Talk:Doctor Faustus (novel)

Untitled

This article is in serious need of a major rewrite--24.111.60.193 03:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --W(t) 03:39, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

I've never read Mann. Perhaps someone who has can rewrite this?--24.111.60.193 03:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I can always translate and merge the German W article. Let's see when I get around to it. Arbor 06:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, done it. As always, when I translate from the German, my English becomes awkward, so a native anglophone should look it over. I would also like to add a plot summary and and overview of the characters. (It's been a while since I read it, but the 'net has plenty of information to help me along.) The thematic section would benefit from expansion as well. On the other hand, I am less than thrilled with the current Political implications section. The style is not very encyclopedic, and the contents are not neutral. I would like to just scrap that whole section. (That is not to say that the political implications are unimportant. They certainly deserve a paragraph under Themes.) Arbor 07:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I originally authored the ""Political Implications"" section, but looking at it now, I agree with Arbor's critique. I'm going ahead and removing it. I do think the question of the moral health of nations is essential to the novel, so I'll keep at least a reference to that in the ""Themes"" section. Joesilber 28 June 2005

Joe, thanks for looking into this again. I agree with your assessment of the book and its themes, and I hope you down take my comments so far as to eliminate what might become a valuable thematic section for this book. (Which is why I never got around to actually removing the section.) I think a healthy dose of rewriting and attributing is all that is needed. I would be happy if you gave it a shot; WP's laudable insistence on WP:NPOV and WP:NOR shouldn't imply that our literature articles become mere plot summaries, uninformative, or downright boring. Arbor 29 June 2005 08:47 (UTC)

I am amazed that it has not been mentioned that the character of Adrian Leverkuhn is heavily modeled on Nietzsche!

Unreferenced remarks re translations

I don't know if this kind of comment is appropriate, but I'm appalled by these comments on the translation by HT Lowe-Porter: "It is quite serviceable, although the English is often awkward and sometimes ugly as the translator attempted to preserve the linguistic spirit of the author's own era (a stylistic sensibility so difficult to reproduce in subsequent generations). In an effort to reproduce the effect of Mann's archaic German, used in various sections of the novel, Lowe-Porter uses archaic English vocabulary and phrasing, but the effect in English is very different, being merely disconcerting.

The English only seems "awkward" to people who can only accept 21st century English. In my opinion, HT L-P's English is absolutely masterly, indeed it represents a major work of art in itself. I often re-read this book simply for the rare pleasure of reading perfect English.....furthermore the archaic sections are excellent. The epigonal translation mentioned subsequently is simply not in the same class. (This unsigned comment was left by an unidentified user on 12 July 2007)

I share the view expressed above and have removed these unreferenced statements of opinion as to the preference for one or other translation. Eebahgum 12:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

9 January 2010

Most of the changes I just made are selfexplanatory. But let me add the following:

I replaced Kant with Dürer because I do not remember the former in the novel but a long discussion of the latter's Melencholia I or Melencolia.

Like other jewish names deriving from the name of a town Breisacher means a man from Breisach on the Rhein. Breisacher has not and does not suggest any other meaning. And although Brei is indeed pulp or mash or puree, Breisacher is neither a person or a tool used for making it nor the porridge they serve at the Hotel Sacher in Vienna.

Vogler is fowler, not prattler. Cf. King Henry the fowler in Lohengrin (opera).

How Serenus could possibly hint to Seraphicus remains a secret. Franz Schubert was just Franz Peter, although the librettist of his requiem was a Franz Seraphicus Schmid.

Nepomuk was a quite popular name in catholic Austria and Bavaria. The German Thomas Mann knew and used has no such word as Mucke and anyway it is hard to assume that Mann could have intended to suggest capriciousness of that little angel Echo. The discussion of this nickname does not convince/satisfy me and I could well do without it. But I did not touch it.

Considering that Marlowe's Faustus had most probably no importance at all for Thomas Mann's novel it doesn't make much sense to expressly mention it. 91.62.111.150 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Besides the "echolalia" under "Allusive naming" much of or at least the first paragraph of "Models for the composer-legend" should be thrown out. It is tempting to assume that Franz Schmidt's oratorium could have been the model for Leverkühn's. Decades of intense research with publication of Mann's diaries and correspondence however have not produced the slightest hint that Mann even knew of Schmidt's composition. The work or its composer are nowhere mentioned and especially not in the book Thomas Mann wrote about the making of the novel where he disclosed his sources and inspirations.

But Mann expressly explained there why Nietzsche is nowhere mentioned in the novel: because Leverkühn is Nietzsche. It is more than weird that this is not in the article but instead the fabrication that Mann "worked as a Music critic" around WW I. Absurd! --91.62.71.218 (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC) now signed --Vsop.de (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Added ==References==

so the few notes would display.Kmccook (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)