or she does not understand should not be heeded as valid judgements.

Lance Greenfield wrote: "Oh dear! I am beginning to regret starting this debate. Parts of it are becoming very boring. WAKE UP IN THE BACK ROW!

But I am enjoying the interspersal of short snappy comments.

Drivel and Suck..."

I agree with you about the cleaning company. Brilliant.

The architect is being objective and the newsagent is being subjective.

Sucks and Drivel would be objective when they tell you that the smell is a result of your blocked drains, and they would be being subjective when they tell you that one of the greatest works of literature to come out of Germany in th epast century aligns with their company name: but only in their opinion, of course.

At least I am getting high comedic value out of this debate. It is very amusing! (In my subjective opinon.)

Lisa wrote: "Lance, You might appreciate this pithy review:

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/..."

That's not a review by any definition of the term, it's a brickbat, like saying: the Magic Mountain was way over her head.

Esdaile wrote: "I agree with you about the cleaning company. Brilliant."

Thanks Esdaile. I am pleased that the two of us are converging on one of the greatest life objectives of all: having fun!

Esdaile, On this site, all members' expressed opinions are equally valid. Then, each member can read, not read, read and disregard the opinions of any other members. It's why it's good here to form a circle of friends whose reviews you enjoy. This site is supposed to be fun. And, for me, books I read during my leisure time are my main form of entertainment. I'm no longer an English major and don't enjoy spending a lot of time on debates and analysis of others' reviews. What I don't appreciate, I pass by.

Sure, fair enough. I vehemently disagree that all opinions are equally valid, but we shall just have to leave it at that if you do not enjoy spending a lot of time on debates.

Yes, it's one of those times we'll have to agree to disagree. At an earlier time in my life, I might have enjoyed a passionate debate about this.

Sadly, there can be no arbitration on this. Who is to judge on the equality of opinion?

Obviously Esdaile, you believe that your opinion is more valid than those of the rest of us. My belief is that your opinion carries equal validity to mine and to Lisa's.

Vorsicht!

One message that I did manage to take from Der Zauberberg was the danger of people believing that they were superior to others. In that, tragically, history has proved that Thomas Mann was absolutely correct. The circumstances of superiority complexes can be horrendous.

I have my opinion. You have yours. They are equal in my mind, but if you like to consider yours better than mine, we'll leave it at that.

It's still a boring book in my mind, by the way.

John McEnroe's opinion of the chances or the style of a new Wimbledon star will be more valid than mine. His opinion would be far more valid than mine because he knows considerably more about tennis. That's just common sense isn't it? He is more informed and more experienced in everything to do with Wimbledon tennis to the umteenth degree than I am. If I claimed that my opinion about some tennis player was just as well worth listening to as his, he would not take me seriously and nor would anyone else and they would be quite right.
Who is to judge on the equality of opinion? That is the old chestnut. There have to be agreed criteria, of course there do. Lord of the Rings may be "better" than Zauberberg in terms of excitement and "better" for a 12 year old to kill time with, so sure you need criteria but that is what literary criticism is or should I say was, all about.

Yes assumptions of superiority can lead to cruel consquences. People assume they are "superior" to animals (well some people might argue that the gap is closing, but anyway..) in terms of intelligence and interpretation of circumstances and mastering the environment and they use their power over animals to kill maim and torture animals relentlessly and pitilessly, sometimes for no better reason than to smear their faces with vain cosmetics or they destroy and pollute in order to produce more fuel to drive around with from one meeting point of goons to another in the machine which modern man worships pathetically as his idol amd is called the Motor Car. I would call maltreatment of animals not proof that animals are equal but an example of a vile abuse of power, for power should be accompanied by a high sense of responsibility, which Homo sapiens has less ense of than oen would anticipate from his technical achievements. Incidentally, exactly this terror of the barbarism below the surface even of Nirvana, is part of the Nietzschean ephinay in the snowstorm in Thomas Mann's "der Zauberberg". Thomas Mann, deeply religious, understood all this in a way I have not discovered in any English writer. This very debate with argumkent and counter argument is magnificently and thrillinglyx presented in a novel whose concerns are among the most pressing and the most profound that can confront our species.
Even agreeing that Homo sapiens is in many respects "superior" to animals does not give him a divine right to abuse them (but people think it does) but whatever one thinks about abuse of the weaker by the stronger or the slower by the swifter or any other excercise of power, that does not distract from the fact that the human Christian dream of equality is incompatible with reality, which the old "Aryan" heresy as preached by the Cathars well understood. Its conclusion was the denial of life, the rejection of life for life feeds on horror and death. There is much of this understanding in the teachings of the Bhudda too. Wisdom tell us this-life forms are not equal and equality is the hopefull lie of the suffering world weary animal, charming, understanable, but a lie and that lie will always shatter on the rock of reality. People are not equal and their opinions by no means equally valid. Wishful thinking to the contrary conjures horrors without end-witness Pol Pot, who earnestly believed that people could be made to become equal.

Lance Greenfield wrote: "One message that I did manage to take from Der Zauberberg was the danger of people believing that they were superior to others. In that, tragically, history has proved that Thomas Mann was absolutely correct. The circumstances of superiority complexes can be horrendous."

How ironic.

Esdaile wrote: "more valid than mine because he knows "

Ah, see, but at 欧宝娱乐 we're all readers, and I read for pleasure and my experience of reading a book makes me an expert on it. True, maybe I'll miss the symbolism or whatever... But, how much pleasure the reading experience gave me or didn't give me is part of what I'll express in my review of it, and my feelings and thoughts are just as valid as any other members here, even if they are professionals in a particular field and I am not.

I just don't take this process incredibly seriously. I get a lot out of reading all members' reviews, some more than others, yes, but those differences are because of where I am with that book or the consideration of reading that book.

欧宝娱乐' members are, for the most part, writing their opinions and thoughts about the books they read.

And I find reviews here more interesting than many so called professional reviews.

Sometimes "experts" aren't right or aren't in line with my beliefs, thoughts, feelings.

I participate here because it's fun, not for school or work or as a chore.

You got it Lisa!

We enjoy each others reviews and we have a lot of fun. We really do.

And every opinion matters and is equally valid.

Mind you, I've seen some great tennis players at Wimbledon. Only in my opinion, of course!

Esdaile wrote: "John McEnroe's opinion of the chances or the style of a new Wimbledon star will be more valid than mine. His opinion would be far more valid than mine because he knows considerably more about tenni..."

A GR friend suggested that I recommend The Envelope Incident to you Esdaile. It might help you to enjoy life a little bit more.

Actually, I thought of a better one for you Esdaile: Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal. This is very funny and, at the same time, makes one think about the possibilities.

Caris.

Thank you so much for your comment. I shall be forever grateful to you, and my dinner parties will become legendary.

At last, my eyes have been opened wide, and I can now see the full value of Thomas Mann's Great Classic, The Magic Mountain. It was staring me in the eyes all along, yet I failed to see it. Luckily I only turned 170 pages before I put it aside, so I have 536 pages which I can use for fresh napkins. The used pages won't go to waste: I shall use them to perfect my folding techniques.

If I'd known this before, I would never have labelled this book as "boring."

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Sorry I missed out on this debate that seemed to primarily center on the use or misuse of two particular words, then shifted to the equality of ones opinion over another. It was nice to see it handled with no personal slander, abuse or profane language.

Thanks for the message Dawn.

I still stick by my opinion that one person's opinion matters as much as another's.

And you are right about how good it was to have this discussion with no bad language or personal insults.

In the end, we had some differing opinions and, I think, we respected each others' opinions, even when we disagreed.

That's good.

Lance Greenfield wrote: "Thanks for the message Dawn.

I still stick by my opinion that one person's opinion matters as much as another's.

And you are right about how good it was to have this discussion with no bad lang..."

I agree very much about the absence of profane language, which unfortunately, is more the rule than the exception on the net.

Lance Greenfield wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "John McEnroe's opinion of the chances or the style of a new Wimbledon star will be more valid than mine. His opinion would be far more valid than mine because he knows considerably ..."

Caris wrote: "Yes, Lance, but you're fixating on readability and plot and characters and other such bullshit, all at the expense of ignoring the book's primary worth: napkins!

We're talking a Vintage Classic ed..."
One word for that: puerile.

Lance Greenfield wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "John McEnroe's opinion of the chances or the style of a new Wimbledon star will be more valid than mine. His opinion would be far more valid than mine because he knows considerably ..."

Lance Greenfield wrote: "Actually, I thought of a better one for you Esdaile: Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal. This is very funny and, at the same time, makes one think about the pos..."

Lance Greenfield wrote: "Esdaile wrote: "John McEnroe's opinion of the chances or the style of a new Wimbledon star will be more valid than mine. His opinion would be far more valid than mine because he knows considerably ..."

I have no objection to criticism of my views but please do not patronise me.

Yes Caris. I totally agree with Esdaile for once. That was very childish!

And I love it! I do hope that I never grow up, especially if it involves becoming very serious.

Esdaile wrote: "I have no objection to criticism of my views but please do not patronise me..."

Not an attempt at patronisation. A genuine recommendation. I really think that Lamb would make you laugh. It has given everybody I know a severe case of the chuckles. Give it a go.

Lance Greenfield wrote: "Thanks for the message Dawn.

I still stick by my opinion that one person's opinion matters as much as another's.

And you are right about how good it was to have this discussion with no bad lang..."

Your more than welcome Lance. I do agree that one person's opinion should be given the same consideration as any other. That is people who give actual opinions beyond 'I love it/hate it! Buy it/don't buy it!' For me, each reviewer, who puts time and effort into a review, carries the same weight in the final analysis. A reviewer's personal experiences and career can add weight to certain elements but it doesn't mean that their overall opinions are better. An honest response, positive, negative or indifferent can be appreciated no matter one's trained field or experiences.

Esdaile wrote: "I agree very much about the absence of profane language, which unfortunately, is more the rule than the exception on the net."
I couldn't agree more. Excessive use of profane language cheapens the opinions being presented, making it much harder to take seriously. "Cursing is the sign of a limited mind."

Esdaile wrote: "A person who sneers at works of art and cannot give reasons is not worthy of any kind of respect or regard so far as their opinion is concerned."
As a professional artist and one time Disney animator, the majority of people, outside of the art world, know little to nothing about art. This does not mean their response did not merit my respect. Admittedly they may not have been able to provide constructive criticism and may not understand the reason why they felt a certain way towards the art, but telling me that they could feel the emotion of the subject or what didn't sit right with them does have value.

Caris wrote: "Esdaile wrote: " One word for that: puerile."

Oh, Esdaile, great pillar of taste, please forgive me. And do try to use words we simpletons can understand!"

If there are words which you cannot understand, I suggest you look them up in a dictionary or check in google. Being facetitious (look it up if you do not know what it means) is a very common response to criticism to which someone cannot convincingly respond.

Dawn (& Ron) wrote: "Lance Greenfield wrote: "Thanks for the message Dawn.

I still stick by my opinion that one person's opinion matters as much as another's.

And you are right about how good it was to have this di..."
I would stress the word "opinion" in "so far as their opinion is concerned" and make a nice distinction between opinion and reaction. Their reaction might be valid and relevant for a number of reasons, but their opinion in the sense of a rational judgement is without value if they know nothing about the subject; but yes, their reaction, their emotional response, could well be relevant, interesting and valid.

I would say constructive and informed judgement rather than "rational". We cannot know what one considers rational versus another, only what we feel is rational. After all we humans can rationalize anything

Esdaile wrote: "but yes, their reaction, their emotional response, could well be relevant, interesting and valid." That is all I believe Lance is trying to say. Point of view is a synonym of opinion and synonyms of reaction are interacting, backlash, recoil and feedback as well as response. So it comes to semantics for some and gist for others.

The book was slow to capture me, but capture me it has. There is a playfulness evident here, in the way Mann teases the reader with ideas and situations. He asks one to consider larger issues beneath the surface of what he is writing. This book may not be for everyone, but it's wonderful that Mann expected that some would find it worth digging into. There are rewards here, at least for me.

Dawn (& Ron) wrote: "I would say constructive and informed judgement rather than "rational". We cannot know what one considers rational versus another, only what we feel is rational. After all we humans can rationalize..."

I do not agree that an opinion and a point of view are synonyms. I think there is, or can be, a small but significant difference, namely that a point of view stresses the "interest" in the sense of involvement, which a person has in something, in other words, the perspective from where the person stands, a subjective apprehension, whereas opinion is or tries to be or pretends to be, more objective than a point of view. For example, I might say that "from my point of view Indian music is uninteresting" but not "in my opinion Indian music is unintersting" because I can talk about my reaction to it and my point of view regarding it, but I am so ignorant about it, I have no claim to a sensible opinion about it. When I talk of my point of view, I am describing a subjective reactioon, when I am giving my opinion, I am claiming some right to judge objectively. Now that I come to think of it, the assumnption that point of view and opinion are synonyms may account for much misunderstanding in the world.

Gosh Esdaile. In your company, I am unworthy. I don't understand a word of your latest comment. No wonder I failed with The Magic Mountain. There was never any hope for me. I should know my limitations and not attempt to achieve anything which is clearly beyond those boundaries.

I can understand Feynman and Einstein and Newton, but Mann and Esdaile are way out if my league. At least I realise that now.

Must be a left brain/right brain thing.

Do people still believe in that?

Mr. Mitchell:

You wrote "I realise that I am in the minority, as most reviewers and professors of literature believe this to be a masterpiece, and probably the best book to come out of Germany in the twentieth century."

If my memory serves me well, Vladimir Nabokov hated "The Magic Mountain."

I think because it is a "novel of ideas."

So you are in good company!