Did n't finish because some untranslated text.

I am in two - actually many - minds about this book. It was very hard reading at times, and I was tempted to skip some of the long intellectual – and often unintelligible - arguments between the Italian humanist and the Jewish-born Jesuit; but I persisted. Some of the writing – in its understated and long-winded, verbose and multiple subordinated clause style – is quite amusing. The interjection of the author’s commentary into the narrative is at first alarming, but I got used to it. It is very much on a par with Mann’s essay at the end of this edition in which he reviews his own work and recommends reading it twice, if you liked it the first time.

Although I had not quite articulated this to myself, I think I did realize at some point that the whole thing is not to be taken literally, that it is allegorical – although of what, I could not say. I even realized that the novel marks in some way the gradual evolution of the mind of its hero, Hans Castorp. Even though he is throughout depicted as a rather shallow bland person, and both of his would-be mentors continually put him in his place, I thought that he held his own reasonably well with them . So I guess that I was gratified to read in Mann’s essay that the American poet Howard Nemerov wrote a paper (of which Mann approves) describing Hans Castorp as “The Questor Hero”.

Never mind that both were dying of TB, what are we to think of the fact that two of the most important influences on Hans Castorp – the Jesuit and the Dutch merchant – both take their own lives? The Jesuit was the intellectual antagonist of Settembrini, of whom Hans Castorp is most fond; while the Dutchman is the companion of Madame Chauchat, with whom Hans Castorp has fallen passionately in love. Is this a morality tale, in which the foes of the hero have to meet their just deserts?

I don’t exclude the possibility that I might some day re-read the book; but it will not be for a good while. ( )

What can I possibly say? It's beautiful. I'd put this high up on my list of favorite classics. ( )

This book, written in 1924, is considered by many to be one of the most important books of the 20th century. Hans Castorp leaves his "flat-land" home in Germany and travels to a tuberculosis sanatorium in the mountains of Switzerland. What began as a visit became a seven-year stay. The "veil" is drawn and he becomes a hermetic somnambulist, on the "magic mountain", losing all connection to his former life, only to "awaken" suddenly, like a modern-day Rip Van Winkle.
Mann uses the main characters to speculate about time, life, death, illness, religion, love, sexuality, morality, history, and politics, therefore, the narrative devolves into tedious monologues that are sometimes torturous to read. For instance:
"What is time? A mystery, a figment- and all-powerful. It conditions the exterior world, it is motion married to and mingled with the existence of bodies in space, and with the motion of these. Would there then be no time if there were no motion? No motion if no time? We fondly ask. Is time a function of Space? Or space of time? Or are they identical? Echo answers. Time is functional, it can be referred to as action; we say a thing's "brought about" by time. What sort of thing? Change!
Now is not then, her not there, for between them lies motion." But the motion by which one measures time is circular, is in a closed circle; and might almost equally be described as rest. as cessation of movement- for the there repeats itself constantly in the here, the past in the present. Furthermore...."
You get the picture. There is very little action. The characters eat, rest, "take stock", stroll, and philosophize...and all are described in excruciating detail. Some interesting events. Castorp gets lost in a blizzard and has an allegorical dream (the famous chapter entitled "Snow"). Castorp attends a seance. Of course, Mann takes the opportunity to "enrich" this with the a discussion on metaphysics. Near the end of the book, there is a duel, which includes an explanation the relationship between dueling and chivalry:
"The duel, my friend, is not an 'arrangement', like another. It is the ultimate, the return to a state of nature, slightly, mitigated by regulations which are chivalrous in character but extremely superficial. The essential nature of the thing remains the primitive, the physical struggle; and however civilized a man is, it is his duty to be ready for such a contingency, which many any day arise....it is the duty of a man to remain a man."
Lastly, after 729 mostly agonizing pages, the ending was a disappointment. But I will leave it to you, dear readers to make your own opinion about that.
It is interesting to note that only a year later, Ernest Hemingway published "In Our Time", followed by his novel "The Sun Also Rises" in 1927; Fitzgerald published "The Great Gatsby" in 1925. I prefer the more succinct style of Hemingway, or the lyrical style of Fitzgerald to the didactic, philosophical, wordy style of Mann.
2.5 rounded up to 3. The seance and duel were enjoyable to read. They could have been short stories on their own, and held surprises! ( )

Very much enjoyed ( )