Correction by Thomas Bernhard April BOTM

[Diane]

Review thread https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

[Diane]

Pre-reading questions

Is this your first Bernhard book? If not how many have you read?

Are you going to read both books this month?

1. Thomas Bernhard is the king of the comma. Some of his sentences go on for pages and pages. How did this style of writing work for you?

2. The novel is composed of two parts. The first portrays Roithamer through the eyes of an unnamed friend who arrives in Hoeller’s Garret. In the second part the narrator gradually gives off to Roithaimer’s voice, reading excerpts from his manuscript. How did you like the shift in narration?

3. The more you think, the more unhappy you become. Do you agree with this statement? How does it relate to Roithamer?

4. The question remains – is it possible for such people to endure the trivialities of life, to learn and settle for something less than perfection, to accept people with their faults without constantly trying to correct and change them?

5. Are all geniuses destined to a lonely and depressed life, always misunderstood and criticized?

6. Are you going to read Wittgenstein's Nephew?

7. How do you feel about reading 2 books by the same author in a month?

[Valerie]

I'm looking forward to this one, even though I won't get to it until later in the month. I've read 2 others: The Loser and Wittgenstein's Nephew. I enjoyed both of them quite a bit.

[Amanda]

I'm picking up the book tomorrow so that it is good to go for April :)

I've read a few Bernhard's on the list: Extinction, Old masters, Wittgenstein's Nephew, Concrete...my ratings have varied from 2-4 stars so we'll see about this one.

I'm only planning on reading this one, I read Wittgenstein's Nephew years ago, but I did enjoy it.

[Kristel]

I've read Old Masters. I think it was a previous BOTM. I feel a bit intimidated by the author but I remember not minding Old Masters. My initial understanding is that the author as two obsessions; music and Wittgenstein. Also I read that the unnamed narrator who is the executor of the deceased Roithamer, feels that Roithamer's making him the executor was an act of aggression. I also read that Holler Attic is like "going to Hell". All interesting thoughts.

I do hope to read Wittgenstein's Nephew too. But who knows. It may be overly ambitious with having to close up my place in Florida and head back to Minnesota. Not quite sure when I will head bace.

[George P.]

I haven't read any of Bernhard's books before so I'm the odd one out so far. I started it a while ago and I'm almost half way through now. I'm having a hard time reading very much of it in one sitting because of the weird style, which reminds me a lot of Garcia Marquez' The Autumn of the Patriarch. Also reminds me a bit of Henry James who made heavy use of commas and semicolons in very long sentences. They didn't have the repetition though.

5. I don't think "all geniuses are destined to a lonely and depressed life, always misunderstood and criticized". Most of them find other very intelligent people to talk to/marry, esp if they are professors, engineers, physicians, etc. It can be hard for them to relate to popular culture and the half of the population with IQs below 100 though.

[Kristel]

5. All and always make this question a “no”.

[Gail]

Pre-q: I have read Wittgenstein's Nephew so I am just reading Correction. I found his writing to be repetitive but interesting so I am looking forward to this. I have not gotten it from the library yet though.

[Pamela]

Pre-reading : I have read Extinction and plan to read both BOTM.
I quite liked the style so am looking forward to these books

[[deleted user]]

Is this your first Bernhard book? If not how many have you read? No reading this thread I now think I may have read Old Masters as well as Wittengens Nephew LOL

Are you going to read both books this month? Yes

As mentioned in the other thread I hate this style with no natural eye breaks.

2. The novel is composed of two parts. The first portrays Roithamer through the eyes of an unnamed friend who arrives in Hoeller’s Garret. In the second part the narrator gradually gives off to Roithaimer’s voice, reading excerpts from his manuscript. How did you like the shift in narration? I preferred the friends perspective the Roithamer section was a lot of jumbled words.

3. The more you think, the more unhappy you become. Do you agree with this statement? How does it relate to Roithamer? For certain people this is true, I would say it is down to personality type if like me you believe that what will be will be you tend to be happier and not over think things but people like my husband run through every possible scenario before doing anything and normally the scenarios are the worst case so does make you unhappy. Roithamer is a perfectionist and needs a goal take away that goal or if the goal is not achieved he has nothing to live for.

4. The question remains – is it possible for such people to endure the trivialities of life, to learn and settle for something less than perfection, to accept people with their faults without constantly trying to correct and change them? No if you are a perfectionist I don't believe you can change and become accepting.

5. Are all geniuses destined to a lonely and depressed life, always misunderstood and criticized? No not all.

[George P.]

I'm 2/3 of the way through and really not enjoying it. I'm hoping the last third helps make up somewhat for what has been boring so far. If not, this is probably both my first and last Bernhard.
This isn't directly linked to any of the questions but relates to two of three of them: I think Rotheimer had a very emotionally unnourishing childhood, and though highly intelligent became pretty neurotic and maladjusted in some ways. It's interesting that he enjoyed being around Hoeller's children and interacting with them though. Michael Jackson enjoyed being around children too, probably in part because he was so poor at interacting with adults.

[Kristel]

What I’ve found so far is there is a lot of repetition but also a lot of corrections so reality is constantly changing and of course the author is slowly revealing information.

Rotheimer died by suicide after his sister died, she died of an illness or did she die because the cone was inhuman. The area between Rotheimer’s home and the school is dangerous. The river is dangerous, the river is a constant roar. The cone is built in the forest, the cone is inhuman, the forest is isolated. The Garret is isolated. The roar of the river causes isolation.

Just my random thoughts. I am liking it but it is more like a work of reading than a pleasure of reading.

A George; we read Old Masters a year ago or so and it was easier to read.

[Amanda]

Finished this one last week and I'm still trying to decide how I feel about it, so interested in what other people have to say. Now time for the questions:

1. Thomas Bernhard is the king of the comma. Some of his sentences go on for pages and pages. How did this style of writing work for you?

It annoyed the crap out of me at first lol, but I did get used to it and then I didn't really care either way. It is a bit obnoxious and pretentious at times, but it also does convey this fish-bowl obsessive quality that is relevant to the narrative.

2. The novel is composed of two parts. The first portrays Roithamer through the eyes of an unnamed friend who arrives in Hoeller’s Garret. In the second part the narrator gradually gives off to Roithaimer’s voice, reading excerpts from his manuscript. How did you like the shift in narration?

I wasn't a massive fan about how Bernhard handled this one. Instead of doing a full shift it just keeps saying "as per Roithamer" or something to that effect the whole time. I get that it was probably done to maintain some distance between the reader and mindset of Roithamer to demonstrate he is someone who is 'apart'. But, in application, I found it got a little obnoxious.

3. The more you think, the more unhappy you become. Do you agree with this statement? How does it relate to Roithamer?

Not in the slightest. I mean I definitely know people who do too much introspection to the point that they make a complex out of everything. But, so many people also think to the point of solutions, or just get a great sense of wonder out of researching and considering different topics. I often feel that way myself. In the story, it doesn't seem to be the volume of thinking that betrays Roithamer, but the limited scope and obsessive quality of his thinking.

4. The question remains – is it possible for such people to endure the trivialities of life, to learn and settle for something less than perfection, to accept people with their faults without constantly trying to correct and change them?

Yes, it won't universally happen, but it is possible. I know people who used to be more high-strung perfectionists who have gotten severely burnt out and have reconsidered their philosophy to life. I feel like this is a more pro-social response to the problematic presented in the book. It is "Correction" because if the pursuit becomes unattainable and infinite, the ultimate correction to be made is to stop the pursuit.

I also want to push back against the notion that 'trivialities' and imperfections are enemies of the thinking or 'brilliant' person.
There can be a depth of history or science, or feeling that can be gleaned from anything. As well, understanding the ways everything fails to meet 'perfection' and how to leverage that for art, architecture, and scientific innovation (mutation is the source of soooo much adaptation and even medical cures) is a much more interesting mark of 'brilliance' (if such a thing exists) for me.

As well, triviality is a matter of relativity: I think building a geometrically perfect cone in a forest center is a trivial idea that doesn't substantially contribute to socio-cultural or political issues, or an understanding of the aesthetic value of nature or the function of architecture. It reads more like one of those silly "let's see if I can do it just because" challenges you see on youtube clickbait videos.

This is my main conflict of the novel: Is it a sendup of these types or is it played straight? Does that matter if the book has me thinking about this subject? My thoughts on it are not fully settled yet.

5. Are all geniuses destined to a lonely and depressed life, always misunderstood and criticized?

NO. This is one of those cliches I really can't stand. Yes, some people who contributed some great innovations in their fields have suffered with mental illness and felt alienated from others. So do people who lead otherwise average lives. There are 'brilliant' people who also have successful social and fulfilled lives all around.

Anyway rant incoming:

I think this has been perpetuated in part because people who do feel depressed and alienated can rationalize this as a source of superiority (instead of maybe the healthier perspective that this a common experience many people go through). Someone I worked with who is admittedly cultured and intelligent in what they do (neuroscience) tried to tell me educated and truly intelligent people will always be more depressed and I couldn't abide by that. We were all great geneticists/neuroscientists in our lab and had varying perspectives on how bleak things were/had different life life experiences. And really, so many people globally do our job, yeah they are smart in a specific academic way (not to mention there are so many potential ways to be educated and intelligent), but this person isn't history making brilliant compared to other people who do our job that no one could understand them.

That perspective just strikes as condescending (and often classist) And even if someone is gifted in their specific field? so what. I don't think it takes a 'brilliant' mind to grasp that the human experience is complex and contains great compassion and horror. If someone is remarkable at math or art for example, but thinks they're the only genius who understands how bleak and apart from others they are, I just end up thinking their intelligence in that field doesn't extend to social/emotional intelligence.

6. Are you going to read Wittgenstein's Nephew?

Already have, quite enjoyed that one.

7. How do you feel about reading 2 books by the same author in a month?

This is actually my last Bernhard on the list! My enjoyment of him has varied from 2-4 stars, I'm sitting on a 3 for this one so far.

[Amanda]

Review thread just made: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

[Gail]

1. Thomas Bernhard is the king of the comma. Some of his sentences go on for pages and pages. How did this style of writing work for you?

I believe that this book would have been read "at its best" if one read it in one sitting and got into the chanting (ranting) flow of it or if one listened to an audio book. However, I did not or could not do that. I read a physical book and as a matter of fact I started out reading about 20 pages and putting it down, then 15 pages etc. By the end I put it down 3 pages before the final page before finally completing it. The run on sentences didn't bother me and even the specific repetition didn't bother me. In fact I believe that they worked as a way of allowing me to visualize the state of Roithamer's mind. However, the overall voice was beyond irritating for me. Both the friend of and Roithamer himself were simply not voices I wished to spend time with.

2. The novel is composed of two parts. The first portrays Roithamer through the eyes of an unnamed friend who arrives in Hoeller’s Garret. In the second part the narrator gradually gives off to Roithamer’s voice, reading excerpts from his manuscript. How did you like the shift in narration?
I felt that it worked. The only thing interesting that we learn about the friend was his relationship to Roithamer and the fact that Roithamer's mental condition seemed to have influenced his friend too severely. It made sense to me that we switched over to Roithamer's written works directly.

3. The more you think, the more unhappy you become. Do you agree with this statement? How does it relate to Roithamer?
No, I do think that one can dwell on life conditions to the point of focusing too much on one aspect of it. It is possible that that one aspect of it could make someone very unhappy but it could also fill them with joy. Roithamer is consumed with only a few things in his life: his science, his sister, the Cone, Altensam and his mother. His science and his sister balance out the extreme emotions he has for Altensam and his mother. The Cone, once it is completed and has done its worst to his sister, causes Roithamer's balance to be completely thrown off. He begins correcting to the point of negation.

4. The question remains – is it possible for such people to endure the trivialities of life, to learn and settle for something less than perfection, to accept people with their faults without constantly trying to correct and change them?
"Such people". Hmmm.
Clearly the author thought it was necessary to show the reader how a compulsive attention to perfection would ultimately lead to destruction. In the arts, perfection is simply not possible. The Navajo weavers famously weave a 'mistake' into their blankets and hangings in order to prevent the spider gods from being jealous. These mistakes are often exactly what makes their creations unique and astonishing. In the sciences there is also not perfection, there are theories and proofs but understanding evolves over time as new data comes into play.

5. Are all geniuses destined to a lonely and depressed life, always misunderstood and criticized?
No. It is no doubt more difficult to have a relationship of equals if you exist on either of the two extreme ends of the intelligence bell curve but that does not necessarily condemn you to a depressed life. I do think that creative people suffer greatly when their work is not understood but that could also be true of any one who is misunderstood.
Evidently Bernhard himself felt that the country of his birth, Austria, had turned on her intellectuals and was dooming them to a rather homeless intellectual life without companionship.

6. Are you going to read Wittgenstein's Nephew? I have read it previously and I enjoyed it more than I enjoyed reading this book

7. How do you feel about reading 2 books by the same author in a month? It doesn't happen often and it is usually interesting when it does.

[Pamela]

Pre-reading questions answered above…

1. Thomas Bernhard is the king of the comma. Some of his sentences go on for pages and pages. How did this style of writing work for you?
I read Extinction last month and this is very similar in style (and themes too) so I felt reasonably comfortable with it. I think the commas and the repetition support the ‘stream of consciousness’ feel so I found it effective. What I did find strangely irritating was the repetition of ‘so-called’ in the first section and ‘so Roithamer’ in the second. I began to skip over the ‘so Roithamer’ interjections.

2. The novel is composed of two parts. The first portrays Roithamer through the eyes of an unnamed friend who arrives in Hoeller’s Garret. In the second part the narrator gradually gives off to Roithaimer’s voice, reading excerpts from his manuscript. How did you like the shift in narration?
As it all centred around Roithamer and his writings, the shift was not very noticeable overall, it didn’t impact me negatively but I didn’t feel it added anything either.

3. The more you think, the more unhappy you become. Do you agree with this statement? How does it relate to Roithamer?
I partially agree, especially if the thoughts become obsessive like Roithamer about The Cone and Altensam, but it can also be that this constant overthinking is a symptom of depression. In the end it is Roithamer’s unsuccessful attempts to act upon his thoughts by correcting again and again that brings him to despair.

4. The question remains – is it possible for such people to endure the trivialities of life, to learn and settle for something less than perfection, to accept people with their faults without constantly trying to correct and change them?
I think it is possible, but it requires accepting the perfectionism as a fault in themselves first, then it would become easier to accept others as they are. Roithamer’s misanthropy seems to go beyond this though, his hatred of his mother and brothers is pretty extreme and he is so obsessive (for example about finding the centre of the forest) that he is never going to be anything but desperately unhappy.

5. Are all geniuses destined to a lonely and depressed life, always misunderstood and criticized? No, life (and relationships) are difficult if you are outside what is considered ‘normal’ and there are certainly plenty of jealous and unkind people about, but fulfilment and satisfaction are still possible, Roithamer is an extreme case I feel (and represents more than just an individual, he’s also there as a symbol of how Austria treats intellectuals).

6. Are you going to read Wittgenstein's Nephew?
Yes I am. How can I resist?

7. How do you feel about reading 2 books by the same author in a month?
It’s helpful to compare the ideas and to get attuned to the particular style of an author. I’m glad I also read Extinction quite recently. Having said that, I also feel I could now do with a rest from Bernhard for a while

[Valerie]

Doesn't that figure....! Between the vote for this book, and me getting back from BC (on Monday) - someone has borrowed this book! What is the chance of that, no one took it out all of previous weeks... So, I may not get it until after April.

[Kristel]

1. Thomas Bernhard is the king of the comma. Some of his sentences go on for pages and pages. How did this style of writing work for you?
I managed to read it but it was very fatiguing and besides the two paragraph and long sentences they are also spaced very close together and the subject matter is also tiring.

2. The novel is composed of two parts. The first portrays Roithamer through the eyes of an unnamed friend who arrives in Hoeller’s Garret. In the second part the narrator gradually gives off to Roithaimer’s voice, reading excerpts from his manuscript. How did you like the shift in narration? I found the first part easier to read but the second part had some interesting ideas but they were just willy nilly.

3. The more you think, the more unhappy you become. Do you agree with this statement? How does it relate to Roithamer? I think that this is true for some people; those with depression. Those who are pessimistic. I also think this is a story of suicide. Existential albeit.

4. The question remains – is it possible for such people to endure the trivialities of life, to learn and settle for something less than perfection, to accept people with their faults without constantly trying to correct and change them? I think it might be pretty hard unless they make a concerted effort but in this case the person feels superior to others so unlikely to change.

5. Are all geniuses destined to a lonely and depressed life, always misunderstood and criticized? no of course not. Some maybe but not all.

6. Are you going to read Wittgenstein's Nephew? I am going to try and I hope it is easier than this was.

7. How do you feel about reading 2 books by the same author in a month? I think it is often beneficial and I would rather not have books excluded from radomizer if another by the author has been selected, after all the idea is to read them all.

[Rosemary]

1. Thomas Bernhard is the king of the comma. Some of his sentences go on for pages and pages. How did this style of writing work for you?

I realised quickly that this was not a book that I could sit and read for long periods. My eyes would have glazed over. So I aimed to read 10 pages a day alongside other things. Sometimes I would go to 20, but never more. This is a method I often use with more difficult books. It worked well and stopped me skimming.

2. The novel is composed of two parts. The first portrays Roithamer through the eyes of an unnamed friend who arrives in Hoeller’s Garret. In the second part the narrator gradually gives off to Roithaimer’s voice, reading excerpts from his manuscript. How did you like the shift in narration?

The first part was fine. The narrator was very much in the background, but I enjoyed the descriptions of Hoeller's family and their house beside the deafening river, the three men's childhood friendship, and the way that Roithamer and the narrator both felt more at home in each other's houses than their own. I was also intrigued by the narrator's reverence for Roithamer and his writings.

But then I didn't like the second part. So misogynistic and destructive! Roithamer despised his mother ("the Eferding woman") because of her lower class origins, and wanted to imprison his sister in the Cone while claiming she was the person he loved most in the world.

I know we are not meant to take these characters and situations at face value, but I couldn't help thinking of this poor woman who must have thought she would be okay when her favourite brother inherited the family fortune - at least she would be dependent on someone who cared about her. And then to find he planned to make her spend the rest of her life alone in the middle of a forest! No wonder it killed her!

3. The more you think, the more unhappy you become. Do you agree with this statement? How does it relate to Roithamer?

It's true that repetitive ruminating can increase anxiety, depression and stress. But I don't think that's what's meant by "thinking" in this question. Working on a problem or developing an idea does not have to make us unhappy, although it could. Philosophical thinking can lead us to some negative conclusions, for sure - that humans are a cancer on the earth, or whatever. But it's also possible to direct our thoughts to more positive aspects like the interconnectedness of people and all phenomena. We can choose the direction of our thinking - or at least, we can choose which thoughts we entertain and follow.

4. The question remains – is it possible for such people to endure the trivialities of life, to learn and settle for something less than perfection, to accept people with their faults without constantly trying to correct and change them?

I htink that someone who believes they are superior to everyone else, as Roithamer does, would be lucky if they ever learned to appreciate other people. If it happened it would be a humbling revelation.

I think Roithamer would have had the opportunity to do this when his sister died. But he could not stand to overturn his world view. He couldn't accept having been wrong about the Cone, so he "corrected" things by killing himself.

5. Are all geniuses destined to a lonely and depressed life, always misunderstood and criticized?

No, I agree with Amanda - there's an "if you're not suicidal, you can't be a genius" thing going on, and from there we have the logical fallacy that says "so if you're suicidal, you must be a genius." All BS, and dangerously linked to the romanticisation of depression and suicide.

6. Are you going to read Wittgenstein's Nephew?

I read that one first, and I'm glad I did. It was a good introduction to Bernhard's writing style and preoccupations, and despite being shorter I thought it was wider in scope than this one.

7. How do you feel about reading 2 books by the same author in a month?

I found the experience really interesting, especially for an author I hadn't read before.

[Pip]

I have read Old Masters and Wittgenstein's Nephew previously.
1. I started to notice how long the sentences were and it distracted me from the meaning - not really a problem because each idea was repeated with subtle changes!
2. I much preferred the first part although the way the writing segued first into what Roithamer had to say, "so Reithamer" and then Reithamer directly until one noticed that the narrator was going down the same rabbithole as Roithamer was skilfully done. But painful to read!
3. That thinking makes one unhappy was exactly what happened to Roithamer in the end, although he was excited about his idea for the Cone. But, of course, as everyone has said, thinking doesn't necessarily lead to unhappiness. It all depends on the way one thinks. All experiences can be either positive or negative "thinking makes it so".
4. Roithamer was a seriously damaged individual who shunned ordinary social intercourse to pursue his studies. He apparently ignored the trivialities of life.
5. Not necessarily.
6. I read Wittgenstein's Mistress by David Markson this month which had some similarities to Wittgenstein's Nephew but was much more readable and enjoyable.

[Valerie]

How do you like that.... I actually got the book in time to read it within the month.

1. Thomas Bernhard is the king of the comma. Some of his sentences go on for pages and pages. How did this style of writing work for you?

Yes. I think it works for this type of novel, which is insular and about a small (in scale) story. It wouldn't work for an epic. The pauses, rather than full stops really set an appropriate cadence.


2. The novel is composed of two parts. The first portrays Roithamer through the eyes of an unnamed friend who arrives in Hoeller’s Garret. In the second part the narrator gradually gives off to Roithaimer’s voice, reading excerpts from his manuscript. How did you like the shift in narration?

I thought this was extremely tricky to handle, but well done. You are thrown off balance - is the narrator slipping into madness as well, or maybe he already was there with Roithamer. Who knows? But well done, Bernhard.


3. The more you think, the more unhappy you become. Do you agree with this statement? How does it relate to Roithamer?

Yes, and no. It certainly is true regarding some issues. This is an interesting question because when i was reading the novel, I certainly was questioning Roithamer's mental health particularly as it relates to his childhood experiences.



4. The question remains – is it possible for such people to endure the trivialities of life, to learn and settle for something less than perfection, to accept people with their faults without constantly trying to correct and change them?

Of course, isn't this what we do everyday! :)


5. Are all geniuses destined to a lonely and depressed life, always misunderstood and criticized?

No, I think that is a gross over-simplification. Firstly, there is no evidence (other than self promotion) that Roithamer is a genius; and secondly, if you accept that he is, he is someone who had a lot of mental health/childhood issues he needed to overcome that had nothing to do with his 'genius'.