Scan barcode
trouvaille21's review
2.0
i really don't undestand why the ratings for this book are so high
it confused me so much that u felt like i didn't understand the message properly and read a few extra summaries and ????
idk it has potential but i really can't bring myself to give it more than 2 stars
it confused me so much that u felt like i didn't understand the message properly and read a few extra summaries and ????
idk it has potential but i really can't bring myself to give it more than 2 stars
frasersimons's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.0
Unsurprisingly, this unfinished book never really comes together. It’s experimental and interesting, easily digestible, concerned with modern modernity’s effect in man. It’s not that surprising that it’s seems well loved. Especially with the mammoth effect, where people seem to want to ascribe a lot more value to things they spend a lot more time on, and finish, like huge novels such as this.
Interestingly, my major gripes are similar to The Brothers Karamazov, which has similar very long-winded diatribes on philosophical notions. But the actual fiction suffers to it because the authors pay no mind to time and place during these many, many outings. Especially in regards to time, people will launch into speeches that would literally take hours upon hours to conclude, with generally no back-and-forth, and it’ll have been during the course of an appetizer. It becomes abundantly clear that this is even worse than all that, as this is less concerned with plot than other Idea books (certainly Brothers K, which has a large plot component, even if it’s overlong).
This is where the experimental components come in. Kind of like the newest effort from McCarthy, the path of the novel is more on a meta level, with the notions of certain things evolving. But they don’t actually get anywhere, because it can’t, as it’s not got an even remote conclusion. Nor would it have had had it been finished, because many of the concerns are questions that don’t have definitive answers. And the ones that do, the books one-note characters completely miss anyway. My favourite is when they talk on, what essentially amounts to moral relativism, as these authors seem to always want to do. As if there is no way to quantifiably see how morals work because they’re social constructs.
There are metrics that are very plain and easy, but always eschewed by people pontificating. Do your decisions, does your society, remove agency from other people? What is the disparity in wealth? What is the general health? How does it treat the disenfranchised? It’s not as though this was written in the medieval ages, it was begun in 1980s if I recall correctly. The characters going into the same musings and coming to shallow thoughts like they do is inexcusable for a book of ideas. It’s unsurprising that there’s a thick not of misogyny that runs through it as well, then.
The women are poorly written and the narrative constantly makes asides of poor conceived judgment on women and their so-called natures, with a laughable gesture at equality near the end when it shows them persecuted for having the same sex drive as a man, and being judged for it. Had it not been constantly undermined and dominated by male voices projecting their feelings as empirical evidence as to how women function, perhaps it would have been more palatable.
What’s more is that, unfortunately, it’s all very forgettable as well. The delivery is oiled well enough, but it’s hard to recall any conversation that makes a significant impact because there is no book-end to the delivery, nothing to ground the discussion or the idea to anything else. It’s a non-stop train where the discussions are nothing more than the trees a passaenger notices whipping by on the way to more trees upon trees upon trees. And the passenger never actually reached anywhere, so the trip is completely unmemorable.
Interestingly, my major gripes are similar to The Brothers Karamazov, which has similar very long-winded diatribes on philosophical notions. But the actual fiction suffers to it because the authors pay no mind to time and place during these many, many outings. Especially in regards to time, people will launch into speeches that would literally take hours upon hours to conclude, with generally no back-and-forth, and it’ll have been during the course of an appetizer. It becomes abundantly clear that this is even worse than all that, as this is less concerned with plot than other Idea books (certainly Brothers K, which has a large plot component, even if it’s overlong).
This is where the experimental components come in. Kind of like the newest effort from McCarthy, the path of the novel is more on a meta level, with the notions of certain things evolving. But they don’t actually get anywhere, because it can’t, as it’s not got an even remote conclusion. Nor would it have had had it been finished, because many of the concerns are questions that don’t have definitive answers. And the ones that do, the books one-note characters completely miss anyway. My favourite is when they talk on, what essentially amounts to moral relativism, as these authors seem to always want to do. As if there is no way to quantifiably see how morals work because they’re social constructs.
There are metrics that are very plain and easy, but always eschewed by people pontificating. Do your decisions, does your society, remove agency from other people? What is the disparity in wealth? What is the general health? How does it treat the disenfranchised? It’s not as though this was written in the medieval ages, it was begun in 1980s if I recall correctly. The characters going into the same musings and coming to shallow thoughts like they do is inexcusable for a book of ideas. It’s unsurprising that there’s a thick not of misogyny that runs through it as well, then.
The women are poorly written and the narrative constantly makes asides of poor conceived judgment on women and their so-called natures, with a laughable gesture at equality near the end when it shows them persecuted for having the same sex drive as a man, and being judged for it. Had it not been constantly undermined and dominated by male voices projecting their feelings as empirical evidence as to how women function, perhaps it would have been more palatable.
What’s more is that, unfortunately, it’s all very forgettable as well. The delivery is oiled well enough, but it’s hard to recall any conversation that makes a significant impact because there is no book-end to the delivery, nothing to ground the discussion or the idea to anything else. It’s a non-stop train where the discussions are nothing more than the trees a passaenger notices whipping by on the way to more trees upon trees upon trees. And the passenger never actually reached anywhere, so the trip is completely unmemorable.
clara_mai's review against another edition
Die ersten 50 Seiten gelesen und dann einen Monat lang gar nichts mehr - fürs Erste stelle ich Musil zurück ins Regal. Das erste Kapitel ist immer noch genial (vor ein paar Jahren tauchte das im Deutschunterricht auf) und macht Spaß beim Lesen, aber insgesamt sind weder mein Interesse am Thema noch meine Begeisterung für Musils Sprache groß genug, um mich durch mehr als 2000 Seiten davon zu schlagen. Zumindest für den Moment.
david_rhee's review against another edition
4.0
The Man Without Qualities is a book naturally almost impossible to rate justly due to its unfinished state, but there is still a lot to like about it. The backdrop is uniquely set in the waning years of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy which sits between a flourishing materialistic democracy to its west and the developing socialists to its east. Within itself, there are insoluble groups of people unable to decide if they want to be more or less German or Italian or neither. The clash of ideas, philosophies, and interests within this nation leaves its people in a state of being where one cannot cultivate his or her own personality and are therefore at the mercy of bombardment by neverending waves of opposing schools of thought.
The slow developing novel revolves around the planning of the Emperor's seventieth jubilee of his accession. The campaign dedicated to discovering the great idea representative of the Austrian spirit which is to become the theme of the celebration is headed by the aristocracy. The main man without qualities Ulrich, via connections through his father, finds himself at the heart of this campaign.
The pace actually holds up well and between the constant butting of heads of Ulrich and the Prussian tycoon Arnheim, the tale of the alluring Diotima, and the many side stories along the way there is plenty to entertain the willing reader. Concerns about the length of the work are understandable and they do end up proving to be for good reason. The later sections of the novel start to become frenetic and appear to lose structure. Storylines lose the interwoven nature observed in the earlier parts. Now of course, this is an unfinished work so all we are seeing is a part of the work without the benefit of a wash and wax. It could also be at least partly due to a reader losing stamina. I wasn't sure which.
The slow developing novel revolves around the planning of the Emperor's seventieth jubilee of his accession. The campaign dedicated to discovering the great idea representative of the Austrian spirit which is to become the theme of the celebration is headed by the aristocracy. The main man without qualities Ulrich, via connections through his father, finds himself at the heart of this campaign.
The pace actually holds up well and between the constant butting of heads of Ulrich and the Prussian tycoon Arnheim, the tale of the alluring Diotima, and the many side stories along the way there is plenty to entertain the willing reader. Concerns about the length of the work are understandable and they do end up proving to be for good reason. The later sections of the novel start to become frenetic and appear to lose structure. Storylines lose the interwoven nature observed in the earlier parts. Now of course, this is an unfinished work so all we are seeing is a part of the work without the benefit of a wash and wax. It could also be at least partly due to a reader losing stamina. I wasn't sure which.
ezrael's review
i'm too tired, but well, i probably will finish this next (or next next) year
caiosc's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.5
blueyorkie's review against another edition
3.0
Often classified among the major works of the 20th century, I have sometimes been tired of it. But of what, then? How can such a book (and let's say "volume 1"), which by far condenses the questions and the potentialities, the contradictions and the fears of the beginning of the 20th century, be boring? And indeed, after almost 1000 pages of intellectual dithering, we are flushed. We talk about progress, feelings, Ideas, the meaning of life or the sense of humanity, to mention only that.
The writing of the Man without Quality was perhaps the way for Robert Musil to put on paper, by making it unalterable, the result of his reflections, to try to understand in what state of mind this part of Europe on the eve of the catastrophe we know: the First World War.
Even if the geopolitical situation had not deepened in the book, we understand the stakes of this "Parallel action" for the "Austrian patriots" unable to define their own identity in this Austro-Hungarian empire stuck between the German Empire and the Slavic countries of south-eastern Europe.
The main character, who so far enjoyed modest success in his career, is at the centre of the action of the work. This man without quality had not so deprived of it, but he does not know how to define himself. The author uses this vagueness to embody his thoughts and communicate his questions to us. Conversely, Dr Harneim seems to represent a man who has all the qualities, a man who does not stay on the "average" and has the answer to everything. We get the impression that this man knows everything. But in the end, he recognizes that we cannot know everything to know everything; the truth is specific to everyone, according to their values, culture, and their history.
And it is the fight, intellectual, of the main character to make this fact, that all that we do, all that we believe, depends on our mechanisms of thought, that it does not there is no single truth. So, finally, it could apply this well-known maxim of Socrates: "All I know is that I know nothing".
The writing of the Man without Quality was perhaps the way for Robert Musil to put on paper, by making it unalterable, the result of his reflections, to try to understand in what state of mind this part of Europe on the eve of the catastrophe we know: the First World War.
Even if the geopolitical situation had not deepened in the book, we understand the stakes of this "Parallel action" for the "Austrian patriots" unable to define their own identity in this Austro-Hungarian empire stuck between the German Empire and the Slavic countries of south-eastern Europe.
The main character, who so far enjoyed modest success in his career, is at the centre of the action of the work. This man without quality had not so deprived of it, but he does not know how to define himself. The author uses this vagueness to embody his thoughts and communicate his questions to us. Conversely, Dr Harneim seems to represent a man who has all the qualities, a man who does not stay on the "average" and has the answer to everything. We get the impression that this man knows everything. But in the end, he recognizes that we cannot know everything to know everything; the truth is specific to everyone, according to their values, culture, and their history.
And it is the fight, intellectual, of the main character to make this fact, that all that we do, all that we believe, depends on our mechanisms of thought, that it does not there is no single truth. So, finally, it could apply this well-known maxim of Socrates: "All I know is that I know nothing".
nelesophie's review against another edition
3.0
Der Stil hat mir sehr gefallen, allerdings glaube ich, dass man das Buch noch besser schätzen würde, wenn man (im Gegensatz zu mir) die Vorlage dazu liest. Trotzdem ein schnelles, interessantes Buch!
billa's review against another edition
challenging
dark
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0