What is your view of Franz Kafka?

[Kyriakos]

He clearly is one of the most known authors of the 20th century. Virtually unknown during his lifetime, he developed a writing style which is unique. His works have been translated to many languages and each year books are published about him.
However if one has read his work, and his diaries and letters, the view is formed that he was a very miserable person. His 800 pages of a diary remains enigmatic. He appears to have tried to make sense of his mental state through many means, psychology, theology, and of course literature. He wanted to burn his entire work, something denied to him by Max Brod who saw to it that it became published and celebrated.

My own view is that Kafka was a very disturbed person, probably one of the most mentally ill people to have managed to become icons of popular culture. His work is often given many interpratations, varying from theological viewpoints, to mere description of impossible bureocracies.

I think that he had a very self-destructive course. Indeed he managed to create a unique literature, and as Flaubert once wrote "what matters in literature is that you do not look like your neighbour", but at what cost was this achieved? He died when he was 42, and he himself attributes his illness to his problematic mental world.

My personal view of Kafka is that, probably, his work should never have become so popular. I do not think that he is being examined for what he was. Obviously he was a person of high intellectual power, but all of that was used so as to destroy himself. He appears to have been someone who, in his idol's words, the writer's Robert Walzer, was "too involved in intricate thought to be able to have a moment of peace". But isnt that pathological in your view?
And was not Kafka, ultimatelly, someone who belonged more to a mental asylum, and not in popular culture, where inevitably his memory is tarnished with many false readings of him?

 

[Leonel]

Who's Franz Kafka?

No seriously, I hear "KAFKA KAFKA" muttered by people all over yet no idea what that is.

 

[Earthling]

Very typical annoying, depressing, and altogether unentertaining work that appears immensely to professors, extending down to grade school teachers, of various literature/philosophical fields, and not at all to the average person or even those who prefer a slightly different genre or field. Also: http://www.angryflower.com/metamo.html

 

[Kyriakos]

I too think that most of the people who read Kafka and enjoy his work are either literary circles or adolescents. I very much doubt that mature people see much in his writings.
Although personally, as a schizoid (Kafka probably was schizoid as well) i like some of his pieces, although i may read in them something which is not there. As Nietzsche has said: "one tends to see himself in what he likes".

However i am of the view that if Kafka's work had indeed been burned, the literary world would probably be better off, although at least now it is impossible for someone to create a similar work, so perhaps Kafka just had to happen

 

[QuoVadisNation]

My view on Kafka is a little biased. I read, and enjoyed, his works when I was in college. My opinion on his works can be summed up quickly: It's better to experience those emotions, encourage them through books like Kafka, grow up later, and then live on than to never have felt that way and have lived in ignorance. People (young people particularly) should be allowed to feel those emotions, anger, love, Kafkaesque environments, sorrow, instead of just feel good junk crammed down one's throat.

Major edit: It's nearly exactly like every other "dangerous" thing for kids to be doing. It's like skateboarding, raving, mash pitting.. it's not smart, but it makes you feel alive. It might not be safe or best for them and quite frankly might have nasty side effects if you continue at it long enough. But it's worth it. And the experiences kids find from reading those books or other help define them. And placing a ban on it will likely only make more unpopular straight A kids read them anyway (disclaimer: QuoVadisNation does not endorse kids to do whatever it is they please and advises them to stay at home, not have a girlfriend, and play on their computer all day. But if you are going to do it, then be mature about it. Please don't sue if you get hurt. k thx : ) )

 

[cardgame]

Who?.

 

[REDY]

I think that Nietzsche and Kafka were pretty close. Thus spoke Zarathustra is admired by fans from same period of life, when young people are trying find themselves, feel aliened by surrounding world.
On the other hand, emotions produced by his works as are Trial or Metamorphosis are pretty common in disturbing dreams which have all people sometimes.
I have not idea why Kafka became that popular either.

 

[Bei1052]

I feel dumb. Who's Kafka? The closest to a Kafka I know if Kefka from FFVI.

 

[aelf]

I don't understand what's with this extreme hate of Kafka. I read The Trial and The Castle. They were difficult to get through, especially the latter, but I still think they were great. The scenarios in both books are very bleak and depressing, yes, but I found that they spoke certain truths. What struck me most was Kafka's depiction of the tyranny of bureaucracy, the hopelessness of certain endeavours due to established socio-political structures and rigidity, as well as human blindness and indifference, even to one's own affairs.

I certainly don't see anything that warrants wishing that his books had been burned. Coming from a writer, I find this view especially disturbing. And, also, seeing the stuff you wrote about optimistic v.s. pessimistic art, I've become disenchanted with your views on literature and art. I just don't think that it can be translated into a simple issue of sounding positive v.s. sounding negative, as what you said seemed to boil down to, and here I just can't fathom this seemingly irrational hatred of Kafka's works. Just because he was mad and his works are depressing doesn't mean they suck. In any case, I would probably never advocate burning any book. I guess I'm not a reactionary.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't understand what's with this extreme hate of Kafka. I read The Trial and The Castle. They were difficult to get through, especially the latter, but I still think they were great. The scenarios in both books were very bleak and depressing, yes, but I found that they spoke certain truths. What struck me most was Kafka's depiction of the tyranny of bureaucracy, the hopelessness of certain endeavours due to established socio-political structures and rigidity, as well as human blindness and indifference, even to one's own affairs.

I certainly don't see anything that warrants wishing that his books had been burned. Coming from a writer, I find this view especially disturbing. And, also, seeing the stuff you wrote about optimistic v.s. pessimistic art, I've become disenchanted with your views on literature and art. I just don't think that it can be translated into a simple issue of sounding positive v.s. sounding negative, as what you said seemed to boil down to, and here I just can't fathom this seemingly irrational hatred of Kafka's works. Just because he was mad and his works are depressing doesn't mean they suck. In any case, I would probably never advocate burning any books. I guess I'm just not a reactionary.

Perhaps i sounded more harsh than i meant to Allow me to explain.
I first came into contact with Kafka's work when i was 17. I picked up the Castle, in a bookstore, and immediately after reading the first few sentences i felt enchanted, for a reason i cannot explain. I knew that i would be very much interested in his work.
Indeed this happened. Soon i had read everything. One and a half years later i began my university studies. I was studying away from home, but still carried a lot of books i had by Kafka with me. I read him on a dialy basis. I was already writing as well, and was invloved in my studies, which were in philosophy.
Up to this point i treated Kafka as something of an oddity. His style clearly was unique, and in my view better than anything else. I idolised him. But when i began to become even more introverted than before, i felt that in Kafka i had a sort of ally in my quest for knowledge of myself. I think that i projected way too much of my own thoughts and anxieties on Kafka's work, because i needed to see him as someone who had walked in the path i was now walking. To be short, i was even more sunk into depression, and of course there is no hope in Kafka's work. There is even no maturity; everything in his work is misery, illness, neverending attempts at achieving something, but never gaining any ground, at least not officially.
I do not hate Kafka. I wonder if you have read his diaries and letters. If you do you may form the view that he was ill, depressed, immature, mad. I do not think that anyone can claim that Kafka's work can solve any problem. It clearly is not literature for literature either; it has very obvious, and personal, ends. I think- although again i may be projecting too much- that it is a collection of allegories, written with the intention of self-examination. Kafka himself many times states that he has no idea of what he is doing, that everything in his mind is a blur, and he only wants to examine his dream world.
My point is that works like his can be dangerous. For me they definately had catastrophic effects. Perhaps, of course, i would have followed a similar path even without them, but as a person who had Kafka as his idol, for a decade, i can tell you that i was not at all helped.

And you misread my view about happyness in art. I do not claim that art should be happy. My point is that it is not easy to be happy, so it should be valued. The popular opinnion is that only stupid people are happy, but i think that this is false. One can be stupid and unhappy. I think that if an art can change this stereotype, then it has managed to achieve something important. I do not like self-catastrophic books. They help no one. Sure you can enjoy a book, if you are not too much into it, or if you project your own safe view on it, and that view does not lead you to destruction. But was your experience really close to what the author was writing about? Does it matter to you that Kafka most probably had his own personal agenda in mind, an agenda which clearly is not similar to what you eprsonally read in him? ?I very much doubt that Kafka would bother writing about the real bureocracy of his time; he was a recluse in many respects (again, read his diaries and letters) it is far more probable that he used a bureocracy as a symbol for something internal, something in his mind. Perhaps he was so confused that he felt that his internal world was such a bureocracy.
Anyway, i hope that this clears up how i view him, a bit more

 

[aelf]

I take it you've never read Atlas Shrugged?

Every writer has a personal agenda. That Kafka has one and the fact that he influenced you in a negative way aren't good reasons to hate his works. I read Kafka when I was about the age you did (only 1-2 years older). His books didn't make me more depressed. I could barely even identify with the hopeless situations that he portrayed. But I could imagine them, and I felt that I could see what he meant. As a bonus, a few years later, I had my experience working in a bureaucracy, and I could understand why even a lowly clerk can hold absolute power in some matters.

As for the other matter, optimistic or pessimistic isn't the same as happy or sad. Some books can be fairly happy but very pessimistic in outlook (e.g. Evelyn Waugh's satirical works) - speaking with the unbearable lightness of being, so to speak. Some books can be pessimistic but hopeful. I don't associate hope with sadness, even if it's not necessarily joyful. I just think that optimistic and pessimistic are an entirely different class categories from happy and sad, or even positive and negative.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that in a way we are both making the same mistake, projecting too much of our own experience into Kafka. However i think that i am more correct in doing so, since he clearly states all over the place that he uses symbolism and allegory, and that he is entirely introverted. For example he once wrote that he would like to be locked into a basement and only write, having no contact with the outside world. Very few people can do that, and in my mind it is no great success, although it is very difficult to achieve; it is a self-catastrophic end.
Moreover his life proves that he destroyed himself. He himself, again, states that, for example he writes that his tuberculosis was only brought forth by his mental struggles. Again i stress the fact that you should at least read his diary if you are to have an informed view of him. He is no writer that would care for a real bureocracy, although he was a clerk. He hardly even cared for his work, and it would be extreme to suggest that his work gave him the idea of the hopeless bureocracies in the castle, in the trial, and in other works. No, they are symbolic. To claim otherwise would be analogous to claiming that when he writes "The nest", he is writing with the aim of examining how a mole is living. (For those unfamiliar with that work, it is about a mole-like creature that digs a vast underground nest, and tries to organise it and defend it against predators). It is far more reasonable to claim that this was an allegory about the way in which he had formed his consciousness, as a vast nest, protected from the outside world, from which he fled in his near-complete introvertedness.

What i mostly dislike about Kafka is not his illness. It is that he was entirely missunderstood. His work can be dangerous. In Lovecraft's "The call of Cthulhu" there is the sentence that science has up to now progressed split into pieces, and it has not been able to show us the entire, horrible truth, well in this case the examination of Kafka's work had been inadequate, and unable to present the level of his illness.

And i am surprised that you accuse me of wanting to burn his work, when Kafka himself wanted to do exactly the same, and i think that he knew what he was writing far better than any of us

 

[aelf]

I think that in a way we are both making the same mistake, projecting too much of our own experience into Kafka. However i think that i am more correct in doing so, since he clearly states all over the place that he uses symbolism and allegory, and that he is entirely introverted.

Okay, you are "more correct", if that makes you happy.

For example he once wrote that he would like to be locked into a basement and only write, having no contact with the outside world. Very few people can do that, and in my mind it is no great success, although it is very difficult to achieve; it is a self-catastrophic end.
Moreover his life proves that he destroyed himself. He himself, again, states that, for example he writes that his tuberculosis was only brought forth by his mental struggles. Again i stress the fact that you should at least read his diary if you are to have an informed view of him. He is no writer that would care for a real bureocracy, although he was a clerk. He hardly even cared for his work, and it would be extreme to suggest that his work gave him the idea of the hopeless bureocracies in the castle, in the trial, and in other works. No, they are symbolic. To claim otherwise would be analogous to claiming that when he writes "The nest", he is writing with the aim of examining how a mole is living. (For those unfamiliar with that work, it is about a mole-like creature that digs a vast underground nest, and tries to organise it and defend it against predators). It is far more reasonable to claim that this was an allegory about the way in which he had formed his consciousness, as a vast nest, protected from the outside world, from which he fled in his near-complete introvertedness.

What i mostly dislike about Kafka is not his illness. It is that he was entirely missunderstood. His work can be dangerous. In Lovecraft's "The call of Cthulhu" there is the sentence that science has up to now progressed split into pieces, and it has not been able to show us the entire, horrible truth, well in this case the examination of Kafka's work had been inadequate, and unable to present the level of his illness.

But, you see, the thing is I don't care. So do thousands of other people. We don't care if Kafka really intended to write his books as an allegory for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or whatever. So the fact that you are "more correct" on his intentions matters not. Certainly, information about the author and the time and circumstance of writing do help us interpret the text, but I think that the text is sufficiently complex such that a theory formed using background information need not instruct us on a single perspective with which to understand the text.

Besides, even if he did have a nefarious purpose in writing, it doesn't mean that he did not succeed in pointing out certain truths that are very interesting. The motive does not destroy the truth of the content.

And i am surprised that you accuse me of wanting to burn his work, when Kafka himself wanted to do exactly the same, and i think that he knew what he was writing far better than any of us

No, I did not say that you wanted to burn his work. I said that you wished his work had been burned, which is what you wrote yourself. In effect, though, you are advocating the destruction of books before they can have a negative effect on misguided people - preemptive censorship, or at best self-censorship.

 

[Phlegmak]

I really like Kafka. I read a load of his short stories.

 

[Earthling]

Well, it's certainly been interesting to hear everyone's perspective, none more so than the OP himself so far. As I'm probably more ignorant about Kafka's works as a whole, I do have a couple of things to ask, but first for full clarity I can only say that I've read English translations of his work, the whole of the Metamorphosis in a literature class and otherwise some few excerpts. So:

Have those others here who've read his works read them in the original language (German)? I have not, and of course that naturally means if there's anything missing it'd be what I read. Basically, everything in English translation I've read boiled down to really depressing, hopeless diatribes, but that may or may not be mitigated by clever wordplay, ingenuity, or the like in the original, I just don't know.

Also, for a couple of posters, what really are the similarities you're seeing to the other authors mentioned? As far as Nietzsche goes, I've also only read English translations, but I really don't see how his philosophy and writing can be construed as similar; the time periods aren't even exactly overlapping, especially post-WWI era. Both of these authors may attract similar audiences but that doesn't seem to be enough to say they really deal with the same views - Nietzsche had a flair for the grandiose and exalted, non-mundane or impersonal philosophy, and a belief in certain kinds of progress for man's future. The fact that both authors may be often misinterpreted does seem reasonable though, both tended to be unclear and meandering across many potential themes. Maybe the comparison to Lovecraft is more valid though - again I haven't read all too much of Kafka but the general overbearing feelings of despair and insignificance seem in line. And of course if there's more out there I'm missing in any case from someone who knows more it would be interesting to hear, though I'm not sure you could convince me to go out and read more Kafka...

 

[Agent327]

Well, it's certainly been interesting to hear everyone's perspective, none more so than the OP himself so far. As I'm probably more ignorant about Kafka's works as a whole, I do have a couple of things to ask, but first for full clarity I can only say that I've read English translations of his work, the whole of the Metamorphosis in a literature class and otherwise some few excerpts. So:

Have those others here who've read his works read them in the original language (German)? I have not, and of course that naturally means if there's anything missing it'd be what I read. Basically, everything in English translation I've read boiled down to really depressing, hopeless diatribes, but that may or may not be mitigated by clever wordplay, ingenuity, or the like in the original, I just don't know.

Also, for a couple of posters, what really are the similarities you're seeing to the other authors mentioned? As far as Nietzsche goes, I've also only read English translations, but I really don't see how his philosophy and writing can be construed as similar; the time periods aren't even exactly overlapping, especially post-WWI era. Both of these authors may attract similar audiences but that doesn't seem to be enough to say they really deal with the same views - Nietzsche had a flair for the grandiose and exalted, non-mundane or impersonal philosophy, and a belief in certain kinds of progress for man's future. The fact that both authors may be often misinterpreted does seem reasonable though, both tended to be unclear and meandering across many potential themes. Maybe the comparison to Lovecraft is more valid though - again I haven't read all too much of Kafka but the general overbearing feelings of despair and insignificance seem in line. And of course if there's more out there I'm missing in any case from someone who knows more it would be interesting to hear, though I'm not sure you could convince me to go out and read more Kafka...

Having read both Kafka and Nietzsche in the original, it seems to me that you picked up on Kafka's expression of despair and insignificance, but failed to see how he imaginatively transforms it into compelling stories; Nietzsche was certainly not about impersonal philosophy. On the contrary: Menschliches allzumenschliches (Human, All Too Human), Thus Spake Zarathustra. etc are quite personal books. You are right however if you mean that his philosophy itself has a quite impersonal character, as he looks at the world with a cold, observing eye. But what he meant - and what Kafka - meant is definitely not unclear. I don't see how Kafka's stories can be described as meandering, though it could be said - to some extent - of Nietzsche's works. But then again, Nietzsche was not the standard 'type' of philosopher - if such a type indeed exists. At any rate, I can highly recommend reading them in the original. (If you have no understanding of German, you're bound to miss out on all the nuances, as so often occurs when German books get translated into English. The same might be true the other way around, but I have no need to read original English works in German, so it's beyond my judgment.) One final word on Kafka: one must discern between his literary work and his personal life - which indeed might be called tragic -: it is in his writing that he succeeded in accomplishing what in his personal life he could not. Luckily for posterity, his friend and editor realized this and published his works against Kafka's personally expressed will. I am sorry if you cannot identify with Kafka as a person, but this is no reason why his works should not be popular.

 

[Godwynn]

I think The Metamorphosis is overrated.

 

[Mise]

I think The Metamorphosis was one of the funniest stories I've ever read. Seriously, it was hilarious. The whole thing was just so matter-of-fact, the scene where his daddy through something (I forget what) on his back, and the way he was just having fun climbing over the walls and stuff Honestly, I cannot believe that someone with such wit could be so depressed and miserable.

 

[Kyriakos]

Although i too had first thought that the Metamorphosis was not written as a depressing piece, Kafka himself named it as "scary" in a letter to Felice Bauer.
And in retrospect it does appear to be quite gloomy. A person is transformed into a gigantic insect, gets treated liek a monster by his family, and finally dies. If you see it as a study of an impossible situation then it may appear humorous, but it seems more probable that Kafka was expressing his view of his own state.

 

[Mise]

Yeah, I'm sure that was exactly his intent. But he expressed it with such wit that it seems to me difficult to imagine, from that isolated text, that Kafka was as depressed and miserable as he was. I don't doubt that he was, in fact, depressed and miserable, and felt isolated and helpless, as such are the themes of the short stories I've read.