Rethinking Kafka

I like Kafka, having read everything he wrote in or immediately after college, although it’s been a few years since I've cracked any of his books. My impression of his writing is that it consisted of very logical depictions of fugue-like states, where byzantine bureaucracies, anxiety, and the capricious powers of aloof and often distant figures (the government in The Trial and The Castle, father figures in many of his shorter stories) rule the day. The stories are filled with powerful dream-like symbolism, but - probably because a good chunk of his writings were unfinished (and certainly unpublished) at his death - fizzle out rather than have a traditional ending.

For these and other reasons, Joseph Epstein argues that he’s overrated, that he’s simply a remnant of his time and place – essentially that “[he] reads like Freud fictionalized. Freud’s reputation is now quite properly in radical decline; Kafka’s, somehow, lives on. Without belief in Freud, Kafka’s stories lose their weight and authority." I don't really buy this. I certainly am not a Freudian, and don't know anything about 19th century Prague, but regardless still got a lot out of his writings. I think one reason Kafka's works have thrived is that they are general and vague enough to let people impress upon them their own thoughts and options. And - of course - he quite accurately depicts the absurdity of the modern bureaucratic state (most powerfully in The Trial). However, Epstein makes an excellent point when  he criticizes Kafka’s propensity for writing dreams with bad endings:

“Kafka felt that his talent was “for portraying my dream-like inner life.” But dreams, however gripping they can be, are aesthetically unsatisfying, especially in their endings. Kafka himself did not find the ending of “The Metamorphosis,” his greatest story, satisfying, and it isn’t. Perhaps for the same reason, he was unable to complete his novels: dreams, especially nightmares, want for artistic endings.”

Again, part of this may be that he quite simply died before he could finish them, but I don't think so. The Castle in particular just fades away with no clear hint of what the ending might be. And there are many passages that, while adding to the overall mood of the whole, simply wander along with vague intentions. Of course, this may be the point:

Kafka created “obscure lucidity,” Erich Heller wrote in his book on Kafka. “His is an art more poignantly and disturbingly obscure,” he added, “than literature has ever known.” One thinks one grasps Kafka’s meaning, but does one, really? All seems so clear, yet is it, truly? A famous aphorism of Kafka’s reads: “Hiding places there are innumerable, escape is only one, but possibilities of escape, again, are as many as hiding places.” Another runs: “A cage went in search of a bird.”
 As with Kafka’s aphorisms, so with his brief parables. The parables, Walter Benjamin wrote, are “never exhausted by what is explainable; on the contrary, he took all conceivable precautions against the interpretation of his writings.”

In this sense, some of Kafka's writings are like listening to someone else describe their dreams - interesting to a point, but so filled with personal meaning that they will remain forever inscrutable. I certainly didn't know what half of what I read meant - particularly in the novels - but then i'm comfortable (and sometimes even seek out) ambiguity in my art. 

Anyways, it's always good to question your assumptions about things, so Epstein's article is a fun read. What do you think about Kafka? Overrated? Genius? Somewhere in between?

Cross Posted on Reading, Running and Red Sox

Pynchon on Dreams

Dream tonight of peacock tails,
Diamond fields and spouter whales.
Ills are many, blessings few,
But dreams tonight will shelter you.

Let the vampire's creaking wing
Hide the stars while banshees sing;
Let the ghouls gorge all night long;
Dreams will keep you safe and strong.

Skeletons with poison teeth,
Risen from the world beneath,
Ogre, troll, and loup-garou,
Bloody wraith who looks like you,

Shadow on the window shade,
Harpies in a midnight raid,
Goblins seeking tender prey,
Dreams will chase them all away.

Dreams are like a magic cloak
Woven by the fairy folk,
Covering from top to toe,
Keeping you from winds and woe.

And should the Angel come this night
To fetch your soul away from light,
Cross yourself, and face the wall:
Dreams will help you not at all.

― Thomas Pynchon, V. (Chapter Nine, Part II)

Watching Dreamscape

Watched Dreamscape tonight, a movie that scared the crap out of me back in the day (in 1984 - 27 years ago!). The plot is essentially Inception for the 80s: a group of scientists have discovered how to insert psychics into people’s dreams. The main psychic, played by an excellent Dennis Quaid, starts off as that typical Hollywood rogue, a cynic who doesn't want to play by the rules or use his powers for anyone else (when we first meet him, he's raking in the cash at the track). However, he quickly gets entangled with a governmental research project about dreams that initially utilizes the technology for good, but once we discover that the POUSA is having nightmares about a nuclear holocaust and thus wants to start leading nuclear disarmament talks (this, of course, can’t happen), it's just a matter of time before things turn ugly. A very satisfying thriller results from the resulting complications, mainly due to an intelligent script and great acting (Christopher Plummer and Max von Sydow are in it as well, although the less said about Kate Capshaw, the better).

Overall, the flick stood up really well to how I remembered it, which is not always the case with older movies. In my opinion, it’s aged pretty well, with the exception of the fashions (pink sweaters are just never acceptable), the ginormous computers, and some really wretched electronic music.  You have to take the special effects with a grain of salt, obviously – FX have come a long way in 27 years! – but some of them are surpisingly effective. One scene in particular, a child’s dream about the boogyman, is well done – they present the kids house with all of the house’s angles askew and crooked staircases leading down into pitch-black cellars. Overall, the scene feels like early Tim Burton, but without the ironic humor. Another positive were the fallout scenes with the rivers of nuclear waste and rabid fallout dogs. Not so effective, was the scary snake-man, although it still freaked me out a bit (probably because it scared me so much when I was a kid!) Overall, I'd say that this movie would be ripe for a remake if Inception hadn't basically just told an extremely similar story.

On a personal note, I enjoyed the fact that not one but two Twin Peaks characters were in the flick: David Patrick Kelly (Jerry Horne) and Chris Mulkey (Hank Jennings). I also got a kick out of the fact that the POUSA in the flick looks a little bit like Boris Yeltsin. Little things like this are what keep me going!