Sign in with Facebook
Becky's Reviews > The Glass Bead Game
The Glass Bead Game
by
by
I like Herman Hesse. I like Siddhartha, I remember liking Steppenwolf, I like huge sagas that probe the mind. I usually like weighty wordy novels where nothing in particular happens.
I did not like the Glass Bead Game.
I really did not like the Glass Bead Game.
And I don’t understand how people did.
First of all, I’ve gone through a lot of reviews. I was about fifty percent through the book, bored out of my mind, and I started reading reviews trying to get some motivation to finish this tome. I didn’t find ANY. First of all, everyone that gave it lots of stars either didn’t write a review, or wrote a review that’s literally a re-writing of the synopisis from Wikipedia. I’m not trying to insinuate that they didn’t really read it, or that they didn’t really understand it, or even that they are trying to seem cool by giving a Nobel winning book a good star rating--- I’m not insinuating that, but I have to wonder. I didn’t hardly find a single review that actually illuminated what that person actually enjoyed about the book.
Most reviews were along the lines of “This story follows the life of Josef Knecht, who rose to become the youngest Master Ludi.” Or “This book talks about elitism, intellectualism, and touches on Buddhism.”
Ok? But what did any of you THINK about that? I mean, I know WHAT the book is about, I want to know if you enjoyed the presentation of those arguments, the story, did you agree or disagree?
There was nothing about that. So, at 50% through, I stopped reading. I have a rule, I usually give a book 100 pages to grab me, if it’s a long book I’ll give it 200. I gave this book more than a fair shake, I even looked for reasons to keep going, but I don’t think there are any.
There is nothing in this book, that wasn’t a total rehash of every other book that Hesse wrote. So, here is my opinion- this is a dull drab affair in which nothing happens. I feel that there were some really interesting things that COULD have happened, or hell, even a treatise just on the ideals of the Glass Bead Game itself would’ve been more interesting. I love the idea that the GBG is a synthesis of the knowledge and culture of mankind throughout history. The Glass Bead Game is a design that is supposed to move this story forward, that is supposed to be the gravitational pull at the center of the book that all the words orbit around. Instead it’s nothing that’s nearly so forceful; it’s shrouded in mystery, but not the interesting-leaves-you-wondering-days-after-the-book kind, it’s the oh-you-couldn’t-be-bothered-to-actually-figure-it-out kind. That leaves Josef as the driving force of the book, but the only time he comes to life is when the actually interesting side-characters come back into the book, like the Master of Music. Josef is just a receptacle for the intervention of the other characters. So basically this book is like 800 pages of reading about someone with the personality of a garbage can and about some marbles that aren’t ever really described to you. Good luck.
And, if you honestly DID, enjoy it, for the love of god tell me why, without summarizing the book. If I hear a good enough argument I’ll go back and finish it, but at this point, I have no faith that it gets any better, and I cannot force myself into it.
Read Hesse’s other books, they are much more enjoyable. If you want something to touch your soul read Siddhartha.
I did not like the Glass Bead Game.
I really did not like the Glass Bead Game.
And I don’t understand how people did.
First of all, I’ve gone through a lot of reviews. I was about fifty percent through the book, bored out of my mind, and I started reading reviews trying to get some motivation to finish this tome. I didn’t find ANY. First of all, everyone that gave it lots of stars either didn’t write a review, or wrote a review that’s literally a re-writing of the synopisis from Wikipedia. I’m not trying to insinuate that they didn’t really read it, or that they didn’t really understand it, or even that they are trying to seem cool by giving a Nobel winning book a good star rating--- I’m not insinuating that, but I have to wonder. I didn’t hardly find a single review that actually illuminated what that person actually enjoyed about the book.
Most reviews were along the lines of “This story follows the life of Josef Knecht, who rose to become the youngest Master Ludi.” Or “This book talks about elitism, intellectualism, and touches on Buddhism.”
Ok? But what did any of you THINK about that? I mean, I know WHAT the book is about, I want to know if you enjoyed the presentation of those arguments, the story, did you agree or disagree?
There was nothing about that. So, at 50% through, I stopped reading. I have a rule, I usually give a book 100 pages to grab me, if it’s a long book I’ll give it 200. I gave this book more than a fair shake, I even looked for reasons to keep going, but I don’t think there are any.
There is nothing in this book, that wasn’t a total rehash of every other book that Hesse wrote. So, here is my opinion- this is a dull drab affair in which nothing happens. I feel that there were some really interesting things that COULD have happened, or hell, even a treatise just on the ideals of the Glass Bead Game itself would’ve been more interesting. I love the idea that the GBG is a synthesis of the knowledge and culture of mankind throughout history. The Glass Bead Game is a design that is supposed to move this story forward, that is supposed to be the gravitational pull at the center of the book that all the words orbit around. Instead it’s nothing that’s nearly so forceful; it’s shrouded in mystery, but not the interesting-leaves-you-wondering-days-after-the-book kind, it’s the oh-you-couldn’t-be-bothered-to-actually-figure-it-out kind. That leaves Josef as the driving force of the book, but the only time he comes to life is when the actually interesting side-characters come back into the book, like the Master of Music. Josef is just a receptacle for the intervention of the other characters. So basically this book is like 800 pages of reading about someone with the personality of a garbage can and about some marbles that aren’t ever really described to you. Good luck.
And, if you honestly DID, enjoy it, for the love of god tell me why, without summarizing the book. If I hear a good enough argument I’ll go back and finish it, but at this point, I have no faith that it gets any better, and I cannot force myself into it.
Read Hesse’s other books, they are much more enjoyable. If you want something to touch your soul read Siddhartha.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Glass Bead Game.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
June 4, 2013
–
Started Reading
June 4, 2013
– Shelved
June 4, 2013
–
20.0%
"*so* bored. So so so so bored. Oh god. I even like Hesse well enough, I dont normally mind his prose... but this... this...ugh. I just KNOW nothing is going to happen. I dont know if I should give it any more time to capture me? I'm baffled how it won a Nobel Prize."
June 5, 2013
– Shelved as:
authors-i-love-who-failed
June 5, 2013
– Shelved as:
classics
June 5, 2013
– Shelved as:
modlit
June 5, 2013
– Shelved as:
philosophy
June 5, 2013
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-37 of 37 (37 new)
date
newest »
newest »
I honestly don't feel that is enough to save this book. I understand it as a critique of cultural perceptions of history and a metaphysical look at the marriage of knowledge to beauty, and I can get behind that, but the book remains utterly disengaging to me as the reader. I feel That it lacks Hesse's normal panache.
I know what you mean! I sort of get tired of seeing reviews that basically just tell me what the book is about. I really don't need that, it's on the top of the page. I come here to get an opinion on how people liked the books and an explanation of why.
One of the most disappointing reads ever, well-ststed critique of the cult surrounding this opaque and sterile mess.
Yeah, Becky... I'm reading this now. It's interesting, I guess... but I'm 50 pages in without one line of dialogue. If I'm going to read an historical biography, I'm going to read an historical biography about something that's real. I love "challenging" reading, but if I want a challenge without intellectual stimulation, I'll run a marathon. After a month, nobody has taken you up on your challenge.
I'm going to bite the bullet here... I'm going to try to finish this. But if there isn't any dialogue soon, it's a wrap. Can I add a add a condition to your challenge? Explain why this book is worthwhile without saying that Becky and I are missing the point (and, yes, be assured that we understand the historical context of this work). Hermann Hesse is a good enough writer that his point shouldn't be missed after more than 500 pages.
It's too bad too, I do like Hesse. I even like what he was trying to do here, but, god its so boring. I really couldn't do it. I could read Siddhartha a hundred times, I think I'd even read just a treatise on the, Glass Bead Game, and I agree with everything Clive says but in the end, I think that this book was not a compelling enough story to drive his arguments. An unfortunate mistep AND not one that I think should be considered his magnum opus despite winning the Nobel.
You have more patience than me for this kind of thing, maybe. I really enjoyed Siddhartha and Steppenwolfe, but that was when I was a teenager and I had more patience for this kind of thing. I'll trust you that those aren't as dry as this.
Honestly I haven't read Steppenwolf since I was a senior in high school, I hardly remember it, but I read Siddhartha just two years ago.
A contender for best book I have ever read. I have learned so much about life and myself from this his magnum opus. Just because you didn't understand it is no reason to assume noboddy else could, I found it a very easy read though it did take me about a hundred pages to really get into it.
Alas, somehow I missed your snarky comment back in December. I'm glad that you liked it, and I am glad that you felt a personal return for your time investment in reading the book. That is, after all, what we are all looking for whether the return be entertainment, amusement, or personal growth. Still, its completely asinine to assume that I didn't understand the book simply because I didn't like it. I understood it just fine, and you are right, its not a very difficult read, my problem was that I had no interest in the manner in which the ideas were presented. I found Siddhartha much more compelling. I have four bachelors degrees- Philosophy, with a focus on the evolution of thought, History, Classics, and Renaissance and Medieval Studies, I have two minors- in German and Art History- so believe me when I say, I understood it, AND was particularly interested by the idea of the Glass Bead Game BECAUSE as it was representative of the synthesis of all the things I studied, I thought it could be a very compelling foil for the book. I was, however, disappointed in that. I simply did not care for Hesse's format. The only highlight for me was the Master of Music, but he simply wasn't enough for me to continue on.
I never said no one else understood it. I would never presume to tell someone else what they did or did not comprehend, because I dont want to come off like a pretentious twit. That is too much akin to dictating someone else's emotional response to a piece of art. Total rubbish. I said I wanted to hear what people thought was really good. Did the dialogue really sing to you? Did the mystery of the glass bead entice you personally? What about the book made you contemplative, what about the book really helped you learn about yourself and life? These are the things I want to hear about, because I would like to understand other people's responses to a book that I simply didn't connect with.
Chris wrote: "A contender for best book I have ever read. I have learned so much about life and myself from this his magnum opus. Just because you didn't understand it is no reason to assume noboddy else could, ..."
Ouch. Dou you need help burying Chris' body?
I shouldn't respond to things until I've had coffee... I can be grumpy.
Naw, it was good. I think he missed your point because he couldn't see past his own. I haven't tried Hesse yet, although my oldest son did in high school (hated Siddhartha). now I know not to start here!
I'm glad I came across this review. I enjoyed Siddhartha and was intrigued by Steppenwolf. I managed to read about thirty pages before I did the same as you and started scouring reviews for a reason to enjoy this. I also found the favorable reviews to be unconvincing. Looks like I may have saved myself some time.
Keven wrote: "I'm glad I came across this review. I enjoyed Siddhartha and was intrigued by Steppenwolf. I managed to read about thirty pages before I did the same as you and started scouring reviews for a reaso..."Glad to be of service :D
Hi Becky, i've only read Siddhartha for the first time recently and TGBG is my second Hesse. Read your comments and answers, so will keep it really short what i hope to say: don't miss out on the second story of The Three Lives - The Father Confessor. i just finished it and cried and cried...
Samye88 wrote: "Hi Becky, i've only read Siddhartha for the first time recently and TGBG is my second Hesse. Read your comments and answers, so will keep it really short what i hope to say: don't miss out on the s..."Thanks Samye. I will consider going back and reading the parts where the short stories begin at the end.
^ I second Samye88's remarks. Hesse's philosophy is strong, but TGBG felt wanting in places as a 'philosophical novel.' It's mostly talking heads. The arguments are compelling, and Hesse's classic sense of dichotomy is present, but his characters sometimes strained credulity as people. The perfect 'philosophical novel' (my unqualified opinion, having little formal literary training) never makes you draw any distinction between argument and character. Characters are living, breathing arguments. Knecht's (Hesse's) stories achieve this much more succinctly than the novel. If you read and enjoy them, then I'd suggest you try the book again. It took me two tries to finish, as well.
Hi Chris, I so like your thoughtful comments! 'His characters strained credulity as people'... yes, they are idealized, more conceptual than flesh and blood. But if i factor in the setting of the book, 23rd century, and the premises that Joseph and his masters, fellow colleagues are men living a pure life in the Mind, they do not appear too far fetched and two dimensional after a while. If you refer to Joseph's lifelong 'winning streak', the shocking last act works well to bust the aura: his Ego, never been checked, is his downfall. Still, I can't agree with you more, Joseph wrote his alter egos (various reincarnations) in Three Lives, there, his characters are deeply touching and sympathetic, living and breathing, immediately believable and relatable. I wonder how Hesse planned this work, the structure is indeed extraordinary. I'd also like to add my admiration for the Music Master. Again idealized into sheer perfection. But like the Buddha and other godlike saints, they are the rarest kind in the human race, like Mount Everest; an epitome of life to guide us as the North Star, otherwise how do we aspire for a higher way. i was 'disappointed' by Joseph that he did not choose to follow this path, for he clearly saw the perfection his master had reached and was drawn to it; yet he continued along the other path, where his ego beckoned. It can't be helped. Siddhartha too, sees how perfect the Buddha is but he must go his own way. Hesse allows Siddhartha to pursue the worldly path all the way so that he is able to suffer all its corruption and disillusionment until he can finally renounce it and find the Truth in his own way. (We the readers really prefer this character don't we.) Yet Hesse lets Joseph go his own way, really headstrong, and cuts him down with a swift swing of the scythe. i think it a very audacious conclusion and quite marvellous. Then he puts in the poetry (like very much) and Three Lives. You know i just realized, the more i think about it, the more i become enamored with this book.
*SPOILERS AHEAD!* Samye88,
True, these men of the mind have spurned 'feuilleton culture,' and my concept of 'infotainment' (content which is relatable without compromising its argument) could be seen as an offshoot of this, thus seeming diluted in the Castalians' world of pure sciences. Basically, I can see how Hesse's tendency to write characters who I've labelled 'talking heads' would be consistent with the world he's describing. Did you also find it ironic how Castalia is dismissive of the novel as a form, yet the text (classified as factual by the speakers) is, fundamentally, a novel? Even considered in the spirit of its characters, how much of Knecht's 'biography' was conjecture? Historians will have consulted accounts of friends, official records, etc., but their research was surely fragmented. To what extent, if any, did they revert to creative license in recounting Knecht's life? True, these men were presumably geniuses. Maybe they did construct this entire account factually, despite a paucity of source material.
Also interesting is Knecht's posthumous 'celebrity' status. Castalian celebrities, as described by themselves, are people who contribute in some way to shaping the collective culture, determined by conformity rather than rebellion. Yet, wasn't Knecht's last official decision fundamentally selfish? Did it somehow anticipate the needs of this future Castalia, serving it where the minds of his Board and superior couldn't? Maybe you'll see how memorializing Knecht seems paradoxical.
I admire Hesse's writing for asking subtle, big questions like this. The Glass Bead Game seems even more relevant now than when it was written. Meanwhile, in the interest of not taking over Becky's thread, please feel free to message me if you'd care to continue this conversation! I'd be delighted to talk with anyone else about this book privately, as well.
*END SPOILERS*
200 pages in and I’ve come to the same conclusion as you, I loath not finishing a book, but damn, nothing is happening!
Your review though...This booked showed me I can do anything.
I dragged myself over rough terrain to finish this 800 page crucible.
Your point about him having a personality of a garbage is so on point.
Like I said in my review...NOTHING happens in this book. The guy just goes to a few meetings, studies and uhhhh does NOTHING!
SPOILER:
The way he just died at the end literally made my throw down this damn book on the desk. I went back to re-read that damn chapter just to be sure I wasnt imagining that.
Then I laughed. I was like, "Hess couldn't stand this book anymore that he really just killed Knecht off in a drowning accident in order to bring this bore to an end!"
Like, what a cop out. Did Hesse even know what the hell the Glass Bead Game was?!
*narrator voice*: Hesse did not.Floyd wrote: "Your review though...
This booked showed me I can do anything.
I dragged myself over rough terrain to finish this 800 page crucible.
Your point about him having a personality of a garbage is so ..."
TBH you'd have to know some stuff about the history of ideas (in particular Germany but the West in general as well) to appreciate why Hesse's underlying commentary on history is important. I know you said you have an adequate background. I don't want to be a prick, I have a BA in philosophy as well and I'm not really under the impression that that's what prepared me for reading this book. Stuff like Isaiah Berlin did prepare me. Hesse's ideas might be considered philosophical but the main thing he's doing here has little to do with philosophy. It's a fictional case study of the precariousness of written history. If that sentence makes you go "yeah but why is that interesting?" then we're speaking in different tongues b/c to me that alone is what makes Hesse worth reading. IMO anyone who doesn't get that is missing a lot when reading him, especially The Glass Bead Game and Journey to the East, but a couple of his other books too (possibly more, but I haven't read all of them).
I have five degrees- theyre in German, Philosophy (Evolution of Thought, History, Art History.For the love of god- i get it. I just think he did a pedantic boring job. His other works are better and less bloated.
You see where I said “I know you said you have an adequate background”? I read about your degrees the first time, didn’t need the list again. You asked for actual reasons why people liked the book and I gave what I think is the best one. You don't have to agree.
i'm specifically adding this book since it showed up in (one of) the lists of "most abandoned" in this guy's recent post: https://www.gwern.net/GoodReads and i'm actually adding a few more :) i gotta lot of stuff ahead of it but once i get to it i'll try to answer your questions (if i enjoy it, though i'll definitely finish it). i guess we just have a need as humans to try to get others to enjoy something that makes us happy? perhaps for validation or perhaps just because we think it will make them happy? so we get defensive if it turns out that (gasp!) someone is different than us... i dunno. that said, everyone should drop everything and read "a naked singularity" if you haven't already. :)
Thank you, I was trying so hard to get into this book. I got to page 140 and I just could not take it in - it was so boring. I tried hard because, like you, I had read that it had deeper meaning in 'intellectualism and perfection etc', but what difference does it make if you cannot get into the writing? It is so good to know you are not alone in disliking a regarded classic sometimes!
Becky wrote: "So basically this book is like 800 pages of reading about someone with the personality of a garbage can and about some marbles that aren’t ever really described to you. Good luck."Facts.
I can understand why some people may not connect with this book. I think it's impossible to review because it's impossible to really grasp what it is about and what it means. I love it and think it sublime but I can't explain that in a way that would communicate why to anyone else.
I'm giving up halfway through as well. It dawned on me that Hesse imagine a utopia two hundred years in the future and there's not a SINGLE female character or reference to a female character. I can't unsee this now as I'm trying to continue reading. Perhaps this glaring patriarchy is why we can't connect to this book.
"I was about fifty percent through the book, bored out of my mind, and I started reading reviews trying to get some motivation to finish this tome. " *nods* as she reads this review trying to find motivation to finish the novel...
Don't give up, it's hard reading in the centre of the book, but I was rewarded by the last 3 chapters, where the groundwork he laid comes to fruition.
I made it about halfway through the appended three tales that a lot of people cite as the flourish that brings it all to life, like I was maybe ten pages from the end, and I fared no better. Also gave up and experience no real lingering curiosity about what the last ten pages say. I don't think I've ever read so much of a book and then given up with no regrets.I do note that Mikey Gee's review, which I only just now finally got round to reading, advances this lens: that with each progressive chapter, Knecht moves a little bit away from his natural inclination to cloister, and closer to interacting with the world. Which tracks okay with the appearance late in the book of characters who live out there somewhere, and conversations he has with them? And maybe gives a meaningful frame to his flat, abrupt death in a swimming accident at the end, which I had found pointless and alienating. Like, maybe the old man was finally trying to swim for the first time ever and that's why he sucked at it, but the act of swimming was at least engaging with the world, and the world engaged with him right down to the lobes of his lungs, and that makes it a sort of Pyrrhic win?
Maybe. Maybe. But I'm still not moved to go back.
Why should you go back? I think some books resonate with the reader and his/her experience, others don't. As a friend of mine says, Hesse is more likely to appeal to you if you have lived in Swabia at the time when Pietism was still a force to be reckoned with. I also think that the idea of the game is not some postmodern curiosity, it is an attempt to bring all one's studies together, something that appeals to me as an old person as I have spent my life trying to broaden out my knowledge and bring it together to understand life to some extent (an idea which has more or less completely gone out of fashion, as I learnt to my disappointment when I returned to studying in my 60s). Furthermore I think the book is a satisfying end to Hesse's career but, in order to come to that conclusion, one needs to have read all (or at least most) of his work and followed his struggles between spirituality and sensuality and his attempts to find a substitute for the Pietism of his home background. Siddharta is one of these attempts and has become his most famous work, but to my way of thinking it reveals his inability to identify with the religions his grandfather encountered as a missionary in India - thus he returns at the end of the Glass Bead Game to the Christian idea of religion as a form of service (another idea which has gone out of the window, making it unlikely that a young person would (in our day) love this book!) The Glass Bead Game is one of my favourite books but I would be interested to hear what your favourites are, Becky!
I also hate the 'we ecounter such and such who does such and such.' So unnecessary.
There are few women, which I sometimes read as misogyny and others, homoerotic.
The book is futuristic yet makes the same mistakes that history books of the authors' present time made.
It's an intellectual piss take criticising history books.
All the best art is critical.
I found the book a challenge, for the same reasons you did. But I'm really glad I read it.