Scan barcode
juuhae's review against another edition
4.0
Unfortunately, Hermann lost me in the last twenty pages. Too much pathos-drunk verbiage for my taste (even though he would probably argue that I'm a victim of the cold, ornament-less modern style of thinking). Not to mention the dusty language from the first half of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, I was fascinated by the strictly theoretical and structure-emphasising composition, especially with the essay on the collapse of values in the third book. What amazes me above all is that, despite the fact that the whole trilogy is a huge, social-theoretical essay on the collapse of values at the start of the modern age, you can empathise with the characters so well.
Each book contains a complex, perfectly thought-out constellation of characters built around the main character. All the characters act in such a way that their personalities are believable. They never degenerate into symbolic instruments, which in my opinion is a gigantic narrative achievement considering the theoretical foundation. What's more, you get an insight into the innermost, intimate world of the characters and subsequently take each one to your heart. In short: I would love to have Hermann Broch's writing skills!
Each book contains a complex, perfectly thought-out constellation of characters built around the main character. All the characters act in such a way that their personalities are believable. They never degenerate into symbolic instruments, which in my opinion is a gigantic narrative achievement considering the theoretical foundation. What's more, you get an insight into the innermost, intimate world of the characters and subsequently take each one to your heart. In short: I would love to have Hermann Broch's writing skills!
almarais's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
agirlwithajournal's review against another edition
2.0
Had to read for uni. It's horrible. Did Not Finish it.
coffeebooks's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.75
christiannasbooktrips's review against another edition
emotional
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
Just amazing.... Broch's art on writing is unbelievable
regitzexenia's review against another edition
2.0
Oh dear I never thought I would finish this. Holy moly. The only thing I have to say is that I am glad I'm done with it.
kingkong's review against another edition
4.0
The first two parts are pretty cool because theyre about these neurotic guys trying to get laid, but I dont even know what the third part is about. Goodreads staff please add 3 instead of 1 to my '2013 books read' because this is a trilogy
dcandia_riq's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
levitybooks's review against another edition
Avoid.
Here's a 1-2* rant review of why I DNF'ed at page 24 (it starts on page 9, so really page 15).
The story's foundation is soiled. You absolutely cannot base a character's origin on an unrealistic portrayal of good vs. evil.
The story begins by introducing a characteristically short man who has spider-like movements with his cane — a truly repugnant father — who disrespects and ignores his wife. He takes his son to the casino, which is really more of a strip club, and decides, in front of military soldiers who also happen to be there, that he and his son should take two prostitutes together, and insinuates that maybe his son should have a serious relationship with one of them (marriage?). Clearly the son, and everyone, despises the father.
Now it's well-written and these sentences flow well together and are complex. But I forsee the next 600+ pages, three novellas in a trilogy, together, being about the son retaliating against this fabrication of an evil father.
The foundation is flawed — no married man, not even the most damned married man, would ever take his young son to a stripper.
It just seems like a bad thing for Hermann Broch to even suggest as an author. He's playing on a trope of what bad men should do, but twisting it to unrealistic extremes. It makes me distrust the realism of whatever he wants to tell us as readers, perhaps about the son growing into a better man as a counterpoint to this fabrication. He's exaggerating already unhealthy stereotypes.
My personal gripe was the suggestion that the father's depravity is characteristic of short men, right from the first page.
"who could not comprehend how any woman could ever have looked upon him or embraced him with desire in her eyes; and at most they would allow him only the Polish maids on his estate, and held that even these he must have got round by that slightly hysterical and yet arrogant aggressiveness which is often characteristic of small men."
"For nobody who had a serious end in view could walk like that [...] and one was terrified by the intuition that it was a devil's walk [...]"
I don't like that he equates evil with ugliness, and judges so heavily and immediately on outward characteristics. It's petty to discriminate so dispassionately against those less fortunately endowed.
It'd be like a book that mocks a girl for being too tall, or anyone for being too fat, or a certain skin colour... if it's ever going to be done, it needs to have the right tone or intention. This seemingly impartial narrator has all the immediacy and hastiness in judgement as any vocal component of hate speech. I don't want to be told about love and life from the same voice which casts such a monstrous character into existence without fair judgement — it is a lazy counterpoint for the character development that I'm sure makes up the rest of this journey.
And I was beginning to see the son's retaliation in clothing, how unlike all the other officers who wore sloppy uniform he kept it smart. I thought how trite a metaphor for morality after that waste of an introduction — and if the son truly felt at odds with a corrupt society would he at his lowest military rank immediately retaliate openly against the enemy? Where is the sense in that? To destroy a bad system you need to infiltrate, to build a secret union or a public rank, before you can begin signalling opposition. Otherwise you will be smited before your time — perhaps that was the next plot event. Even if it wasn't, by this point, I didn't care to know.
I'll bet most readers who love this book immediately forget the basis for this story. They let it slide and follow along with the story. They sit and watch this character grow for 600 pages and think what a lifetime of development they have witnessed. How marvelous. They forget that it began and was initiated by this mistake of a reality. Broch makes this character origin story short, and speeds past it to hope readers forget how stupid a portrayal of corruption it was.
But, as a reader, I don't forget. And so, I choose to walk away from this.
—
Other smaller factors for DNF:
-I can't not read Joachim as 'Joe-a-Kim'. Try as I might, my brain always says that, and it's irritating!
-The prostitute had the same name as my most recent ex-girlfriend. I didn't want 600+ pages of that.
-I'd have to read this in a week, 70+ pages a day, based on my non-renewable library loan. It'd be asking a lot.
-I have better books I'd rather read, both of which are ARC reviews, so I have higher priorities.
-I'm tired of Chaotic Age literature from Germany. I think I 'get it' now. I'll come back for Grass, Musil and Mann later in my life, but for now, I don't care for it.
-This is my first piece of evidence that Michael Orthofer has no idea what he is talking about. This book cannot be the gold standard of literature with such a flawed introduction. It could still well be a 4* story, but the introduction is irredeemably imperfect.
Here's a 1-2* rant review of why I DNF'ed at page 24 (it starts on page 9, so really page 15).
The story's foundation is soiled. You absolutely cannot base a character's origin on an unrealistic portrayal of good vs. evil.
The story begins by introducing a characteristically short man who has spider-like movements with his cane — a truly repugnant father — who disrespects and ignores his wife. He takes his son to the casino, which is really more of a strip club, and decides, in front of military soldiers who also happen to be there, that he and his son should take two prostitutes together, and insinuates that maybe his son should have a serious relationship with one of them (marriage?). Clearly the son, and everyone, despises the father.
Now it's well-written and these sentences flow well together and are complex. But I forsee the next 600+ pages, three novellas in a trilogy, together, being about the son retaliating against this fabrication of an evil father.
The foundation is flawed — no married man, not even the most damned married man, would ever take his young son to a stripper.
It just seems like a bad thing for Hermann Broch to even suggest as an author. He's playing on a trope of what bad men should do, but twisting it to unrealistic extremes. It makes me distrust the realism of whatever he wants to tell us as readers, perhaps about the son growing into a better man as a counterpoint to this fabrication. He's exaggerating already unhealthy stereotypes.
My personal gripe was the suggestion that the father's depravity is characteristic of short men, right from the first page.
"who could not comprehend how any woman could ever have looked upon him or embraced him with desire in her eyes; and at most they would allow him only the Polish maids on his estate, and held that even these he must have got round by that slightly hysterical and yet arrogant aggressiveness which is often characteristic of small men."
"For nobody who had a serious end in view could walk like that [...] and one was terrified by the intuition that it was a devil's walk [...]"
I don't like that he equates evil with ugliness, and judges so heavily and immediately on outward characteristics. It's petty to discriminate so dispassionately against those less fortunately endowed.
It'd be like a book that mocks a girl for being too tall, or anyone for being too fat, or a certain skin colour... if it's ever going to be done, it needs to have the right tone or intention. This seemingly impartial narrator has all the immediacy and hastiness in judgement as any vocal component of hate speech. I don't want to be told about love and life from the same voice which casts such a monstrous character into existence without fair judgement — it is a lazy counterpoint for the character development that I'm sure makes up the rest of this journey.
And I was beginning to see the son's retaliation in clothing, how unlike all the other officers who wore sloppy uniform he kept it smart. I thought how trite a metaphor for morality after that waste of an introduction — and if the son truly felt at odds with a corrupt society would he at his lowest military rank immediately retaliate openly against the enemy? Where is the sense in that? To destroy a bad system you need to infiltrate, to build a secret union or a public rank, before you can begin signalling opposition. Otherwise you will be smited before your time — perhaps that was the next plot event. Even if it wasn't, by this point, I didn't care to know.
I'll bet most readers who love this book immediately forget the basis for this story. They let it slide and follow along with the story. They sit and watch this character grow for 600 pages and think what a lifetime of development they have witnessed. How marvelous. They forget that it began and was initiated by this mistake of a reality. Broch makes this character origin story short, and speeds past it to hope readers forget how stupid a portrayal of corruption it was.
But, as a reader, I don't forget. And so, I choose to walk away from this.
—
Other smaller factors for DNF:
-I can't not read Joachim as 'Joe-a-Kim'. Try as I might, my brain always says that, and it's irritating!
-The prostitute had the same name as my most recent ex-girlfriend. I didn't want 600+ pages of that.
-I'd have to read this in a week, 70+ pages a day, based on my non-renewable library loan. It'd be asking a lot.
-I have better books I'd rather read, both of which are ARC reviews, so I have higher priorities.
-I'm tired of Chaotic Age literature from Germany. I think I 'get it' now. I'll come back for Grass, Musil and Mann later in my life, but for now, I don't care for it.
-This is my first piece of evidence that Michael Orthofer has no idea what he is talking about. This book cannot be the gold standard of literature with such a flawed introduction. It could still well be a 4* story, but the introduction is irredeemably imperfect.
saussierr's review
5.0
The Romantic (finished, loved it), The Anarchist (part I am on), The Realist. Translated by Ediwn Muir!
More...