Talk:Krabat (novel)

Cleanup tag

I added the cleanup tag. The prose needs work; punctuation, tense agreement, and general tightening. Reads like a translation. Anchoress 08:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the article, but it's been almost a decade sine I read the book, so my details are choppy. There was no new information added, beyond two external links. Further research is required. Phire Phoenix 03:27 EST, 7 March 2007

Rem'd tag, it's better. Thanks. Anchoress 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Identity of the 'Goodman'

I don't agree with the following sentence from the plot summary: "The only visitor to the mill is one Goodman, who is in essence Satan himself." It's never really said who the Goodman is and I personally think he is Death rather than Satan (that's also my problem with the English title of the book).

Sorry, I disagree. You're right, it is never really said who he is. But the flaming red cock feather at his hat is quite an obvious sign that he is Satan/the Devil. Furthermore, the idea of black magic, of a pact between him and the miller (one life per annum in exchange for power) is also more closely linked to the Devil than to Death.85.178.92.30 (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The new version of the mentioned sentence is way better. However, in the german original the "visiting goodman" is called "Der Gevatter" (engl. gaffer), which is very closely linked to "Gevatter Tod" (engl. grim reaper, godfather death). Also, imho the grim reaper is closely linked to black magic as well (despite the fact that he delivers skulls and bones to the mill). Nowadays, in german the word "Gevatter" is only used in the term of "Gevatter Tod" (and I think it was the same back in the 1920's). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.25.210 (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Preußler said in an interview ("Das Otfried-Preußler-Lesebuch" deutscher taschenbuch verlag, 1988) the Goodman is meant as a symbol for evil, therefore no explicit description. -- 87.188.200.128 (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I also think that one should not try to interpret too much in this article. It remains open who the Gevatter really is. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 08:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we should add this detail, since it may be lost to the non-germanophone audience, but not interpret too much into it, since ultimately the evaluation is up to the reader Catgirl-su (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Theres another character that should be mentioned...

I cant really remember his name (I had the book about 20 years ago), though I think it was "Jur" - The one, that early got the rules of this mill (best student is sacrificed) and played dumb (that gave him the access to black magic book as well). In my opinion, his aid to Krabat was at least equal to Kantorka's one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.149.54 (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Juro was actually the friend Tonda told Krabat about after he died, and he was even more integral than Michal to his victory---Niko M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.252.51 (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Master and goodman

Although adhering to the evil the master and the good man are amigious characters. One has to draw a distinction between the master´s pact with the forces of evil and the tight rein he is holiding over his mill. The latter could have been quite common in the past days (Lehrjahre sind keine Herrenjahre) when the masters could dispose of their apprentices at their free discretion. Furthermore, in the description of the hard labor conditions Preussler seems more to reflect and articulate the experiences he had in the Soviet POW camps where he had been detained for five years after the war.

On the other hand, the master is also shown as generous at times. Even the goodman who punishes the master in one scene for treating an apprentice too harsh is not a broadbrushed representative of the evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.192.206.225 (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Characters" needs revision

The section "Characters should be rewritten. Descriptions of the main characters are too short (if this is really necessary) and the author adds his / her own POV. The sentence: "The characters of this novel provide a stark distinction between good and evil. Krabat, his love interest Kantorka, Tonda, and Michal stand for the side of the good, whereas the master of the mill, the Goodman and the one journeyman who betrays his brothers stand for the bad." is obviously POV and also obviously wrong.

1) Krabat changes from a poor and naive boy willing to do almost anything to get a decent meal to a - to some extent - powerhungry person (dialogoue with the master after the visit to Dreden!), and it takes a lot of time, the death of two close friends and - most important - falling in love with the Kantorka to change his opinion. He is not the "good guy", but a complex human being with flaws who matures during the story. (Basically, the novel IS the story of Krabat becoming a man.)

2) Considering the master's background story (accidently killing his best friend) he obviously wasn't an evil man in the beginning, but after making a terrible mistake, he somehow drifted towards "evil".

3) Tonda, Michal, the Kantorka and the Goodman are extremely important for the plot, but relatively minor characters, you only know them through interaction with Krabat.

4) The second important character, Juro, seems to be morally ambiguous - opposing the master, but first of all trying to survive.

That's the major difference to other fantasy literature or fairy tales: Preußler's "Krabat" does not show sterotypical black-and-white characters (as, for example, "Lord of the Rings"), but real human beings trying to live in a "realistic" (and therefore complicated) world. 87.188.248.146 (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings shows some black-or-white characters, as is its well-earned right (Sauron, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, etc.; of the Hobbits, only Fredegar Bolger, not even Lobelia). So does Krabat (Michal, Lyschko, and most of all: the Kantorka). If we add Aragorn to the list we have to add Juro. It is not sinful to try to survive; and then - as he reminds us himself - he had no girl to ask for him. --91.34.214.244 (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the first IP wanted to say that though the plot of "Krabat" resembles fantasy, the main characters undergo a development which links the book to the "Entwicklungsroman". 2003:7A:8E13:5F62:248A:1FCE:59CB:196F (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this, the section should be changed to reflect the moral ambiguity these characters have. I'd argue all of them are morally ambiguous to some extend, except for maybe the Kantorka Catgirl-su (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Krabat (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070402181408/http://www.preussler.de/multimedia/krabat-index.html to http://www.preussler.de/multimedia/krabat-index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081016024014/http://www.preussler.de/index1e.htm to http://www.preussler.de/index1e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I updated this page with a complete list of the characters and a very brief description. I added a Form section which described the recurring elements in all three of the major sections (the first, second, and third year), and added an adaptation with a citation that could be investigated. Within a couple days, it was all deleted back to whatever it was before -- this problematic page. Someone is apparently attempting to own this entry, and I woudl recommend just moving on, because your work will be discarded. 2603:7080:ED3F:2F00:DCDD:1924:A0C8:E3B5 (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)