What do you think?
Rate this book
Das Kaiserreich #1
Der Untertan
Unusual book
448 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1918
230 people are currently reading
3949 people want to read
About the author
Heinrich Mann
497 books120 followersA German novelist who wrote works with social themes whose attacks on the authoritarian and increasingly militaristic nature of post-Weimar German society led to his exile in 1933.
Born in Lübeck as the oldest child of Thomas Johann Heinrich Mann and Júlia da Silva Bruhns. He was the elder brother of Thomas Mann. His father came from a patrician grain merchant family and was a Senator of the Hanseatic city. After the death of his father, his mother moved the family to Munich, where Heinrich began his career as a freier Schriftsteller or free novelist.
Born in Lübeck as the oldest child of Thomas Johann Heinrich Mann and Júlia da Silva Bruhns. He was the elder brother of Thomas Mann. His father came from a patrician grain merchant family and was a Senator of the Hanseatic city. After the death of his father, his mother moved the family to Munich, where Heinrich began his career as a freier Schriftsteller or free novelist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 204 reviews
Read
April 16, 2020The Child is father to the Man
The Untertan is a Bildungsroman or as the afterword has it; a deformation process. We see the upbringing of the child Diederich Hessling, frightened by his father, by the fairy tales he is told, shellshocked by his education so that by the time he is sent to university in Berlin he is a quivering wreck. There he is finally shaped and polished by his identification with German Emperor Kaiser Bill and membership of the Neutentonia student association.
When I first read this, years and years ago in the previous century I found it a period piece. Just the old cold dead politics and sociology of the Germany of the 1880s and 90s. Reading it again now, it was at times painfully contemporary. Hessling is an ordinary if thoroughly intimidated child who transforms himself through identification with emperor into a cynical and vicious bully - this enables him to be hugely successful , he remains underneath his psychological defences a rather sensitive soul, his anxiety visible in occasional tense moments or playing Schubert on the piano as a counterpoint to his actions.
Hessling's identification with Wilhelm II is maybe not so strange as the unfortunate fellow was born
with one of his arms behind his head leaving him disabled, medical interventions included him sitting with his withered arm inside the body of a freshly killed rabbit with the hope that it's animal vitality would transfer itself to the young Prince's arm . Naturally as crown Prince he had to learn how to ride a horse, equally naturally with one underdeveloped arm he would simply slide off the beast - repeatedly. Despite or more likely because of all this he worked hard to transform himself into a flashy figure, an extravagant public speaker, keen on the politics of gesture and personal interventions. And this is who Hessling models himself on - the agitator-in-chief - as he calls the Emperor at one moment.
There is not really a plot as such, we follow Hessling's life through a series of episodes, which by and large see his rise and rise through society and his success over rivals. It is broadly comic (though not for those who fall foul of Hessling). A nice film version was made in the 1950s , at the end of which they unsubtly draw the line between the political rhetoric of the 1890s and the political action of the Nazi era. Again the child is father of the man. I imagine that Heinrich Mann would have been completely supportive of such an interpretation , as it was his book was first published in 1918 - after the entire Imperial edifice had collapsed, and completed in 1914 (though he had been working on the novel since 1906. It is hard for a writer to keep ahead of events, all his words on the hollowness and vileness of a society which like Hessling can vary between servile and snivelling self abasement at moment and bombastic bullying the next, where too late to cause a great scandal in its own time, but fortunately people don't change much and political life it seems is devoted to recycling, there does not seem an particular shortage of societies that create and reward their Hesslings at the moment.
I am still wondering about the (literary) relationship between the brothers Mann, Brother Thomas at the time of Der Untertan was doing his best to be avowedly apolitical and I think brother Heinrich's tendency towards broad, even slap stick humour is stronger, but there are some overlaps such as characters caught in tension between the people they want to have sex with and those that they can have socially acceptable relationships with a certain interest in closed or semi-permeable groups within society, a tantalising reference here to the opera Lohengrin.
The Untertan is a Bildungsroman or as the afterword has it; a deformation process. We see the upbringing of the child Diederich Hessling, frightened by his father, by the fairy tales he is told, shellshocked by his education so that by the time he is sent to university in Berlin he is a quivering wreck. There he is finally shaped and polished by his identification with German Emperor Kaiser Bill and membership of the Neutentonia student association.
When I first read this, years and years ago in the previous century I found it a period piece. Just the old cold dead politics and sociology of the Germany of the 1880s and 90s. Reading it again now, it was at times painfully contemporary. Hessling is an ordinary if thoroughly intimidated child who transforms himself through identification with emperor into a cynical and vicious bully - this enables him to be hugely successful , he remains underneath his psychological defences a rather sensitive soul, his anxiety visible in occasional tense moments or playing Schubert on the piano as a counterpoint to his actions.
Hessling's identification with Wilhelm II is maybe not so strange as the unfortunate fellow was born
with one of his arms behind his head leaving him disabled, medical interventions included him sitting with his withered arm inside the body of a freshly killed rabbit with the hope that it's animal vitality would transfer itself to the young Prince's arm . Naturally as crown Prince he had to learn how to ride a horse, equally naturally with one underdeveloped arm he would simply slide off the beast - repeatedly. Despite or more likely because of all this he worked hard to transform himself into a flashy figure, an extravagant public speaker, keen on the politics of gesture and personal interventions. And this is who Hessling models himself on - the agitator-in-chief - as he calls the Emperor at one moment.
There is not really a plot as such, we follow Hessling's life through a series of episodes, which by and large see his rise and rise through society and his success over rivals. It is broadly comic (though not for those who fall foul of Hessling). A nice film version was made in the 1950s , at the end of which they unsubtly draw the line between the political rhetoric of the 1890s and the political action of the Nazi era. Again the child is father of the man. I imagine that Heinrich Mann would have been completely supportive of such an interpretation , as it was his book was first published in 1918 - after the entire Imperial edifice had collapsed, and completed in 1914 (though he had been working on the novel since 1906. It is hard for a writer to keep ahead of events, all his words on the hollowness and vileness of a society which like Hessling can vary between servile and snivelling self abasement at moment and bombastic bullying the next, where too late to cause a great scandal in its own time, but fortunately people don't change much and political life it seems is devoted to recycling, there does not seem an particular shortage of societies that create and reward their Hesslings at the moment.
I am still wondering about the (literary) relationship between the brothers Mann, Brother Thomas at the time of Der Untertan was doing his best to be avowedly apolitical and I think brother Heinrich's tendency towards broad, even slap stick humour is stronger, but there are some overlaps such as characters caught in tension between the people they want to have sex with and those that they can have socially acceptable relationships with a certain interest in closed or semi-permeable groups within society, a tantalising reference here to the opera Lohengrin.
January 22, 2020
is the best known novel of German author originally published in German under the title "Der Untertan" whatever that means. I'll have to go look it up, but it probably has nothing to do with the words "Man of Straw" because that seems to happen fairly often. It has been translated into English under the titles "Man of Straw", "The Patrioteer", and "The Loyal Subject", and obviously I got the "Man of Straw" copy. Heinrich Mann was a German novelist who wrote works with strong social themes. His first name was Luiz but I guess he didn't like that name and went by Heinrich, I wouldn't know how to say Luiz anyway. He criticized the growth of fascism often which forced him to flee for his life after the Nazis came to power in 1933. When he left Germany he first went to France and lived in Paris and Nice. When I first read that I thought that the way things went during World War II fleeing to France probably wasn't all that safe, but then I read that during the German occupation he escaped to Spain, Portugal, and then to America. His brother was Thomas Mann, also a writer. I was wondering as I read about him if he had another brother, it feels like he should have. His father's name was Thomas Johann Heinrich Mann, and his brother got the name Thomas, he got the name Heinrich, so it seems like they should have had another brother to take the name Johann, but I can't find one.
I also read that the Nazis burnt Heinrich Mann's books as "contrary to the German spirit" during the infamous book burning of May 10, 1933, which was instigated by the then Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels. I'm wondering how infamous it was because I didn't even know there was a book burning in 1933, but there are many things I don't know and have to go look up as I read, the book burning will be one of them. But since my copy wasn't burnt I suppose I should talk about it.
When I finished the last page of and closed the book my first reaction was to celebrate, maybe bake a cake, throw a party, that kind of thing, I managed to control myself and make my strongest reaction to be go get another book, which is better than a party any day. I was so proud of myself because I made it to the last page and for a while it was very questionable that I would be able to spend that much time with the main character, Diederich Hessling. I can't stand this guy and I did not want to spend almost 300 pages of our lives together, the first 100 were bad enough, but the "I always finish a book" instinct in me was strong, so I finished it. Always finish a book except two I guess I should say.
As I've said before how I feel about a book is always how I end up rating the book, so things like how well it is written and such mean nothing to me. Somewhere in the introduction to my copy it says:
"Heinrich Mann's is one of the few outstanding political satires of German literature."
I wonder if there's any character worse than Diederich in less outstanding political satires of German literature. It is also the only book besides to get two entries in "The Political Imagination in Literature" which means nothing to me, and the only thing saving that political imagination book from sounding extremely boring would be that it has the word literature in the title. However, there is more to saving the book other than it's title, which, come to think of it I don't exactly understand, I liked the book, it was interesting at parts anyway, I just hated Diederich. If Mann wanted me to hate the character when he created him he certainly succeeded, but he should have given me some character to love in his place. I didn't dislike anyone else, I just didn't care about them. I am curious enough though, now that I've read the book, to go look up the emperor of the time, Wilhelm II, who before I read this I knew nothing about, and now that I've read it I only know that he was the Emperor of Germany. One of many I would think. So far my only feeling toward the guy is I feel sorry for him having people like Diederich obsessed with him and following him around. Diederich is like an emperor stalker, or maybe an early paparazzi without a camera.
Diederich, when he isn't being a big bully, or a liar, or a chauvinist - oh, he doesn't seem to like anybody but that emperor - he's just running around acting plain crazy. Here is his first "meeting" with his emperor:
"Hurrah!' shouted Diederich, for everyone was shouting and, caught in a great surge of shouting people, he was carried along to the Brandenburger Tor. A few steps in front of him rode the Emperor. Diederich could see his face, its stony seriousness and flashing eyes, but he was shouting so loudly that his sight was blurred. An intoxication, more intense and nobler than that stimulated by beer, raised his feet off the ground and carried him into the air. He waved his hat high above all heads in enthusiastic madness, in a heaven where our finest feelings move. There on the horse rode Power, through the gateway of triumphal entries, with dazzling features, but graven as in stone. The Power which transcends us and whose hoofs we kiss, the Power which is beyond the reach of hunger, spite and mockery!"
Now I'm already thinking the guy is crazy and we're not out of the first chapter yet, then we have this happen,
"Diederich looked like a man in a very dangerous state of fanaticism (no kidding), dirty and torn, with wild eyes - from his horse the Emperor gave him a piercing glance which went through him. Diederich snatched his hat off, his mouth was wide open, but not a sound came from it. As he came to a sudden stop he slipped and sat down violently in a puddle, with his legs in the air, splashed with muddy water. Then the Emperor laughed. The fellow was a monarchist, a loyal subject! The Emperor turned to his escort, slapped his thigh and laughed. From the depths of his puddle Diederich stared after him, open-mouthed."
Now it's not his fault he fell into a puddle, anyone could, but he is so proud of this afterwards, and the way he goes around bragging to people of how he met the Emperor sounds a little crazy. Then there is his wonderful military career he is always going around telling us about, of his bravery, of how he would still be in the military if he hadn't been injured, a foot injury which he faked; he is the strongest proponent of the military but certainly went out of his way to be excused from his obligatory military service. He is often doing things that are confusing to me, for instance when he is with Agnes, the girl in love with him (for some unknown reason); she hides in his closet when one of his friends comes to visit, and this happens when the friend leaves.
"When he opened the door, however, she was leaning over a chair, her breast was heaving and with her handkerchief she was stifling her gasps. She looked at him with reddened eyes, and he saw that she had almost chocked in there, and had cried - while he was sitting out here drinking and talking a lot of nonsense. His first impulse was one of immense remorse. She loved him! There she sat, loving him so much, that she bore everything! He was on the point of raising his arms and throwing himself before her, weeping and begging her pardon. He restrained himself just in time; he was afraid of the scene and the sentimental mood which would follow, and would cost him more of his working time and would give her the upper hand. He would not give her that satisfaction. For, of course, she was exaggerating on purpose."
But, back to our fascination with the Emperor, here is what happens when Diederich and his new bride, Guste are on their way to their honeymoon:
"They got into a first-class carriage. He gave the porter three marks and pulled down the blinds. Carried on the wings of happiness, his desire for action suffered no relaxation. Guste could never have expected so amorous a temperament.
'You are not like Lohengrin,' she said.
As she closed her eyes, Diederich got up again. Like a man of iron he stood before her, his order hanging on his breast; it glittered like steel.
'Before we go any farther,' he said in martial tones, 'let us think of His Majesty, our Gracious Emperor. We must keep before us the higher aim of doing honour to His Majesty, and of giving him capable soldiers.'
"Oh!' cried Guste, carried away into loftier splendours by the sparkling ornament on his breast. 'Is it...really...you...my Diederich!'
Ok, reading over that again, I can see that maybe there are two crazy people in the book. And when Diederich and Guste realize the Emperor is in town, Diederich goes on paparazzi duty:
"Meanwhile a knot of curious onlookers had formed, and then the gatekeeper stepped to one side. Behind an outrider, in an open carriage, came the blond ruler of the North, beneath his flashing eagle-helmet. Diederich's hat was in the air and he shouted in Italian, with the precision of a pistol-shot: 'Long live the Emperor!' And obligingly the knot of people shouted with him.
In a jump Diederich had got into his one-horse carriage, which stood ready, and was off in pursuit, urging the coachman with hoarse cries and an ample tip. Now he stops, for the imperial carriage is only just coming up. When the Emperor gets out there is another little knot of people, and again Diederich shouts in Italian...Watch must be kept in front of the house where the Emperor lingers! With chest extended and flashing eyes: let him beware who ventures to come too near! In ten minutes the little group re-forms, the carriage drives out through the gate, and Diederich shouted: 'Long live the Emperor!'........ and on and on and on.
Ok, I'm done and you can go and read the book if you can actually find it and actually want to. I only talked about the things that bothered me, there is a lot more to the story, the parts that make the guy a big bully, but I've talked long enough about this book and I'm ready to move on. I was somewhat distressed to read that is only the first part of a trilogy and I'm not sure I can take two more books of these people, on the other hand, maybe they all get what they deserve in the end. What I think they deserve that is. I'm going to look up the emperor. It would be three stars without Diederich, I'm not sure what it is with him.
I also read that the Nazis burnt Heinrich Mann's books as "contrary to the German spirit" during the infamous book burning of May 10, 1933, which was instigated by the then Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels. I'm wondering how infamous it was because I didn't even know there was a book burning in 1933, but there are many things I don't know and have to go look up as I read, the book burning will be one of them. But since my copy wasn't burnt I suppose I should talk about it.
When I finished the last page of and closed the book my first reaction was to celebrate, maybe bake a cake, throw a party, that kind of thing, I managed to control myself and make my strongest reaction to be go get another book, which is better than a party any day. I was so proud of myself because I made it to the last page and for a while it was very questionable that I would be able to spend that much time with the main character, Diederich Hessling. I can't stand this guy and I did not want to spend almost 300 pages of our lives together, the first 100 were bad enough, but the "I always finish a book" instinct in me was strong, so I finished it. Always finish a book except two I guess I should say.
As I've said before how I feel about a book is always how I end up rating the book, so things like how well it is written and such mean nothing to me. Somewhere in the introduction to my copy it says:
"Heinrich Mann's is one of the few outstanding political satires of German literature."
I wonder if there's any character worse than Diederich in less outstanding political satires of German literature. It is also the only book besides to get two entries in "The Political Imagination in Literature" which means nothing to me, and the only thing saving that political imagination book from sounding extremely boring would be that it has the word literature in the title. However, there is more to saving the book other than it's title, which, come to think of it I don't exactly understand, I liked the book, it was interesting at parts anyway, I just hated Diederich. If Mann wanted me to hate the character when he created him he certainly succeeded, but he should have given me some character to love in his place. I didn't dislike anyone else, I just didn't care about them. I am curious enough though, now that I've read the book, to go look up the emperor of the time, Wilhelm II, who before I read this I knew nothing about, and now that I've read it I only know that he was the Emperor of Germany. One of many I would think. So far my only feeling toward the guy is I feel sorry for him having people like Diederich obsessed with him and following him around. Diederich is like an emperor stalker, or maybe an early paparazzi without a camera.
Diederich, when he isn't being a big bully, or a liar, or a chauvinist - oh, he doesn't seem to like anybody but that emperor - he's just running around acting plain crazy. Here is his first "meeting" with his emperor:
"Hurrah!' shouted Diederich, for everyone was shouting and, caught in a great surge of shouting people, he was carried along to the Brandenburger Tor. A few steps in front of him rode the Emperor. Diederich could see his face, its stony seriousness and flashing eyes, but he was shouting so loudly that his sight was blurred. An intoxication, more intense and nobler than that stimulated by beer, raised his feet off the ground and carried him into the air. He waved his hat high above all heads in enthusiastic madness, in a heaven where our finest feelings move. There on the horse rode Power, through the gateway of triumphal entries, with dazzling features, but graven as in stone. The Power which transcends us and whose hoofs we kiss, the Power which is beyond the reach of hunger, spite and mockery!"
Now I'm already thinking the guy is crazy and we're not out of the first chapter yet, then we have this happen,
"Diederich looked like a man in a very dangerous state of fanaticism (no kidding), dirty and torn, with wild eyes - from his horse the Emperor gave him a piercing glance which went through him. Diederich snatched his hat off, his mouth was wide open, but not a sound came from it. As he came to a sudden stop he slipped and sat down violently in a puddle, with his legs in the air, splashed with muddy water. Then the Emperor laughed. The fellow was a monarchist, a loyal subject! The Emperor turned to his escort, slapped his thigh and laughed. From the depths of his puddle Diederich stared after him, open-mouthed."
Now it's not his fault he fell into a puddle, anyone could, but he is so proud of this afterwards, and the way he goes around bragging to people of how he met the Emperor sounds a little crazy. Then there is his wonderful military career he is always going around telling us about, of his bravery, of how he would still be in the military if he hadn't been injured, a foot injury which he faked; he is the strongest proponent of the military but certainly went out of his way to be excused from his obligatory military service. He is often doing things that are confusing to me, for instance when he is with Agnes, the girl in love with him (for some unknown reason); she hides in his closet when one of his friends comes to visit, and this happens when the friend leaves.
"When he opened the door, however, she was leaning over a chair, her breast was heaving and with her handkerchief she was stifling her gasps. She looked at him with reddened eyes, and he saw that she had almost chocked in there, and had cried - while he was sitting out here drinking and talking a lot of nonsense. His first impulse was one of immense remorse. She loved him! There she sat, loving him so much, that she bore everything! He was on the point of raising his arms and throwing himself before her, weeping and begging her pardon. He restrained himself just in time; he was afraid of the scene and the sentimental mood which would follow, and would cost him more of his working time and would give her the upper hand. He would not give her that satisfaction. For, of course, she was exaggerating on purpose."
But, back to our fascination with the Emperor, here is what happens when Diederich and his new bride, Guste are on their way to their honeymoon:
"They got into a first-class carriage. He gave the porter three marks and pulled down the blinds. Carried on the wings of happiness, his desire for action suffered no relaxation. Guste could never have expected so amorous a temperament.
'You are not like Lohengrin,' she said.
As she closed her eyes, Diederich got up again. Like a man of iron he stood before her, his order hanging on his breast; it glittered like steel.
'Before we go any farther,' he said in martial tones, 'let us think of His Majesty, our Gracious Emperor. We must keep before us the higher aim of doing honour to His Majesty, and of giving him capable soldiers.'
"Oh!' cried Guste, carried away into loftier splendours by the sparkling ornament on his breast. 'Is it...really...you...my Diederich!'
Ok, reading over that again, I can see that maybe there are two crazy people in the book. And when Diederich and Guste realize the Emperor is in town, Diederich goes on paparazzi duty:
"Meanwhile a knot of curious onlookers had formed, and then the gatekeeper stepped to one side. Behind an outrider, in an open carriage, came the blond ruler of the North, beneath his flashing eagle-helmet. Diederich's hat was in the air and he shouted in Italian, with the precision of a pistol-shot: 'Long live the Emperor!' And obligingly the knot of people shouted with him.
In a jump Diederich had got into his one-horse carriage, which stood ready, and was off in pursuit, urging the coachman with hoarse cries and an ample tip. Now he stops, for the imperial carriage is only just coming up. When the Emperor gets out there is another little knot of people, and again Diederich shouts in Italian...Watch must be kept in front of the house where the Emperor lingers! With chest extended and flashing eyes: let him beware who ventures to come too near! In ten minutes the little group re-forms, the carriage drives out through the gate, and Diederich shouted: 'Long live the Emperor!'........ and on and on and on.
Ok, I'm done and you can go and read the book if you can actually find it and actually want to. I only talked about the things that bothered me, there is a lot more to the story, the parts that make the guy a big bully, but I've talked long enough about this book and I'm ready to move on. I was somewhat distressed to read that is only the first part of a trilogy and I'm not sure I can take two more books of these people, on the other hand, maybe they all get what they deserve in the end. What I think they deserve that is. I'm going to look up the emperor. It would be three stars without Diederich, I'm not sure what it is with him.
May 3, 2025
Name des Patienten: Heßling, Diederich
Wohnort: Netzig, zeitweise Berlin
Beruf: Unternehmer (Besitzer einer Papierfabrik), Doktorexamen (Chemie)
Protokollierender Arzt: Heinrich Mann
Profil des Patienten:
Ausgewogener Respekt vor Autoritäten, bis hin zu vollkommener Obrigkeitshörigkeit. Vermeintlich Schwächere oder Personen, die er in der sozialen Hierarchie unter sich einstuft, werden mit Verachtung und Geringschätzung gestraft. Seine Menschenkenntnis ist hierbei öfters fehlerhaft, wodurch ihm persönliche und finanzielle Nachteile entstehen, auch weil er Ratschläge nicht annehmen will. Allianzen schließt er, wenn sie ihm zum Vorteil gereichen, hat aber wenig Skrupel diese zu lösen, falls er sich nicht mehr auf der Siegerseite währt. Zivicourage zeigt der Patient wenig, Strafen von Autoritäten werden nicht infrage gestellt.
Unerschütterliche Kaisertreue und Ablehnung von Sozialismus und demokratischen Bewegungen. Verherrlicht Militär und Imperialismus, sowie dessen Ästhetik und Symbolismus. Schloss den Militärdienst nicht ab, da er diesem körperlich nicht gewachsen war. Diesen Fakt versucht er zu verbergen und gibt vor aufgrund einer Verletzung ausgeschieden zu sein.
Der Patient legt einen starken Opportunismus an den Tag, auch in seinem persönlichen Leben. Damit präsentiert er sich als ein Produkt seines Umfeldes, welches die gleichen Tendenzen aufweist. Moralisch als verwerflich einzustufende Taten des Patienten stechen eher hervor, da ihnen mehr Aufmerksamkeit zugewandt wird, weniger, da sie besonders schwerwiegend sind. Trotz seines autoritären Auftretens, auch der Familie gegenüber, starkes Verlagen nach Führung und Dominanz, der er sich gerne unterordnet - auch im Liebesleben.
Anmerkungen: Manns ausführlicher Bericht zeigt exemplarisch ein Bild der wilhelminischen Gesellschaft zur Zeit der Jahrhundertwende. Hierdurch wird eine genaue Darstellung des Diederich Heßling erreicht. Genauigkeit der Darstellung an Stellen fraglich, da scheinbar stark satirisch übertrieben und teilweise wiederholend. Obwohl die Charakterisierung gut gelingt, geschieht dies zu Lasten der gesellschaftlichen Intrigen und deren Tathergang. Andere, im Bericht erwähnte Individuen als Bezugspersonen Heßlings, fehlt es in ihrer Beschreibung an Tiefe, trotz der Länge der Aufzeichnungen. Zeitgeist wurde getroffen, darum großer Bekanntheitsgrad. Als Zeitzeugnis durchaus wertvoll.
Wohnort: Netzig, zeitweise Berlin
Beruf: Unternehmer (Besitzer einer Papierfabrik), Doktorexamen (Chemie)
Protokollierender Arzt: Heinrich Mann
Profil des Patienten:
Ausgewogener Respekt vor Autoritäten, bis hin zu vollkommener Obrigkeitshörigkeit. Vermeintlich Schwächere oder Personen, die er in der sozialen Hierarchie unter sich einstuft, werden mit Verachtung und Geringschätzung gestraft. Seine Menschenkenntnis ist hierbei öfters fehlerhaft, wodurch ihm persönliche und finanzielle Nachteile entstehen, auch weil er Ratschläge nicht annehmen will. Allianzen schließt er, wenn sie ihm zum Vorteil gereichen, hat aber wenig Skrupel diese zu lösen, falls er sich nicht mehr auf der Siegerseite währt. Zivicourage zeigt der Patient wenig, Strafen von Autoritäten werden nicht infrage gestellt.
Unerschütterliche Kaisertreue und Ablehnung von Sozialismus und demokratischen Bewegungen. Verherrlicht Militär und Imperialismus, sowie dessen Ästhetik und Symbolismus. Schloss den Militärdienst nicht ab, da er diesem körperlich nicht gewachsen war. Diesen Fakt versucht er zu verbergen und gibt vor aufgrund einer Verletzung ausgeschieden zu sein.
Der Patient legt einen starken Opportunismus an den Tag, auch in seinem persönlichen Leben. Damit präsentiert er sich als ein Produkt seines Umfeldes, welches die gleichen Tendenzen aufweist. Moralisch als verwerflich einzustufende Taten des Patienten stechen eher hervor, da ihnen mehr Aufmerksamkeit zugewandt wird, weniger, da sie besonders schwerwiegend sind. Trotz seines autoritären Auftretens, auch der Familie gegenüber, starkes Verlagen nach Führung und Dominanz, der er sich gerne unterordnet - auch im Liebesleben.
Anmerkungen: Manns ausführlicher Bericht zeigt exemplarisch ein Bild der wilhelminischen Gesellschaft zur Zeit der Jahrhundertwende. Hierdurch wird eine genaue Darstellung des Diederich Heßling erreicht. Genauigkeit der Darstellung an Stellen fraglich, da scheinbar stark satirisch übertrieben und teilweise wiederholend. Obwohl die Charakterisierung gut gelingt, geschieht dies zu Lasten der gesellschaftlichen Intrigen und deren Tathergang. Andere, im Bericht erwähnte Individuen als Bezugspersonen Heßlings, fehlt es in ihrer Beschreibung an Tiefe, trotz der Länge der Aufzeichnungen. Zeitgeist wurde getroffen, darum großer Bekanntheitsgrad. Als Zeitzeugnis durchaus wertvoll.
November 12, 2023
Stilistisch holprig, dialogisch collagiert und holzschnittartig verbrämt, dennoch ein Wilhelminisches Gruselkabinett ersten Ranges.
Heinrich Mann schreibt in , dass er in „Der Untertan“ den „widerwärtig interessanten Typus des imperialistischen Untertanen, des Chauvinisten ohne Mitverantwortung, des in der Masse verschwindenden Machtanbeters, des Autoritätsgläubigen wider besseres Wissen“ gestalten möchte. Seine Kunstfigur heißt Diederich Heßling, und sie kommt, wie bereits zu erahnen ist, im Buch nicht gut weg:
Die andern schwankten hinterdrein, Diederich aber, kein Komment half ihm mehr, glitt hin, wo er stand. Zwei städtische Wächter [Roms] fanden ihn, an die Mauer gelehnt, in einer Lache sitzen. Sie erkannten den Beamten im persönlichen Dienst des Deutschen Kaisers, und voll tiefer Besorgnisse beugten sie sich über ihn. Gleich darauf aber sahen sie einander an und brachen in ungeheure Fröhlichkeit aus. Der persönliche Beamte war gottlob nicht tot, denn er schnarchte; und die Lache, in der er saß, war kein Blut.
Heinrich Mann greift zur bitterbösen Satire und tritt mit dem 1918 erschienen Roman, vier Jahre später als geplant wegen der kaiserlichen Zensur während der Dauer des 1. Weltkrieges, deutlich gegen die nun Geschichte gewordenen Kaisertreuen nach. Ausgewogenheit lässt sich nicht erhoffen. Der aufhaltsame Aufstieg Diederichs findet vor allem statt, weil alle anderen auch nicht besser sind. Der Untertan spielt einzig in der Oberschicht, nicht ganz aristokratisch, aber schon fast nicht mehr bürgerlich. Es geht um Staatsanwälte, Industrielle, um reiche Erbinnen, Inzest im Großbürgertum, um Sadomasochismus, Kurtisanen, um Regierungspräsidenten, also um die repräsentativen, sich ums Politische streitenden, erotomanischen Bessergestellten:
Dies schien Guste die letzten Bedenken zu nehmen. Sie erhob sich; indes sie in fesselloser Weise mit den Hüften schaukelte, begann sie ihrerseits heftig zu blitzen, und den wurstförmigen Finger gebieterisch gegen den Boden gestreckt, zischte sie: »Auf die Knie, elender Schklafe!« Und Diederich tat, was sie heischte! In einer unerhörten und wahnwitzigen Umkehrung aller Gesetze durfte Guste ihm befehlen: »Du sollst meine herrliche Gestalt anbeten!« — und dann auf den Rücken gelagert, ließ er sich von ihr in den Bauch treten.
Was geht schief? Die Satire trifft den Zeitgeist. Das Buch Der Untertan wird zum riesigen Erfolg und feiert seinen eigenen Sieg auf dem Rücken der jüngst niedergerungenen Kaiserherrlichkeit. Heinrich Mann bedient Schadenfreude und zieht alle Register, seine eigenen Figuren ins Lächerliche zu ziehen. Leider bleibt dabei die Handlung, völlig auf der Strecke. Die Intrigen, von denen der Roman nur so strotzt, werden inhaltlich gar nicht motiviert. Es bleibt völlig im Unklaren, welche Rollen die Stadtverordnetenversammlung, der Regierungspräsident, der Kriegsveteranenverein administrativ einnehmen. Auch der Börsenhandel, die Spekulation, die industrielle Produktion dümpeln im Ungefähren herum. Details spielen einfach keine Rolle. Wichtig ist nur, dass der intrigante Heßling Profit daraus schlägt. Woraus? Unwichtig, und weiter geht’s.
Sprache wie Handlungsbogen, wie Konfliktsituation von „Der Untertan“ überzeugen nicht. Der Roman erscheint als Vorläufer von den Bertolt Brechtschen Agitprop-Theaterstücken und , nur ohne die Fröhlichkeit, die Intensität, ohne die Lieder und das Selbstbewusstsein, die darin überparteilich aufblitzen mögen.
Über 500 Seiten darauf zu verwenden, immer wieder darzulegen, was für ein schlechter Kerl der Diederich Heßling ist, ohne die Konfliktkonstellationen auszuloten, erscheint dann am Ende zu wenig, zumal die Sprache spröde, holzschnittartig, brachial zu Werke geht und Lesefluss wie -genuss trotz Glaubwürdigkeit der Figuren gar nicht erst aufkommen lässt.
Heinrich Mann schreibt in , dass er in „Der Untertan“ den „widerwärtig interessanten Typus des imperialistischen Untertanen, des Chauvinisten ohne Mitverantwortung, des in der Masse verschwindenden Machtanbeters, des Autoritätsgläubigen wider besseres Wissen“ gestalten möchte. Seine Kunstfigur heißt Diederich Heßling, und sie kommt, wie bereits zu erahnen ist, im Buch nicht gut weg:
Die andern schwankten hinterdrein, Diederich aber, kein Komment half ihm mehr, glitt hin, wo er stand. Zwei städtische Wächter [Roms] fanden ihn, an die Mauer gelehnt, in einer Lache sitzen. Sie erkannten den Beamten im persönlichen Dienst des Deutschen Kaisers, und voll tiefer Besorgnisse beugten sie sich über ihn. Gleich darauf aber sahen sie einander an und brachen in ungeheure Fröhlichkeit aus. Der persönliche Beamte war gottlob nicht tot, denn er schnarchte; und die Lache, in der er saß, war kein Blut.
Heinrich Mann greift zur bitterbösen Satire und tritt mit dem 1918 erschienen Roman, vier Jahre später als geplant wegen der kaiserlichen Zensur während der Dauer des 1. Weltkrieges, deutlich gegen die nun Geschichte gewordenen Kaisertreuen nach. Ausgewogenheit lässt sich nicht erhoffen. Der aufhaltsame Aufstieg Diederichs findet vor allem statt, weil alle anderen auch nicht besser sind. Der Untertan spielt einzig in der Oberschicht, nicht ganz aristokratisch, aber schon fast nicht mehr bürgerlich. Es geht um Staatsanwälte, Industrielle, um reiche Erbinnen, Inzest im Großbürgertum, um Sadomasochismus, Kurtisanen, um Regierungspräsidenten, also um die repräsentativen, sich ums Politische streitenden, erotomanischen Bessergestellten:
Dies schien Guste die letzten Bedenken zu nehmen. Sie erhob sich; indes sie in fesselloser Weise mit den Hüften schaukelte, begann sie ihrerseits heftig zu blitzen, und den wurstförmigen Finger gebieterisch gegen den Boden gestreckt, zischte sie: »Auf die Knie, elender Schklafe!« Und Diederich tat, was sie heischte! In einer unerhörten und wahnwitzigen Umkehrung aller Gesetze durfte Guste ihm befehlen: »Du sollst meine herrliche Gestalt anbeten!« — und dann auf den Rücken gelagert, ließ er sich von ihr in den Bauch treten.
Was geht schief? Die Satire trifft den Zeitgeist. Das Buch Der Untertan wird zum riesigen Erfolg und feiert seinen eigenen Sieg auf dem Rücken der jüngst niedergerungenen Kaiserherrlichkeit. Heinrich Mann bedient Schadenfreude und zieht alle Register, seine eigenen Figuren ins Lächerliche zu ziehen. Leider bleibt dabei die Handlung, völlig auf der Strecke. Die Intrigen, von denen der Roman nur so strotzt, werden inhaltlich gar nicht motiviert. Es bleibt völlig im Unklaren, welche Rollen die Stadtverordnetenversammlung, der Regierungspräsident, der Kriegsveteranenverein administrativ einnehmen. Auch der Börsenhandel, die Spekulation, die industrielle Produktion dümpeln im Ungefähren herum. Details spielen einfach keine Rolle. Wichtig ist nur, dass der intrigante Heßling Profit daraus schlägt. Woraus? Unwichtig, und weiter geht’s.
Sprache wie Handlungsbogen, wie Konfliktsituation von „Der Untertan“ überzeugen nicht. Der Roman erscheint als Vorläufer von den Bertolt Brechtschen Agitprop-Theaterstücken und , nur ohne die Fröhlichkeit, die Intensität, ohne die Lieder und das Selbstbewusstsein, die darin überparteilich aufblitzen mögen.
Über 500 Seiten darauf zu verwenden, immer wieder darzulegen, was für ein schlechter Kerl der Diederich Heßling ist, ohne die Konfliktkonstellationen auszuloten, erscheint dann am Ende zu wenig, zumal die Sprache spröde, holzschnittartig, brachial zu Werke geht und Lesefluss wie -genuss trotz Glaubwürdigkeit der Figuren gar nicht erst aufkommen lässt.
January 21, 2023
Ziemlich witzig, dafür, dass es schon über 100 Jahre alt ist.
Diederich Heßling ist der namensgebenden Untertan, der es mit seinen Intrigen trotz Feigheit, Trinksucht und anderer schlimmer Charaktverfehlungen an die Spitze der Stadt Netzing schafft - das alles nur, weil er brav und kaisertreu ist.
Das Buch ist an sich überhaupt nicht befriedigend, weil Diederich einer der schlimmsten Figuren ist, von denen ich je gelesen habe und man ihm nur das Schlechteste wünscht. Man wird beim Lesen immer wieder zum Reflektieren angehalten und gewinnt ein gutes Verständnis der damaligen Zeit.
Diederich Heßling ist der namensgebenden Untertan, der es mit seinen Intrigen trotz Feigheit, Trinksucht und anderer schlimmer Charaktverfehlungen an die Spitze der Stadt Netzing schafft - das alles nur, weil er brav und kaisertreu ist.
Das Buch ist an sich überhaupt nicht befriedigend, weil Diederich einer der schlimmsten Figuren ist, von denen ich je gelesen habe und man ihm nur das Schlechteste wünscht. Man wird beim Lesen immer wieder zum Reflektieren angehalten und gewinnt ein gutes Verständnis der damaligen Zeit.
March 3, 2019
Dieses Buch als Hörbuch zu hören, war mehr als unterhaltsam. Heinrich Manns böser, ironischer Blick auf die damalige Gesellschaft ist großartig und auf den Punkt.
August 14, 2021
"Non parlerò dunque del principe, ma del suddito che egli foggia: non di Guglielmo II, ma del teste Heßling. Lor signori l’hanno visto! Un uomo comune, di media intelligenza, succube dell’ambiente e dell’occasione, pusillanime finché le cose sono andate male per lui, pieno di sé non appena sono mutate".
"Come lui ce ne furono a migliaia in passato […] A differenziarlo e a renderlo un nuovo tipo è soltanto il gesto: l’entrata tronfia, l’indole battagliera di una personalità presunta, il volersi imporre ad ogni costo, quand’anche questo costo dovessero pagarlo altri".
Questo è il romanzo più conosciuto di Heinrich Mann, fratello del più noto Thomas, che con il suo odioso, borioso, bigotto, sciovinista e misogino protagonista esprime tutto il raccapriccio verso la figura del borghese tedesco dell'epoca di Guglielmo II, ultimo imperatore tedesco dopo l'annessione Germania/Prussia, forte coi deboli e falsamente servile col potere.
Questo tratteggio, avrà ironia profetica, dal momento che lo scriverà in forma di romanzo a puntate a partire dal 1914, quindi prima dell'avvento di Hitler, ma prefigurandone le caratteristiche salienti.
Il suo impegno contro il nazionalsocialismo sarà sempre più esposto nelle sue opere, e pertanto, una volta salito al potere Hitler, sar�� costretto ad emigrare e vivere una vita da esule.
Ho intrapreso la lettura di questo romanzo perché mi incuriosiva conoscere qualcosa di questo Mann che ha sempre sofferto il confronto con il più celebre fratello.
Lettura non semplice e protagonista irritante ma ne è valsa la pena.
"Come lui ce ne furono a migliaia in passato […] A differenziarlo e a renderlo un nuovo tipo è soltanto il gesto: l’entrata tronfia, l’indole battagliera di una personalità presunta, il volersi imporre ad ogni costo, quand’anche questo costo dovessero pagarlo altri".
Questo è il romanzo più conosciuto di Heinrich Mann, fratello del più noto Thomas, che con il suo odioso, borioso, bigotto, sciovinista e misogino protagonista esprime tutto il raccapriccio verso la figura del borghese tedesco dell'epoca di Guglielmo II, ultimo imperatore tedesco dopo l'annessione Germania/Prussia, forte coi deboli e falsamente servile col potere.
Questo tratteggio, avrà ironia profetica, dal momento che lo scriverà in forma di romanzo a puntate a partire dal 1914, quindi prima dell'avvento di Hitler, ma prefigurandone le caratteristiche salienti.
Il suo impegno contro il nazionalsocialismo sarà sempre più esposto nelle sue opere, e pertanto, una volta salito al potere Hitler, sar�� costretto ad emigrare e vivere una vita da esule.
Ho intrapreso la lettura di questo romanzo perché mi incuriosiva conoscere qualcosa di questo Mann che ha sempre sofferto il confronto con il più celebre fratello.
Lettura non semplice e protagonista irritante ma ne è valsa la pena.
June 24, 2023
Ich hätte nie gedacht, dass mir das Buch so gut gefallen wird. Professor Unrat habe ich von Heinrich Mann schon gelesen, das hat aber bei weitem keinen solchen Eindruck hinterlassen.
Zuerst tat ich mir, wie oft bei Klassikern ein bisschen schwer mit der Sprache, aber je weiter ich im Buch vorankam, desto besser gefiel es mir.
Es war sehr unterhaltsam und stellenweise lustig.
Zwischendurch schockierte es mich mit antisemitischen Äußerungen. Es zeichnet ein großartiges Bild der Gesellschaft zu jener Zeit.
Und man kann Vergleiche mit heute ziehen. Demokratie gegen Nationalismus.
Und ich hab in Diederich sehr oft Trump gesehen.
Zuerst tat ich mir, wie oft bei Klassikern ein bisschen schwer mit der Sprache, aber je weiter ich im Buch vorankam, desto besser gefiel es mir.
Es war sehr unterhaltsam und stellenweise lustig.
Zwischendurch schockierte es mich mit antisemitischen Äußerungen. Es zeichnet ein großartiges Bild der Gesellschaft zu jener Zeit.
Und man kann Vergleiche mit heute ziehen. Demokratie gegen Nationalismus.
Und ich hab in Diederich sehr oft Trump gesehen.
February 6, 2017
Diederich is Trump, basically, except for the Kaiser-worship. Interesting indeed. Diederich needs the stupid sycophancy to make the rest of his odious character work, whereas Trump doesn't. Otherwise, it's all narcissism, misogyny, greed and moral vacuity.
July 13, 2021
Zitat: „Die Macht, die über uns hingeht und deren Hufe wir küssen! Gegen die wir nichts können, weil wir alle sie lieben! Die wir im Blut haben, weil wir die Unterwerfung darin haben!“
March 25, 2022
Als Schullektüre Schmutz. Niemand würde diesen Roman wirklich mit Interesse lesen, wenn man dazu gezwungen wird. Es ist auch einiges an Vorwissen über die Zeit im Kaiserreich (und davor) nötig, welches man im Normalfall als Schüler*In nicht hat.
Je länger man sich damit beschäftigt, desto mehr kann man nachvollziehen, warum Diederich so ein Sack ist, aber während dem Lesen selbst war es manchmal einfach nicht ertragbar.
Je länger man sich damit beschäftigt, desto mehr kann man nachvollziehen, warum Diederich so ein Sack ist, aber während dem Lesen selbst war es manchmal einfach nicht ertragbar.
January 7, 2025
Nach "Mephisto" durfte ich nun zum zweiten Mal in den Genuss eines Mann-Romans kommen ,diesmal jedoch vom Onkel Heinrich. Die Lese bleibt etwa gleich: Erneut folgen wir einem im höchsten Maße unsympathischen Protagonisten, Diederich, der im wilhelminischen Kaiserreich lustig vor sich hindenunziert, intrigiert und, wie der Klappentext passend beschreibt: "nach oben buckelt und nach unten tritt". Ich persönlich hatte sehr viel Freude über ca. 400 Seiten die "Karriere" dieses Ekels mitzuerleben. An Aktualität hat dieses Buch auf jeden Fall nicht eingebüßt.
September 3, 2017
"O νομοταγής πολίτης" στα Ελληνικά, εκδόσεις Οδυσσέας
April 20, 2022
anfang war okay. irgendwann einfach nur zäh. hab bei der hälfte aufgehört zu lesen.
klausur rasiert deshalb hab ich entschieden das nicht zu ende zu lesen. mental damit abgeschlossen.
klausur rasiert deshalb hab ich entschieden das nicht zu ende zu lesen. mental damit abgeschlossen.
January 21, 2021
Heinrich Mann liefert eine interessante Perspektive auf die wilhelminische Zeit. Mit Diederich hat Mann eine schreckliche Hauptfigur geschaffen, aber die Art und Weise, in der er mit dem Charakter spielt, wie er ihn vorführt, hat das Buch in meinen Augen erst lesenswert gemacht. Wirklich gutes Buch, dessen Lektüre sich (vielleicht auch gerade) heute noch lohnt.
July 28, 2015
تصویر روشنی از جامعه آلمان پیش از به قدرت رسیدن هیتلر، در حقیقت با خوندن این کتاب معلوم میشه در طول چندین سا آلمان خود رو برای پذیرفتن شخصی با خصوصیات اخلاقی هیتلر اماده میکنه
کتابی نیست که تنها یا یکبار خوندن بشه همه مطلب رو درک کرد
کتابی نیست که تنها یا یکبار خوندن بشه همه مطلب رو درک کرد
August 2, 2011
Wirklich witzig! Was Joseph Roth's Radetzkymarsch für den Österreicher ist, ist der Untertan für den deutschen nur mit deutlich beissenderem Sarkasmus.
December 7, 2012
review of
Heinrich Mann's Little Superman
by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE - January 9, 2012
I learned about this author in the course of research for my movie Robopaths. I learned that his bks were burned by the nazis so I decided to read something by him & to check out any movies that might've been based on any bks by him. This lead me to taking Little Superman out from the library as well as the movie The Kaiser's Lackey as well as to my buying a used copy of the novel Man of Straw. &, Lo & Behold!, they're all the same thing!
As Andrew Donson, Assistant Professor of History and German & Scandinavian Studies @ the University of Massachusetts Amherst, explains in the "Interpreting The Kaiser's Lackey" extra on the movie's DVD version:
"The English title of this film is not a literal translation of the German one, Der Untertan, which is a difficult word to translate. It literally means "The Subject", as in "The Subject of the King" - but in current & turn-of-the-century discourse, the "untertan" has also an authoritarian connotation. Various translators have rendered the title as: "The Patrioteer", "Little Superman", "Man of Straw", & "The Loyal Subject". An awkward, but perhaps more accurate translation of the title would be "The Servile Chauvinist Underling". The title of this film, the same title as Heinrich Mann's 1914 novel on which it's based, captures the main theme. Diederich [the story's central character] is on the one hand a tyrant who lords over other untertanen. On the other hand, he often finds himself in situations where he is the untertan, where others exercise their will over him. The essence and the humor of the film is that Diederich is happy in both situations. The narrative of the film shows how the institutions that shape Diederich's life, family, school, university, brotherhood, army, workplace, and government produce and regulate this authoritarian mentality."
[As a sidenote for bibliophiles, the Penguin edition (1984) that I have, Man of Straw gives no credit to a translator & yet it appears to be the exact same translation as the library edition that I read, Little Superman, published by Creative Age Press, Inc (1947). I suspect some shenanigans & intrigue in the omission of the translator's name in the Penguin edition, so I include it here: Ernest Boyd.]
As soon as I started reading this bk, I found the central character insufferable. He embodies everything that I detest: hypocrisy, social climbing, spinelessness, abusiveness, fraudulence, etc.. He is, indeed, a "Servile Chauvinist Underling", as Donson puts it. I was about 1/3rd of the way thru the bk when I watched the movie & learned that this was meant to be satire. I suppose it 'shd've' been obvious to me that it was intended to be satire all along but it seemed entirely too realistic to really be caricature. &, as the back-cover of Man of Straw states: "Heinrich Mann (brother of Thomas) was imprisoned for his radical and outspoken views, and spent a long exile from the country at which he aimed his bitter satire." - & that's no laughing matter.
Mann was condemned in Nazi Germany for writing Un-German works or some such but I don't think that the hypocrisy & opportunistic cowardice that he so thoroughly portrays is intrinsically German. It may've reached a particular nationalistic fervor in Germany but it was hardly confined to there. In fact, Mann's parody of upper middle class Germany isn't so far off from the lower middle class Baltimore that I grew up in. I'm reminded of a photographer that I once knew. He incessantly ridiculed me for valuing anything other than money. However, once he started realizing that my willful rejection of the 'values' that he represented was earning me some respect from others, he tried to sleaze up to me by asking me to pose for him as a photographer's model. I refused.
Mann's novel is such a thorough look at the completely unscrupulous machinations of his main character that I can only conclude that Mann, himself, must've been surrounded by such contemptible behavior. Diederich is constantly betraying & groveling, ass-kissing & terrorizing - wchever seems 'appropriate' to his 'social position' in relation to who he's dealing w/. & Mann depicts this utterly brilliantly. Diederich is constantly engaged in some sort of fraudulent dealings that he trembles at the thought of getting caught out at & blusteringly camouflages under cover of patriotic bullshit. The library copy that I read has one section underlined in ink that expresses Diederich's philosophy, in the mouth of one of his cronies, quite nicely:
""Democracy is the philosophy of the half-educated," said the apothecary. "It has been defeated by science." Some one shouted: "Hear! Hear!" It was the druggist who wished to associate with him. "There will always be masters and men," asserted Gottlieb Hornung, "for it is the same in nature. It is the one great truth, for each of us must have a superior to fear, and an inferior to frighten. What would become of us otherwise? If every nonentity believes that he is somebody, and that we are all equal! Unhappy the nation whose traditional and honorable social forms are broken up by the solvent of democracy, and which allows the disintegrating standpoint of personality to get the upper hand!"
Two pages later, the same underliner highlighted part of this passage:
"Diederich raised himself on his toes, "Gentlemen," he shouted, carried away on the tide of national emotion, "the Emperor William Monument shall be a mark of reverence for the noble grandfather whom we all, I think I may say, worship almost as a saint, and also a pledge to the noble nephew, our magnificent young Emperor, that we shall ever remain as we are, pure, liberty-loving, truthful, brave, and true!"
The underliner (not the untertan) emphasizes Diederich's claim of being "pure, liberty-loving, truthful, brave, and true!" w/ an exclamation mark next to it presumably b/c these are all qualities wch Diederich is completely lacking in. Earlier, I mention "Diederich's philosophy" - but that's misleading. In order to have a philosophy, one probably has to have a mind capable of formulating a justified position to adhere to. Diederich lacks even that - he simply takes the most cowardly & dishonest path of least resistance & changes his political allegiances to kowtow to whoever he's most afraid of at the time.
In the East German film version, a scene that exemplifies the preposterous bravuro posturing that Diederich & his kind rely on for image-building & bullying is the duel. The scene is also in the bk but I found it more compelling in the movie. It's common for men in Diederich's class to initiate duels w/ each other in order to simulate bravery. Under the most ridiculous pretexts ('Sir! You were looking at me!' - that sort of thing), men challenge each other as if their honor can bear no insult. But, as w/ cowards & bullies the world over, it's all just pretense. They know they're not taking any risks whatsoever. As w/ generals who send soldiers to the slaughter, it's the soldiers who get senselessly killed, while the generals, safe elsewhere, get the medals & other social rewards.
These duels consist of nothing more than 2 men heavily padded & w/ one arm behind their back fighting w/ swords until one of them scratches the other on the face. Even their eyes are heavily protected w/ goggles. As soon as Diederich is scratched on the cheek, he gets his scar that 'proves' his bravery - even though there's no risk of serious injury. Diederich then uses the scar as a badge of 'honor'. It's all completely ridiculous.
After Diederich unsuccessfully & humiliatingly attempts to get Lieutenant von Brietzen to not leave Diederich's 'dishonored' sister in the lurch, he's walking on the streets. "Suddenly he noticed that the gardens were still full of perfume and twittering beneath the spring skies, and it became clear to him that Nature itself, whether she smiled or snarled, was powerless before Authority, the authority above us, which is quite impregnable. It was easy to threaten revolution, but what about the Emperor William Monument? Wulckow and Gausenfeld? Whoever trampled others from under foot must be prepared to be walked on, that was the iron law of might. After his attack of resistance, Diederich again felt the secret thrill of the man who is trampled upon. . . . A cab came along from behind, Herr van Brietzen and his trunk. Before he knew what he was doing Diederich faced about, ready to salute."
In one of the very rare moments where Diederich somewhat introspectively criticizes the worldview that he otherwise takes for granted, Diederich sees his now 'dishonored' sister, Emma, in a new light: "The lieutenant, who had caused all this, lost notably in comparison - and so did the Power, in whose name he had triumphed. Diederich discovered that Power could sometimes present a common and vulgar appearance. Power and everything that went with it, success, honour, loyalty. he looked at Emma and was forced to question the value of what he had attained or was still striving for: Guste and her money, the monument, the favour of the authorities, Gausenfeld, distinctions and high office." Indeed. Alas, this critical introspection doesn't last long.
I noted earlier that these characteristics were hardly confined to Germans. As Diederich bullies 'his' employees he tells them: ""But I forbid socialistic agitation! In the future you can vote as I tell you, or leave!" Diederich also said that he was determined to curb irreligion. He would note every Sunday who went to church and who did not. "So long as the world is unredeemed from sin, there will be war and hatred, envy and discord. Therefore, there must be one master!" This reminds me of Henry Ford.
There's an excellent documentary about Ford called "Demon Rum" in wch some important points about the ironies of Ford's 'moralism' are highlighted - particularly the way in wch his 'moralism' helped create a subculture of thugs that he then used to suppress unions. In the Wikipedia bio of Ford ( ) we find this:
"The profit-sharing was offered to employees who had worked at the company for six months or more, and, importantly, conducted their lives in a manner of which Ford's "Social Department" approved. They frowned on heavy drinking, gambling, and what might today be called "deadbeat dads". The Social Department used 50 investigators, plus support staff, to maintain employee standards; a large percentage of workers were able to qualify for this "profit-sharing.""
The Wikipedia entry qualifies this by saying that "Ford's incursion into his employees' private lives was highly controversial, and he soon backed off from the most intrusive aspects." Be that as it may, Ford's resemblance to Diederich is clear. Making it even clearer is that Ford was an anti-Semite who rc'vd the Grand Cross of the German Eagle from Nazi Germany.
& despite Der Untertan's having been written in 1914 about 19th century Germany, it's very prescient about Nazi Germany. In his speeches, Hitler emphasized the unity of classes - this despite his refinement of one of the most hierarchical structures the world has ever seen - w/ himself, of course, as the supreme world dictator, the LEADER (der Führer). ""Only His Majesty," Diederich answered. "He aroused the citizen from his slumbers, his lofty example has made us what we are." As he said this he struck himself on the chest. "His personality, his unique, incomparable personality, is so powerful that we can all creep up by it, like the clinging ivy!" he shouted, although this was not in the draft he had written. "In whatever His Majesty the Emperor decides for the good of the German people, we will joyfully cooperate without distinction of creed and class.[..]"" Diederich's oratorical shouting is highly reminiscent of Hitler's.
Diederich is also reminiscent of the nazi SS officer responsible for transporting Jews to the death camps. On the subject of Eichmann, Hannah Arendt writes in her bk Eichmann in Jersulalem - A Report on the Banality of Evil [see my review of that here: ] that:
"What he fervently believed in up to the end was success, the chief standard of "good society" as he knew it. Typical was his last word on the subject of Hitler - whom he and his comrade Sassen had agreed to "shirr out" of their story; Hitler, he said, "may have been wrong all down the line, but one thing is beyond dispute: the man was able to work his way up from lance corporal in the German Army to Führer of a people of almost eighty million. . . . His success alone proved to me that I should subordinate myself to this man." His conscience was indeed set at rest when he saw the zeal and eagerness with which "good society" everywhere reacted as he did. He did not need to "close his ears to the voice of conscience," as the judgment had it, not because he had none, but because his conscience spoke with a "respectable voice," with the voice of respectable society around him."
& just as the nazis partially justified their genocide against the Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, & Political Opponents as a cleansing of the "Volk" (the body of the Germany people) so, too, is Diederich's behavior summed up nicely in this domestic scene:
"As Diederich lived in fear of his master, so Guste had to live in the fear of hers. When they entered a room she knew that the right of precedence properly belonged to her husband. The children, in turn, had to treat her with respect, and Männe, the dachshund, had to obey every one. At meals, therefore, the children and the dog had to keep quiet. Guste's duty was to discern from the wrinkles upon her husband's brow whether it was advisable to leave him undisturbed, or to drive away his cares with chatter. Certain dishes were prepared only for the master of the house, and when he was in a good humour Diederich would throw a piece across the table and, laughing heartily, would watch to see who caught it, Gretchen, Guste or the dog. His siesta was often troubled by gastronomical disturbances and Guste's duty then commanded her to put warm poultices on his stomach. Groaning and terribly frightened he used to say that he would make his will and appoint a trustee. Guste would not be allowed to touch a penny. "I have worked for my sons, not in order that you may amuse yourself after I am gone!" Guste objected that her own fortune was the foundation of everything, but it availed her nothing. . . . Of course, when Guste had a cold, she did not expect that Diederich, in his turn, would nurse her. Then she had to keep as far away from him as possible, for Diederich was determined not to have any germs near him. He would not go into the factory unless he had antiseptic tablets in his mouth, and one night there was a great disturbance because the cook had come down with influenza, and had a fever temperature. "Out of the house with the beastly thing at once!" Diederich commanded, and when she had gone he wandered about the house for a long time spraying it with disinfecting fluids."
Yes, as many of us are taught, "Cleanliness is next to Godliness" - but what about those of us who are atheists?
Heinrich Mann's Little Superman
by tENTATIVELY, a cONVENIENCE - January 9, 2012
I learned about this author in the course of research for my movie Robopaths. I learned that his bks were burned by the nazis so I decided to read something by him & to check out any movies that might've been based on any bks by him. This lead me to taking Little Superman out from the library as well as the movie The Kaiser's Lackey as well as to my buying a used copy of the novel Man of Straw. &, Lo & Behold!, they're all the same thing!
As Andrew Donson, Assistant Professor of History and German & Scandinavian Studies @ the University of Massachusetts Amherst, explains in the "Interpreting The Kaiser's Lackey" extra on the movie's DVD version:
"The English title of this film is not a literal translation of the German one, Der Untertan, which is a difficult word to translate. It literally means "The Subject", as in "The Subject of the King" - but in current & turn-of-the-century discourse, the "untertan" has also an authoritarian connotation. Various translators have rendered the title as: "The Patrioteer", "Little Superman", "Man of Straw", & "The Loyal Subject". An awkward, but perhaps more accurate translation of the title would be "The Servile Chauvinist Underling". The title of this film, the same title as Heinrich Mann's 1914 novel on which it's based, captures the main theme. Diederich [the story's central character] is on the one hand a tyrant who lords over other untertanen. On the other hand, he often finds himself in situations where he is the untertan, where others exercise their will over him. The essence and the humor of the film is that Diederich is happy in both situations. The narrative of the film shows how the institutions that shape Diederich's life, family, school, university, brotherhood, army, workplace, and government produce and regulate this authoritarian mentality."
[As a sidenote for bibliophiles, the Penguin edition (1984) that I have, Man of Straw gives no credit to a translator & yet it appears to be the exact same translation as the library edition that I read, Little Superman, published by Creative Age Press, Inc (1947). I suspect some shenanigans & intrigue in the omission of the translator's name in the Penguin edition, so I include it here: Ernest Boyd.]
As soon as I started reading this bk, I found the central character insufferable. He embodies everything that I detest: hypocrisy, social climbing, spinelessness, abusiveness, fraudulence, etc.. He is, indeed, a "Servile Chauvinist Underling", as Donson puts it. I was about 1/3rd of the way thru the bk when I watched the movie & learned that this was meant to be satire. I suppose it 'shd've' been obvious to me that it was intended to be satire all along but it seemed entirely too realistic to really be caricature. &, as the back-cover of Man of Straw states: "Heinrich Mann (brother of Thomas) was imprisoned for his radical and outspoken views, and spent a long exile from the country at which he aimed his bitter satire." - & that's no laughing matter.
Mann was condemned in Nazi Germany for writing Un-German works or some such but I don't think that the hypocrisy & opportunistic cowardice that he so thoroughly portrays is intrinsically German. It may've reached a particular nationalistic fervor in Germany but it was hardly confined to there. In fact, Mann's parody of upper middle class Germany isn't so far off from the lower middle class Baltimore that I grew up in. I'm reminded of a photographer that I once knew. He incessantly ridiculed me for valuing anything other than money. However, once he started realizing that my willful rejection of the 'values' that he represented was earning me some respect from others, he tried to sleaze up to me by asking me to pose for him as a photographer's model. I refused.
Mann's novel is such a thorough look at the completely unscrupulous machinations of his main character that I can only conclude that Mann, himself, must've been surrounded by such contemptible behavior. Diederich is constantly betraying & groveling, ass-kissing & terrorizing - wchever seems 'appropriate' to his 'social position' in relation to who he's dealing w/. & Mann depicts this utterly brilliantly. Diederich is constantly engaged in some sort of fraudulent dealings that he trembles at the thought of getting caught out at & blusteringly camouflages under cover of patriotic bullshit. The library copy that I read has one section underlined in ink that expresses Diederich's philosophy, in the mouth of one of his cronies, quite nicely:
""Democracy is the philosophy of the half-educated," said the apothecary. "It has been defeated by science." Some one shouted: "Hear! Hear!" It was the druggist who wished to associate with him. "There will always be masters and men," asserted Gottlieb Hornung, "for it is the same in nature. It is the one great truth, for each of us must have a superior to fear, and an inferior to frighten. What would become of us otherwise? If every nonentity believes that he is somebody, and that we are all equal! Unhappy the nation whose traditional and honorable social forms are broken up by the solvent of democracy, and which allows the disintegrating standpoint of personality to get the upper hand!"
Two pages later, the same underliner highlighted part of this passage:
"Diederich raised himself on his toes, "Gentlemen," he shouted, carried away on the tide of national emotion, "the Emperor William Monument shall be a mark of reverence for the noble grandfather whom we all, I think I may say, worship almost as a saint, and also a pledge to the noble nephew, our magnificent young Emperor, that we shall ever remain as we are, pure, liberty-loving, truthful, brave, and true!"
The underliner (not the untertan) emphasizes Diederich's claim of being "pure, liberty-loving, truthful, brave, and true!" w/ an exclamation mark next to it presumably b/c these are all qualities wch Diederich is completely lacking in. Earlier, I mention "Diederich's philosophy" - but that's misleading. In order to have a philosophy, one probably has to have a mind capable of formulating a justified position to adhere to. Diederich lacks even that - he simply takes the most cowardly & dishonest path of least resistance & changes his political allegiances to kowtow to whoever he's most afraid of at the time.
In the East German film version, a scene that exemplifies the preposterous bravuro posturing that Diederich & his kind rely on for image-building & bullying is the duel. The scene is also in the bk but I found it more compelling in the movie. It's common for men in Diederich's class to initiate duels w/ each other in order to simulate bravery. Under the most ridiculous pretexts ('Sir! You were looking at me!' - that sort of thing), men challenge each other as if their honor can bear no insult. But, as w/ cowards & bullies the world over, it's all just pretense. They know they're not taking any risks whatsoever. As w/ generals who send soldiers to the slaughter, it's the soldiers who get senselessly killed, while the generals, safe elsewhere, get the medals & other social rewards.
These duels consist of nothing more than 2 men heavily padded & w/ one arm behind their back fighting w/ swords until one of them scratches the other on the face. Even their eyes are heavily protected w/ goggles. As soon as Diederich is scratched on the cheek, he gets his scar that 'proves' his bravery - even though there's no risk of serious injury. Diederich then uses the scar as a badge of 'honor'. It's all completely ridiculous.
After Diederich unsuccessfully & humiliatingly attempts to get Lieutenant von Brietzen to not leave Diederich's 'dishonored' sister in the lurch, he's walking on the streets. "Suddenly he noticed that the gardens were still full of perfume and twittering beneath the spring skies, and it became clear to him that Nature itself, whether she smiled or snarled, was powerless before Authority, the authority above us, which is quite impregnable. It was easy to threaten revolution, but what about the Emperor William Monument? Wulckow and Gausenfeld? Whoever trampled others from under foot must be prepared to be walked on, that was the iron law of might. After his attack of resistance, Diederich again felt the secret thrill of the man who is trampled upon. . . . A cab came along from behind, Herr van Brietzen and his trunk. Before he knew what he was doing Diederich faced about, ready to salute."
In one of the very rare moments where Diederich somewhat introspectively criticizes the worldview that he otherwise takes for granted, Diederich sees his now 'dishonored' sister, Emma, in a new light: "The lieutenant, who had caused all this, lost notably in comparison - and so did the Power, in whose name he had triumphed. Diederich discovered that Power could sometimes present a common and vulgar appearance. Power and everything that went with it, success, honour, loyalty. he looked at Emma and was forced to question the value of what he had attained or was still striving for: Guste and her money, the monument, the favour of the authorities, Gausenfeld, distinctions and high office." Indeed. Alas, this critical introspection doesn't last long.
I noted earlier that these characteristics were hardly confined to Germans. As Diederich bullies 'his' employees he tells them: ""But I forbid socialistic agitation! In the future you can vote as I tell you, or leave!" Diederich also said that he was determined to curb irreligion. He would note every Sunday who went to church and who did not. "So long as the world is unredeemed from sin, there will be war and hatred, envy and discord. Therefore, there must be one master!" This reminds me of Henry Ford.
There's an excellent documentary about Ford called "Demon Rum" in wch some important points about the ironies of Ford's 'moralism' are highlighted - particularly the way in wch his 'moralism' helped create a subculture of thugs that he then used to suppress unions. In the Wikipedia bio of Ford ( ) we find this:
"The profit-sharing was offered to employees who had worked at the company for six months or more, and, importantly, conducted their lives in a manner of which Ford's "Social Department" approved. They frowned on heavy drinking, gambling, and what might today be called "deadbeat dads". The Social Department used 50 investigators, plus support staff, to maintain employee standards; a large percentage of workers were able to qualify for this "profit-sharing.""
The Wikipedia entry qualifies this by saying that "Ford's incursion into his employees' private lives was highly controversial, and he soon backed off from the most intrusive aspects." Be that as it may, Ford's resemblance to Diederich is clear. Making it even clearer is that Ford was an anti-Semite who rc'vd the Grand Cross of the German Eagle from Nazi Germany.
& despite Der Untertan's having been written in 1914 about 19th century Germany, it's very prescient about Nazi Germany. In his speeches, Hitler emphasized the unity of classes - this despite his refinement of one of the most hierarchical structures the world has ever seen - w/ himself, of course, as the supreme world dictator, the LEADER (der Führer). ""Only His Majesty," Diederich answered. "He aroused the citizen from his slumbers, his lofty example has made us what we are." As he said this he struck himself on the chest. "His personality, his unique, incomparable personality, is so powerful that we can all creep up by it, like the clinging ivy!" he shouted, although this was not in the draft he had written. "In whatever His Majesty the Emperor decides for the good of the German people, we will joyfully cooperate without distinction of creed and class.[..]"" Diederich's oratorical shouting is highly reminiscent of Hitler's.
Diederich is also reminiscent of the nazi SS officer responsible for transporting Jews to the death camps. On the subject of Eichmann, Hannah Arendt writes in her bk Eichmann in Jersulalem - A Report on the Banality of Evil [see my review of that here: ] that:
"What he fervently believed in up to the end was success, the chief standard of "good society" as he knew it. Typical was his last word on the subject of Hitler - whom he and his comrade Sassen had agreed to "shirr out" of their story; Hitler, he said, "may have been wrong all down the line, but one thing is beyond dispute: the man was able to work his way up from lance corporal in the German Army to Führer of a people of almost eighty million. . . . His success alone proved to me that I should subordinate myself to this man." His conscience was indeed set at rest when he saw the zeal and eagerness with which "good society" everywhere reacted as he did. He did not need to "close his ears to the voice of conscience," as the judgment had it, not because he had none, but because his conscience spoke with a "respectable voice," with the voice of respectable society around him."
& just as the nazis partially justified their genocide against the Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, & Political Opponents as a cleansing of the "Volk" (the body of the Germany people) so, too, is Diederich's behavior summed up nicely in this domestic scene:
"As Diederich lived in fear of his master, so Guste had to live in the fear of hers. When they entered a room she knew that the right of precedence properly belonged to her husband. The children, in turn, had to treat her with respect, and Männe, the dachshund, had to obey every one. At meals, therefore, the children and the dog had to keep quiet. Guste's duty was to discern from the wrinkles upon her husband's brow whether it was advisable to leave him undisturbed, or to drive away his cares with chatter. Certain dishes were prepared only for the master of the house, and when he was in a good humour Diederich would throw a piece across the table and, laughing heartily, would watch to see who caught it, Gretchen, Guste or the dog. His siesta was often troubled by gastronomical disturbances and Guste's duty then commanded her to put warm poultices on his stomach. Groaning and terribly frightened he used to say that he would make his will and appoint a trustee. Guste would not be allowed to touch a penny. "I have worked for my sons, not in order that you may amuse yourself after I am gone!" Guste objected that her own fortune was the foundation of everything, but it availed her nothing. . . . Of course, when Guste had a cold, she did not expect that Diederich, in his turn, would nurse her. Then she had to keep as far away from him as possible, for Diederich was determined not to have any germs near him. He would not go into the factory unless he had antiseptic tablets in his mouth, and one night there was a great disturbance because the cook had come down with influenza, and had a fever temperature. "Out of the house with the beastly thing at once!" Diederich commanded, and when she had gone he wandered about the house for a long time spraying it with disinfecting fluids."
Yes, as many of us are taught, "Cleanliness is next to Godliness" - but what about those of us who are atheists?
July 4, 2022
Man of Straw -- also translated as The Loyal Subject -- is a razor-sharp take-down of the upper middle class buffoons who fervently supported Kaiser Wilhelm --the same type of power-worshipping nativists who later embraced the Third Reich. The subject in question is Diederich Hessling, who spends his college years swilling beer with his frat brothers in their exclusive secret society, the "Neo-Teutons" (ha!), and avoiding any type of intellectual pursuits, while challenging anyone and everyone to duels of honor (but not going through with those duels, of course; just issuing the challenges!). He worships the military, but desperately tries to avoid service by pulling strings with his social connections to get a medical discharge by feigning minor health problems. (Weak bones! A flat foot!)
It's obviously a portrait of Wilhelm himself, as Mann (older brother of Thomas and uncle of Klaus) describes Diederich as looking very much like the emperor, even shaping his mustache upward in sharp right angles in imitation of the Kaiser. But it's also a portrait that has universal application, at times so accurately depicting certain modern American conservative warhawks and chickenhawks -- everyone from Donald Rumsfeld to Donald Trump, but also their lackeys, like Chris Christie and Ted Cruz -- that we begin to see Mann's brilliance in crafting this character: these politicians, like Diederich, are not great men. They are, by and large, average dolts. The fact that Diederich looks, speaks, and acts like such national leaders (Wilhelm specifically) undercuts their perceived authority. These political figures, for all their pomp, lofty rhetoric, and gilded lives, are no more than uncouth, half-educated blowhards. And on some level, they know it.
Mann is quite clear on the dangers of authoritarianism and the kind of people it attracts. His portrait of Diederich might well describe any extreme-right politician (or supporter) of this day. Deiderich isn't too bright and is physically a coward, but his wealth and status as the son of a industrial owner gives him both privilege and a superiority complex. He lacks empathy and sees women merely as objects for his temporary pleasure or social status, and so his marriage becomes a business deal (and a poor one, at that), with a constant, paranoid fear of blackmail hanging over his head, as in most of his affairs. He is a mamma's boy who talks bravely about the military and about wanting to "duel" those who dishonor him, but who cringes at any possibility of confrontation. His love of power causes him to worship anyone who wields it and to fall in line behind anyone who commands it, without question. He follows the Church not because he believe in its values, but because it gives him status and further scapegoats the "Others" who are not Christian. (In the case of Germany under Wilhelm, the Jews.) His wealth and status as a leader of industry are entirely inherited, so he knows nothing about the business he owns. As a result, he takes out his anxiety and aggression on his workers, who are brighter than him, but lower in class, so are unable to advance. He fears them, but his ego prevents him from acknowledging this fact.
This complex combination of physical weakness, willful ignorance, hyper nationalism, capitalistic exploitation of the lower classes, and worship of military power creates "the loyal subject": one who will be attracted to any powerful force upon which he can project his idealized (and unachievable) Self as a way to substitute for his own lack of will and inner fortitude. He will follow anyone who advocates crushing or eliminating the weak or "undesirable," not realizing that 1) these are his own flaws that his ego refuses to acknowledge within himself, and 2) he is supporting the very power-hungry authorities who will not think twice about crushing him as one of the weak. His own insecurity and lack of self-worth causes him to act against his own self-interest, but in the end, because of his inherited wealth, status, and privilege, he survives -- and even thrives -- safe in the bubble of his own foolish ignorance.
It's obviously a portrait of Wilhelm himself, as Mann (older brother of Thomas and uncle of Klaus) describes Diederich as looking very much like the emperor, even shaping his mustache upward in sharp right angles in imitation of the Kaiser. But it's also a portrait that has universal application, at times so accurately depicting certain modern American conservative warhawks and chickenhawks -- everyone from Donald Rumsfeld to Donald Trump, but also their lackeys, like Chris Christie and Ted Cruz -- that we begin to see Mann's brilliance in crafting this character: these politicians, like Diederich, are not great men. They are, by and large, average dolts. The fact that Diederich looks, speaks, and acts like such national leaders (Wilhelm specifically) undercuts their perceived authority. These political figures, for all their pomp, lofty rhetoric, and gilded lives, are no more than uncouth, half-educated blowhards. And on some level, they know it.
Mann is quite clear on the dangers of authoritarianism and the kind of people it attracts. His portrait of Diederich might well describe any extreme-right politician (or supporter) of this day. Deiderich isn't too bright and is physically a coward, but his wealth and status as the son of a industrial owner gives him both privilege and a superiority complex. He lacks empathy and sees women merely as objects for his temporary pleasure or social status, and so his marriage becomes a business deal (and a poor one, at that), with a constant, paranoid fear of blackmail hanging over his head, as in most of his affairs. He is a mamma's boy who talks bravely about the military and about wanting to "duel" those who dishonor him, but who cringes at any possibility of confrontation. His love of power causes him to worship anyone who wields it and to fall in line behind anyone who commands it, without question. He follows the Church not because he believe in its values, but because it gives him status and further scapegoats the "Others" who are not Christian. (In the case of Germany under Wilhelm, the Jews.) His wealth and status as a leader of industry are entirely inherited, so he knows nothing about the business he owns. As a result, he takes out his anxiety and aggression on his workers, who are brighter than him, but lower in class, so are unable to advance. He fears them, but his ego prevents him from acknowledging this fact.
This complex combination of physical weakness, willful ignorance, hyper nationalism, capitalistic exploitation of the lower classes, and worship of military power creates "the loyal subject": one who will be attracted to any powerful force upon which he can project his idealized (and unachievable) Self as a way to substitute for his own lack of will and inner fortitude. He will follow anyone who advocates crushing or eliminating the weak or "undesirable," not realizing that 1) these are his own flaws that his ego refuses to acknowledge within himself, and 2) he is supporting the very power-hungry authorities who will not think twice about crushing him as one of the weak. His own insecurity and lack of self-worth causes him to act against his own self-interest, but in the end, because of his inherited wealth, status, and privilege, he survives -- and even thrives -- safe in the bubble of his own foolish ignorance.
June 13, 2024
Heinrich Manns Roman „Der Untertan“ zeigt, wie Autoritarismus, blinde Gefolgschaft und Nationalismus zeitlose Probleme sind, die in jeder Gesellschaft präsent sind. Manns satirischer Ton und die Ironie machen es zu einer Anklage gegen das fehlende Verantwortungsbewusstsein und die Unmündigkeit des Einzelnen
Mit der detaillierten Charakterisierung Diederichs und den gekonnt eingesetzten stilistischen Mittel, gelingt es Mann, eine tiefgründige und vielschichtige Erzählung zu schaffen, die sowohl historisch als auch gegenwartsbezogen höchst relevant ist. Obwohl der Fokus des Romans in ersten Linie nicht darauf liegt eine spannende Handlung zu schaffen, sondern darauf, gesellschaftliche Strukturen zu analysieren, ist „Der Untertan“ ein wichtiges literarisches Werk für diejenigen, die sich mit der wilhelminischen Epoche und deren Parallelen in der Gegenwart auseinandersetzen wollen.
Manns Werk bietet somit nicht nur eine historische Charakterstudie, sondern auch einen zeitlosen Blick auf politische und soziale Einstellungen, die bis heute relevant sind. Diederich Heßling als Prototyp des autoritätsgläubigen, opportunistischen und intoleranten Individuums zeigt auf, wie gefährlich solche Haltungen für die Gesellschaft sind. Er weist viele Parallelen zu heutigen AfD-Wählern auf, die ähnliche Merkmale in ihrer Persönlichkeit und ihren Handlungen zeigen. Somit ist der Roman eine eindringliche Mahnung an die Leserinnen und Leser, über ihre eigenen Einstellungen und ihren gesellschaftlichen Umfeld kritisch nachzudenken und sich für eine verantwortungsbewusste und reflektierte Gesellschaft einzusetzen.
Die ausführliche Rezension findest du auf meinem substack:
Mit der detaillierten Charakterisierung Diederichs und den gekonnt eingesetzten stilistischen Mittel, gelingt es Mann, eine tiefgründige und vielschichtige Erzählung zu schaffen, die sowohl historisch als auch gegenwartsbezogen höchst relevant ist. Obwohl der Fokus des Romans in ersten Linie nicht darauf liegt eine spannende Handlung zu schaffen, sondern darauf, gesellschaftliche Strukturen zu analysieren, ist „Der Untertan“ ein wichtiges literarisches Werk für diejenigen, die sich mit der wilhelminischen Epoche und deren Parallelen in der Gegenwart auseinandersetzen wollen.
Manns Werk bietet somit nicht nur eine historische Charakterstudie, sondern auch einen zeitlosen Blick auf politische und soziale Einstellungen, die bis heute relevant sind. Diederich Heßling als Prototyp des autoritätsgläubigen, opportunistischen und intoleranten Individuums zeigt auf, wie gefährlich solche Haltungen für die Gesellschaft sind. Er weist viele Parallelen zu heutigen AfD-Wählern auf, die ähnliche Merkmale in ihrer Persönlichkeit und ihren Handlungen zeigen. Somit ist der Roman eine eindringliche Mahnung an die Leserinnen und Leser, über ihre eigenen Einstellungen und ihren gesellschaftlichen Umfeld kritisch nachzudenken und sich für eine verantwortungsbewusste und reflektierte Gesellschaft einzusetzen.
Die ausführliche Rezension findest du auf meinem substack:
November 27, 2019
“Fakat adam haklı olduğu sürece Bismarck’ınızın peşinden gittiniz mi peki? Sizi zorla peşinden sürüklemek zorunda kaldı ve hep onunla ihtilaf içinde yaşadınız. Ancak şimdi, onu aşmanız gerektiğinde, artık dermansız gölgesine sığınıyorsunuz! Çünkü sizin milliyetçi metabolizmanız cesaret kıracak kadar, ağır çalışıyor. Siz büyük bit adamın varlığını idrak edene kadar artık o büyük olmaktan çıktı.”
Okurken insanda devamlı olarak tokatlama isteği uyandıran baş karakter Diederich Hessling. Kendisi o dönem yükselen milliyetçilikle beslenen, güç sahibi olmak isteyen üst orta sınıf almanlarda görülen; oportünist, sahtekar ve iki yüzlü yapıların tamamının toplanmış hali adeta. Kağıt fabrikasının veliahtı konumundaki duygusal açıdan zayıf, fiziksel olarak yetersiz - ne olacak bu çocuğun sonu diye düşündürten- konumdan sonrasında dönüştüğü “şeye” kadar geçen süreç ve bu süreçte çevresindekilerle olan enteresan iletişim ve ilişkilerini takip ediyoruz. Sanırım yakın zamanda okuduğum en lanet, sevimsiz, kötü kalpli karakter oldu Diederich. Özetle, ruhsal ve fiziksel yönden yetersiz lakin toplumsal konumu itibari ile güç elde etmeye yakın kişilerden, şiddetin de desteğiyle, nasıl itaatkar ve kötücül bir sınıf yaratabileceğinin en iyi anlatımı. Eğer hiciv seviyorsanız ve sinirlerinize güveniyorsanız bu kitabı mutlaka okuyun.
Okurken insanda devamlı olarak tokatlama isteği uyandıran baş karakter Diederich Hessling. Kendisi o dönem yükselen milliyetçilikle beslenen, güç sahibi olmak isteyen üst orta sınıf almanlarda görülen; oportünist, sahtekar ve iki yüzlü yapıların tamamının toplanmış hali adeta. Kağıt fabrikasının veliahtı konumundaki duygusal açıdan zayıf, fiziksel olarak yetersiz - ne olacak bu çocuğun sonu diye düşündürten- konumdan sonrasında dönüştüğü “şeye” kadar geçen süreç ve bu süreçte çevresindekilerle olan enteresan iletişim ve ilişkilerini takip ediyoruz. Sanırım yakın zamanda okuduğum en lanet, sevimsiz, kötü kalpli karakter oldu Diederich. Özetle, ruhsal ve fiziksel yönden yetersiz lakin toplumsal konumu itibari ile güç elde etmeye yakın kişilerden, şiddetin de desteğiyle, nasıl itaatkar ve kötücül bir sınıf yaratabileceğinin en iyi anlatımı. Eğer hiciv seviyorsanız ve sinirlerinize güveniyorsanız bu kitabı mutlaka okuyun.
March 26, 2014
Wickedly funny, unflinchingly dark satire. Mann's gift for the telling detail is unerring, and his eye for the tragically absurd is sharp. Among other things, Der Untertan is a delicious parody of the "Bildungsroman," as we follow the protagonist from childhood to maturity and see him become increasingly determined, and increasingly powerful, without becoming less narrow-minded, cowardly, or unconsciously hypocritical. The near-explosive unease of a rigidly structured and rapidly changing society is brilliantly evoked.
January 20, 2021
Die Geschichte selbst, das muss ich leider sagen, fand ich ziemlich langweilig.
Stellenweise ist dieses Werk ein wenig kniffelig zu lesen.
Trotz allem hat mich die Figur des Diederich Heßling wunderbar unterhalten.
Nach oben buckelnd, nach unten tretend, den eigenen Vorteil immer Blick, ein Fähnchen im korrupten Winde.
(Im Grunde ein mir zutiefst verhasster Charakter)
Hier aber sehr überspitzt dargestellt und daher auch sehr amüsant zu lesen.
Stellenweise ist dieses Werk ein wenig kniffelig zu lesen.
Trotz allem hat mich die Figur des Diederich Heßling wunderbar unterhalten.
Nach oben buckelnd, nach unten tretend, den eigenen Vorteil immer Blick, ein Fähnchen im korrupten Winde.
(Im Grunde ein mir zutiefst verhasster Charakter)
Hier aber sehr überspitzt dargestellt und daher auch sehr amüsant zu lesen.
April 21, 2023
diederich ist das größte opfer und ich kann mir das nicht mehr geben
May 17, 2020
Heinrich Mann’s DER UNTERTAN, (sometimes translated as THE LOYAL SUBJECT), was written between 1910 and 1913, and first serialised in a weekly magazine from January 1914 onwards. It was published in book form in 1918.
I stress these dates because this is really a creepy, prophetic novel. This is a book about Germany under the Kaiser, a merciless analysis of German society at the time and of the darker times to come.
Diederich Hessling, the protagonist, is the son of a man who owns a small paper factory in a small German city. He's a dreamy, sensitive child, but from an early age he is attracted to power and subjugation. He goes off to study in Berlin and is in the military for a short time before managing to get out of his service. Despite this, he quickly feels intoxicated by his military buddies' patriotic phrases and by blind adoration for the emperor.
After his tyrannical father's death, Hessling returns to his hometown and becomes a German nationalist who crushes his liberal opponents. He is a groveling schemer, and an opportunist. Hessling idolises Kaiser Wilhelm II. He models his appearance, behaviour and speech on the Kaiser. Alarmingly, much of the dialogue seems to have been taken from speeches given by the Kaiser himself.
THE LOYAL SUBJECT is a scathing satire of the German empire and a parody of the bildungsroman. Unsurprisinly, the Nazi regime stripped Mann of his German citizenship so he emigrated to France, Spain and finally to the US, where he died before he could return to Germany.
This book is part of the 100 modern German novels must-reads.
I stress these dates because this is really a creepy, prophetic novel. This is a book about Germany under the Kaiser, a merciless analysis of German society at the time and of the darker times to come.
Diederich Hessling, the protagonist, is the son of a man who owns a small paper factory in a small German city. He's a dreamy, sensitive child, but from an early age he is attracted to power and subjugation. He goes off to study in Berlin and is in the military for a short time before managing to get out of his service. Despite this, he quickly feels intoxicated by his military buddies' patriotic phrases and by blind adoration for the emperor.
After his tyrannical father's death, Hessling returns to his hometown and becomes a German nationalist who crushes his liberal opponents. He is a groveling schemer, and an opportunist. Hessling idolises Kaiser Wilhelm II. He models his appearance, behaviour and speech on the Kaiser. Alarmingly, much of the dialogue seems to have been taken from speeches given by the Kaiser himself.
THE LOYAL SUBJECT is a scathing satire of the German empire and a parody of the bildungsroman. Unsurprisinly, the Nazi regime stripped Mann of his German citizenship so he emigrated to France, Spain and finally to the US, where he died before he could return to Germany.
This book is part of the 100 modern German novels must-reads.
March 28, 2023
bro, I have no words. Dieses Buch hat mir meine Seele geklaut. Ich will jetzt gar nicht mit verdienter (konstruktiver) Kritik oder gar Lob kommen, honestly, hat sich das Buch nicht verdient.
Ich möchte nur drauf hinweisen, dass die Geschichte in Aufbau, Schreibstil und Handlung extrem nervtötend, langweilig, pessimistisch und überhaupt nicht unterhaltsam oder lustig ist.
If this book was in fire and I had water, I'd drink it!!
Ich möchte nur drauf hinweisen, dass die Geschichte in Aufbau, Schreibstil und Handlung extrem nervtötend, langweilig, pessimistisch und überhaupt nicht unterhaltsam oder lustig ist.
If this book was in fire and I had water, I'd drink it!!
January 21, 2025
Ich bin die Herrin, du bist der Untertan.
January 20, 2020
First of all, I am aware of the fact that basically everything I am going to criticize about this, was the point of the book. Which makes it even worse in my opinion, because it's not like usually, when I dislike a book because the execution wasn't great. I hated this because everything about it, starting from its premise and intensions, was horrible to me.
Without a doubt, this was my least favorite book that I have read in my entire life.
I would have never picked it up voluntarily, since everything about the synopsis sounded like something I would hate. But ILS forced me to read it, which again just proves my theory that they choose their required reading by how much the books will torture us.
I promise I am not exaggerating when I say I've never been as bored and simultanously as disgusted in my entire life, as I was while reading this.
Part of the problem is definitely the fact that the period of history this is set in is one of the least interesting ones to me, and I don't have a huge interest in history to begin with. It is also very political, which is another thing I don't tend to enjoy in books.
All of the characters were either horrible, bland, or (in most cases) both. Most of the time I didn't even know who was who, because all the side characters read the same to me. Because of the time and place this book is set, a lot of characters based their opinions on religious values, which is another thing I hate reading about.
The book was super slow and boring, and there was no reason for it to be over four hundred pages. At least half of it could have been cut out, and it would have made zero difference for the story.
Despite the fact that I don't think there were any people of color, the book still had some racist lines, including the use of the n-slur. There were a lot of anti semitic quotes against Jews as well. Again, I know it's the time this is set in and it was done intentionally, but personally I need things like this to be challenged and portrayed as clearly negative, whenever they are included in a book, and that wasn't done her.
The study book from ILS that accompanied this book, kept talking about the satirical tone of the novel, but no matter how often I went back to read their examples and tried to see it, I just couldn't. They went even further to state there were humorous and funny scenes, but I definitely couldn't disagree more with that statement.
As I said, I know the point of the book is to showcase and criticize the type of character Diederich is, but while the narrator definitely didn't seem to sympathize with him, I still think I would have needed so much more distance between the narrator and Diederich, in order to even remotely be alright with the book.
The way the main character kept thinking about women, and the way he treated them, was absolutely disgusting. There was one scene where he sexually assaults a women, but she was giggling and only playfully fighting him off, so apparently it was fine. And that is just one example of a scene that made me super uncomfortable. Another one would be the normalization of hitting children at the beginning of the book, where Diederich as a child seemed to almost see it as a priviledge to be hit by his father and his teachers.
Another scene, where my complaint might be a bit more about the school's interpretation of the scene than the scene itself, but that I still wanted to mention, is what ILS refered to as the "sadomasochistic relationship" between Diederich and Guste. I don't know if despite rereading this scene several times I missed something, but to me it didn't seem as if Diederich ever truly consented to that, or even enjoyed this dynamic. When I read this scene I interpreted it as a case of domestic abuse, and the fact that the study book did not acknoledge it as that with a single sentence, had me very concerned.
I don't care that all of that was the point of the book, because I don't enjoy being utterly disgusted for almost five hundred pages, no matter whether or not this is how I am supposed to feel.
I also don't care that this book was written 100 years ago and times were different then, or that it might have been very importand and timely at some point, because I read it in 2020, so I will judge it from the perspective that I have now.
In the end, while this is my least favorite book of all time, I think I am less mad at the book itself, and more at the fact that ILS would choose this above so many other actually well done, more relevant to the times now, and, above all, less revolting literary works.
Without a doubt, this was my least favorite book that I have read in my entire life.
I would have never picked it up voluntarily, since everything about the synopsis sounded like something I would hate. But ILS forced me to read it, which again just proves my theory that they choose their required reading by how much the books will torture us.
I promise I am not exaggerating when I say I've never been as bored and simultanously as disgusted in my entire life, as I was while reading this.
Part of the problem is definitely the fact that the period of history this is set in is one of the least interesting ones to me, and I don't have a huge interest in history to begin with. It is also very political, which is another thing I don't tend to enjoy in books.
All of the characters were either horrible, bland, or (in most cases) both. Most of the time I didn't even know who was who, because all the side characters read the same to me. Because of the time and place this book is set, a lot of characters based their opinions on religious values, which is another thing I hate reading about.
The book was super slow and boring, and there was no reason for it to be over four hundred pages. At least half of it could have been cut out, and it would have made zero difference for the story.
Despite the fact that I don't think there were any people of color, the book still had some racist lines, including the use of the n-slur. There were a lot of anti semitic quotes against Jews as well. Again, I know it's the time this is set in and it was done intentionally, but personally I need things like this to be challenged and portrayed as clearly negative, whenever they are included in a book, and that wasn't done her.
The study book from ILS that accompanied this book, kept talking about the satirical tone of the novel, but no matter how often I went back to read their examples and tried to see it, I just couldn't. They went even further to state there were humorous and funny scenes, but I definitely couldn't disagree more with that statement.
As I said, I know the point of the book is to showcase and criticize the type of character Diederich is, but while the narrator definitely didn't seem to sympathize with him, I still think I would have needed so much more distance between the narrator and Diederich, in order to even remotely be alright with the book.
The way the main character kept thinking about women, and the way he treated them, was absolutely disgusting. There was one scene where he sexually assaults a women, but she was giggling and only playfully fighting him off, so apparently it was fine. And that is just one example of a scene that made me super uncomfortable. Another one would be the normalization of hitting children at the beginning of the book, where Diederich as a child seemed to almost see it as a priviledge to be hit by his father and his teachers.
Another scene, where my complaint might be a bit more about the school's interpretation of the scene than the scene itself, but that I still wanted to mention, is what ILS refered to as the "sadomasochistic relationship" between Diederich and Guste. I don't know if despite rereading this scene several times I missed something, but to me it didn't seem as if Diederich ever truly consented to that, or even enjoyed this dynamic. When I read this scene I interpreted it as a case of domestic abuse, and the fact that the study book did not acknoledge it as that with a single sentence, had me very concerned.
I don't care that all of that was the point of the book, because I don't enjoy being utterly disgusted for almost five hundred pages, no matter whether or not this is how I am supposed to feel.
I also don't care that this book was written 100 years ago and times were different then, or that it might have been very importand and timely at some point, because I read it in 2020, so I will judge it from the perspective that I have now.
In the end, while this is my least favorite book of all time, I think I am less mad at the book itself, and more at the fact that ILS would choose this above so many other actually well done, more relevant to the times now, and, above all, less revolting literary works.
February 3, 2021
“ "Man of Straw" is a sharp indictment of the Wilhelmine regime and a chilling warning against the joint elevation of militarism and commercial values.“
I thought I had reviewed this. Maybe not. I think I decided to finally read this after watching the old black and white movie (see the German cover). Maybe in the early 2000s? I fully expected to be bored silly, but I ended up liking it. Very good writing.
I thought I had reviewed this. Maybe not. I think I decided to finally read this after watching the old black and white movie (see the German cover). Maybe in the early 2000s? I fully expected to be bored silly, but I ended up liking it. Very good writing.
October 8, 2017
53/100 Eigentlich gut zweieinhalb, alles weitere später
Displaying 1 - 30 of 204 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.