Talk:Thomas Mann

message: There is any Thomas Mann's novel that is not ironic? --Vasile 22:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ironic" means "to say the opposite of what you mean." How was Mann ironic? Where, in his writings, did he say the opposite of what he meant?Lestrade (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ironic 

message: I wholeheartedly agree with the comment above - evidently Mann's repressed homosexuality influenced his writing, as well as, occasionally, his choice of theme, however it is not as central an inluencer in his writing as many other more interesting points. I may spend some time thinking about how best to edit the article to de-emphasise this without eradicating what is - nonetheless - an interesting (biographical) detail. It should always be rememebered that the author is not the book.
::::Mann's repressed homosexuality may be a myth. What proof is there that he was a repressed homosexual? It can't be assumed in the article if there is no proof. Remember, homosexuals want to insinuate that many famous people were/are homosexual. They know that doing so will influence younger readers and make them think that homosexuality is normal and natural, when in fact it is the very opposite.Lestrade (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreement: sexuality is a minor part of his oeuvre 

message: Dzoni 20:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Did he ever came back to Germany,or he died in exile?

message: To say that Mann ultimately became a left-wing "nihilist" is not only patently false (see later in the article where his humanism is discussed) but also POV, considering the negative connotation usually attached to the word nihilism (and if that connotation is not intended then some explanation is needed). Nihilism is, moreover, an ambiguous term that may or may not refer to a political philosophy, whereas here a word with strictly political meaning is called for.--Demflan 03:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nihilist" 

message: Is this edit acceptable to other users here? If so I will not oppose it. Otherwise, it seems to me disingenuous, to say the least. Haiduc 14:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: acceptable to me, and i study these issues in thomas mann and others Leskey 15:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me understand this clearly. You are saying that the article on Thomas Mann is of no interest to someone studying any of the aspects of pederasty, whether in history, literature or psychology? Haiduc 15:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please do not put words in my mouth. i said what i said, not what you asked me if i said. thomas mann is not a member of the category "pederasty" or the category "middle-class" or the category "germany". he is a member of the categories "writers who wrote about middle-class families" and "writers wrote about lubeck" and "writers who wrote about venice" and "writers who wrote long books," but he is not a member of the category "pederasty." i have now said everything i want to say about this. so if you reply, please do not ask me again if i said something that i did not say. because i said what i said. thank you. Leskey 17:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be willing to have him indexed under "Pederastic literature" though from the little I know about his diaries, his own pederastic desires expand the field of interest beyond mere literature, which is whay I had classed him under Pederasty. But no matter. Can we agree to use "Pederastic literature" as the category? Haiduc 03:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is good to chortle, but I will let you make that suggestion to the various scholars who have seen a pederastic theme in "Death in Venice". They will certainly find your suggestion edifying. Haiduc 18:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: once again you have put words in other people's mouths and assumed that they said things they didn't say. and assumed that they "suggested" things they didn't suggest. it's a powerful debating trick. but that's all it is, a trick. remind me not to get into discussions where every answer is a distortion. Leskey 19:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am genuinely sorry you are upset, but if you had not seen fit to lecture me on my obvious ignorance and simply stuck to the work of editing the article we might have had a more civilized exchange. Haiduc 20:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not perform my gadfly role all that gladly. I would much prefer to focus my attentions on articles pertaining specifically to the history and philosophy of pederasty, or perhaps to butterfly taxonomy. But that presumes that those well versed in their particular subjects deal frankly with this difficult and sensitive topic when there is an intersection, as there is here. But there seems to be too much academic or visceral distaste still for that to take place. If I overstep the mark please let me know. Haiduc 05:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peculiar edit 

message: : Thomas Mann was translated into English by H.T. Lowe-Porter, whose skillful renditions helped create Mann's popularity in the English-speaking world.
I deleted skillful from the article, since it was POV, but I think more expansion on this could be useful. The article in the Oxford Book of World Literature in English Translator was much less sanguine; it complained of a number of errors made due to Lowe-Porter's poor German skills (such as words being mistranslated as their English look-alike, not the German meaning) and the publishing having pushed Lowe-Porter to translate it quickly.--Prosfilaes 13:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English translation 

message: Since the article features a photo of Mann's summer cottage in Nida (known to him by its German name, Nidden), I added a short section explaining about the cottage. (I myself have been there twice, and I think it's definitely worth visiting.) I don't think an explanation of how this part of the Curonian Spit has been alternately part of Germany and of Lithuania several times was worth going into here.
I would suggest that our Wiki authorities on Thomas Mann expand the sparse section on Mann's life before he emigrated from Germany in revulsion at the Nazi takeover. Sca 16:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nida photo

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: However, already in 1933, in a personal letter from Oct. 26,  published only recently (see, e.g., the feuilleton  of the journal FAZ from Oct. 30, 2007), Thomas Mann wrote down views on nazism, which corresponded to the much later novel Doktor  Faustus.
This statement is interesting but I can find no reference in faz.net, or anywhere else. The entire sentence is in need of a rewrite. FAZ is a newspaper and not a journal, and should be written out in full and linked. "Oct. 30" does not conform to WP:MOS for date formats. "Nazism", I actually prefer "Naziism", should be capitalised. "Doktor Faustus" is "Doctor Faustus" in English. 
If no reference can be found for this I suggest that it be removed. Otherwise a rewrite - and exapnsion - could be done on the basis of said reference. I'm not exactly sure what the author was trying to say. It is also to be noted that this "Denglish" sentence was added from a German (DTAG) IP address. TinyMark 12:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Letter October 1933 

message: Thomas Mann has never been close to socialistic or communistic view. It is right that he and his family have been investigated during the McCarthy Era, but this is clearly not an evidence. Most liberal thinkers have been investigated in this time. Thomas Mann has in contrary to his brother Heinrich and his childern Klaus and Erika never sympathized with communistic or socialistic views. That is for example why he and Brecht never were friendly with each other. Thomas Mann was a member of the intellectual bourgoisie of his time and very conservative. Liberal and democratic proclamation never overcame this conservative background.
I think, the sentences concerning socialism/communism should be deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathilda.twist (talk • contribs) 11:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My instinct is to agree with you, but there must be lots of things by Mann I never read.   So I could be wrong.   The answer, surely, is to invite someone to quote a source for the opinion or (better still) chapter and verse as to which of his writings characterize this alleged politically pink phase.   So I entered a little flag which, let us hope, will persuade someone better read than I resolve doubts one way or the other. Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I tried to see of the assertion had been copied from the much more comprehensive German wiki entry on TM.   I couldn't find it there, but I didn't read through the entire entry, so if is is there I could still have missed it.   In general the German entry has far more source notes - as you would expect - though it's still generally not too easy to work out which bits are sourced from which source:  still, if anyone wants to comb through that lot more carefully....More regards Charles01 (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialism/Communism 

message: What's the best way to make this list clear and consistent?  Some works are identified as novels, novellas or plays.  I have figured out that the works of fiction not identified as anything are short stories; but there are other works not identified as anything which must be biographical or non-fiction.  Is it a good idea to complete the descriptions, or is there a better way of doing this?KD Tries Again (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a standard question with any writer whose work has been collected and anthologized, and especially one whose works have appeared in translation in various countries.  A good place to start is at the reference desk at a research library.   A skilled librarian might suggest that you consult  the best literary biography at hand (the bibliography).Fconaway (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Misunderstanding. I know how to complete the descriptions; I wondered if anyone had an opinion as to whether we should list every short story individually (we currently don't).  Maybe I'll look at some comparable Wiki articles and see what has been done.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Works

message: Possibly this:
"In Death in Venice [Mann] makes the identification between beauty and the resistance to natural decay, embodied by Aschenbach as the metaphor for the Nazi vision of purity..."
was written in order to demonstrate why Wikipedia should never be relied upon as a source of information. That, or the author can tell us how a book published in 1912 can have anything to do with the Nazis. 203.129.54.99 (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factcheck 

message: Thomas Mann is mentioned a lot but this article does not even cover himin pop-culture.  For instance, In the Family Guy episode where Stewie and Brian end up in Saudi Arabia they travel home via baloon to Rome and then train across the alps to Munich.  There on an open air tour bus Brian continuously badgers the misinformed tour guide for information on Thomas Mann, his home and where he went to school, etc.  This may not seem like an important reference to Mann but the more he comes up in pop culture, the more the American public will become aware of him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.91.119 (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Less Serious Cultural References

message: Thomas Mann article states that the Manns went to Venice in the SUMMER of 1911, but the Death in Venice article says it was SPRING! anyone know  which is correct? 12 July 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.60.96 (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Spring or Summer?

message: Diaries? Please put the specific references about the sexuality of Mann. Anyway, you can't put Mann among gays, lesbians, transsexuals, etc. If he knew he would die again. Realize? Mann had some homosexual tendencies. Wasn't he married with a woman, with children?  That's all. That's all. He was not transsexual. He was not lesbian. He was not bisex. Ha, ha, maybe a little bit gaylor. That's all.--85.53.132.130 (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He was a pedophile. There. I said it. Thomas Mann was a pedophile.190.62.183.7 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

text: His diaries make frequent mention of his crushes on young men and his marital impotence. So it's not as easy as pointing to a single page in the diaries. You really have to read (or at least skim) the whole thing. So he was definitely bisexual, more leaning towards gay probably. He was married, but then again his wife provided the financial basis for his career, so he was obviously very motivated to stay with her. Also, he wanted children. But even today many closeted gay men are married with children, so this is not at all unusual. --Morn (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, the Kurzke biography gives extensive quotes from his diaries on this topic, so I guess I'm putting that in as a citation. (I had his diaries loaned from the library.) But please, read up on Mann! Don't just go around deleting material just because you are uncomfortable with lesbians, or whatever the issue is here. --Morn (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Obviously you've never read "Death in Venice" or the diaries from the author you claim to love so much, because if you did you wouldn't be spouting such patent nonsense here.  --Morn (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hermann Kurzle, for example, quote that diary (Septembre 17, 1919) : "In the postwar diary was it clear to Thomas Mann that the Reflections were "also" an expression of his sexual inversion".
Textually, "SEXUAL INVERSION", that is homosexuality with no contestation possible, even with your stupid "da da da" Passepartoute (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: LGBT?

message: Shouldn't the article be arranged more chronologically? The "Death" section should logically come at the end.--WittyMan1986 (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Order 

message: Stubbing for discussion, 3 then 10 or 12 now I think. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other tag, concur, article should be at least as well developed as Hermann Hesse. Should rank with the Hebrew, Magyar, and German articles and isn't that far from 1st 2. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed stale tags to close this thread. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material corresponding to imperious comment about removing 4 year old tag 

message: Regardless of the mere fact that Mann wanted to objectively write about diverse human behaviors, I would like to include him under the following categories: (1) Incestuous Authors; (2) Adulturous Authors; and (3) Hypnotist Authors. The first judgment must result from our knowledge that he wrote the story "Wälsungenblut." The second is inferred from his authorship of Lotte in Weimar. The third certainly follows from the fact that he came out of the closet and openly published "Mario und der Zauberer" under his name.Lestrade (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thomas Mann wrote in his diaries about his "inversion" in his own words, that is his homosexuality .He didn't write he was an incestuous, adulterous and hypnotist. So, your suggestion can't be retained CordiallyPassepartoute (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

text: It is a common mistake to attribute a characteristic to an author because he assigns that property to his fictional character. Many people were disappointed to find that A. Conan Doyle was not a bit like Sherlock Holmes. Is it assumed that Thomas Mann had the same qualities as the fictional character von Aschenbach? Was von Aschenbach's fascination a mere aesthetic appreciation of youthful perfection as seen in a corporeal form? Why is it assumed by our au courant Wikipedian editors to be carnal?Lestrade (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody refered to Thomas Mann's fictional characters except you, so nobody's making the "common mistake" you invented. Hermann Kurzle, for example, quote that diary (Septembre 17, 1919) : "In the postwar diary was it clear to Thomas Mann that the Reflections were "also" an expression of his sexual inversion".
Textually, "SEXUAL INVERSION" (homosexuality with no contestation possible) It is clear enough. Cordially Passepartoute (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

text: We know of no instances where he actually acted upon it, but his 1918-era diary mentions a strong sexual attraction towards his then 13-year-old son Klaus and how he "tells it without saying it" (my own words) to his wife Katia by talking to her about (literally) "the common phenomenon of a father falling in love with and desiring his own daughter once she becomes old enough he can see her mother in her", and during the 1940s, he mentions the same attraction in his diary in regards to his grandson Fridolin, then about 5 or 6, upon whom he modelled the character of little Echo in his Doctor Faustus. --80.187.106.89 (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Thomas Mann as incestuous, adulterous, hypnotist

message: It seems that at some stage, as is too common on Wikipedia, somebody wrote a school paper and was so impressed with himself that he decided to make it an article here.  The problem is that much of it smacks of original research and/or personal insights and uncited assertions.  Even the citations that are there are often vague, unnumbered, as if the editor is fudging.
Wikipedia articles are not about the editor's knowledge or insight about the subject but what he knows about the current published research out there.  It is irrelevant if you think you are an expert on Mann and want him to be a subject of some LGBT debate.  If there's  a scholarly debate going on, then describe it.  Don't advocate.  Otherwise you are part of what makes Wikipedia a joke as a serious source of knowledge.
I removed one paragraph that was an editor's unsourced opinions about what Mann "means".  The remaining paragraph -- with its Nietzschean paraphernalia -- is just second-rate school essay stuff that doesn't belong in an article on Thomas Mann..
As it is, the Mann article is pretty pitiful and deserves far.better coverage.
J M Rice (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very poor, un-encyclopedic article on a major author 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Thomas Mann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20011230180843/http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1603/16031170.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1603/16031170.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The German page on Thomas Mann seems to be in better shape. Should I just translate it and replace parts of the English page? I think this might fix quite a few of the problems with this page. What do other users think? NoetherianRing (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer:  yes please.   There seems to be a lot of stuff in the German entry that the English entry doesn't touch.   If you come across things that are in the English version but not the German version, then normally they should be kept too.   That's where it gets fiddly.   But if you have the skill, energy and will to make a start, please go ahead.   With any luck you'll get so intrigued that you won't be able to stop till you get to the end.   Either way, success.   Charles01 (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of the German page 

message: The section on Mann's sexuality omits the obvious topic of how his marriage was impacted by his alternative passions, whether Katia knew about them, and if so, how she accommodated this in her endless devotion. It may be that there is no explicit source material on this, but it might merit further research. Cliffewiki (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality omission 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I find it a little concerning that Mann's sexuality is addressed only in terms of "homosexuality", without any substantive reference to his pedophilia. Most of the same-sex attraction described concerns young children, and skirting around that fact risks equating homosexuality to pedophilia - shouldn't some differentiation be required? Jamboy (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wrote a very similar comment before seeing yours! Thoroughly agree. I might look into what sources discuss this and edit accordingly, but in one way or another describing physical attraction to a 10 year old and his own prepubescent son (…) as just ‘homosexuality’ is deeply disturbing. Harsimaja (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedophilia 

message: Thomas Mann’s artistic works fully resonate only with minds that are of a higher level. Is it ironic that such an author should have an encyclopedia article that obsesses with low, perverse carnality? If so, is such irony deserved?96.235.138.158 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposite outcome

message: The discussion of his sexuality simply characterises it as ‘homosexuality’, while also providing details of his attraction to a ten year old and his own pre-pubescent son. Conflation of paedophilia with homosexuality is far too prevalent already. That is not normal ‘homosexuality’. Surely, simply given the article as it stands, there are secondary sources characterising this as paedophilia? Harsimaja (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presentation of sexual attraction to children as simply ‘homosexuality’