Writer’s Error in Buddenbrooks?

I first read Buddenbrooks over 30 years ago, and now that I’m rereading it, I’ve noticed something that feels almost like a plot hole.

Hanno suffers under his father’s strict expectations, which clash with his love for music. When Thomas dies, it’s hinted that this is a relief for Hanno. Yet, just a few years later, Hanno himself dies—not just from illness, but seemingly because he cannot cope with life.

But does this really make sense? With his father gone, Hanno is now living with his loving mother, who supports his musical talent. He also has a close friendship with Kai. Given these factors, his total despair feels somewhat unconvincing to me.

Mann could have structured the novel differently—if Hanno had died before Thomas, it would have created a different but equally powerful narrative. It would have forced Thomas to confront the loss of his son, adding depth to his character. Perhaps Mann avoided this because it would have shifted the novel’s focus so late in the story.

Although I find this aspect of the novel somewhat inconsistent, Buddenbrooks remains a masterpiece and well worth reading.

I’m curious—do others see this the same way, or do you think Mann’s choice makes sense?