Review: Death in Venice


I just finished reading Death in Venice by Thomas Mann. I must start by admitting that this is a very disturbing story. The main plot is that the main character, Aschenbach, goes to Venice on vacation. While there is sees a young boy that infatuates him and the rest of the novel he stalks the boy and his family around the town while a plague settles into the city. The theme of pederasty is tough to take. I understand the artist's license and personal past that Mann operated under and that he was making a point, but that did not make reading it any more comfortable. One thing is clear: this is NOT a simple story of pederasty. It is a discourse on the Platonic dialog of Phaedrus. Not being an expert in Plato I had to read up on the dialog on Wiki (see the link at the end of the post). In it Socrates discusses the two types of love: the lover and the non-lover. In it he argues against pederasty, that by overcoming this desire, it ennobles both the lover and the beloved. So in the end the story is about, in Socrates' words:

"And thus he loves, but he knows not what; he does not understand and cannot explain his own state; he appears to have caught the infection of blindness from another; the
lover is his mirror in whom he is beholding himself, but he is not aware of this."

After a horrible dream, in which Aschenbach dreams of some feral Dionysian rite, which demonstrates the internal war Aschenbach is fighting with the god Eros, he takes ill while following the boy, and in his delirium he dreams of Socrates' lecture with Phaedrus. Thus he realizes his urges, and overcomes them. He dies a few days later while watching his beloved play on the beach.

The character of Aschenbach is a pompous, aging intellectual writer who has been widowed for many years. One of aspects of the story that the reader follows in how the self important, egotistical man becomes so completely obsessed with the young boy that even after knowing that Venice is beset by a Cholera epidemic he does nothing to warn the family of the boy, for if he does the family will leave -- depriving him of his stalking victim. That act alone demonstrates the base nature of the character. That nature makes it tough to identify with the character and makes it impossible to sympathize with him. Aschenbach does not enter into the pantheon of great, identifiable literary characters.

The theme of the red headed men runs throughout the story. Aschenbach sees an old evil looking red headed man in church before he goes on his trip. He later sees as he arrives in Paris an old fool who has dolled himself up with hair dye and makeup to look younger. This foreshadows Aschenbach's own attempt to do the same to remain young looking and vibrant. He never sees the correlation. There are a few more red headed men, most important is a gondolier that tries to take him on a round-about trip. I'm afraid the imagery is lost on me. I know it means something but I haven't been able to figure it out.

Mann's writing does not jive with me. I find it too flowery and flowing. The words seem to flow without any great direction or force. This style does not encourage me to read any other works from Mann.

Overall, this is a deep story that invites a great deal of re-reading. Unfortunatley, the subject matter discourages re-reading. I would not put this story very high on my list of great stories, if it got there at all. I had no clues on the Greek gods and philosophy that were being referenced in the story. I found that a little reading on the subject enhanced the impact, and lessened the disturbing nature of the story somewhat. And Plato is good to read on his own, but I'm no philosopher, so I end up dog paddling through Plato's words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaedrus_(Plato))