The only psychological insight which I think has a good possibility of being true about Kafka, and which is borne out in his work (which is frankly all I really care about), is that he suffered from a generalized, objectless (or you might say portable) sense of guilt. I have seen this happen with people who grew up with parents who had a tendency to blame the child for things it wasn't old enough to understand. The guilt sticks around for the rest of one's life, and since it was never anchored to anything much in the first place it remains unbound and liable to latch on to anything at all. Because it is unspecific and because its real cause is basically unknowable, it is impossible to assuage. You could call it "original guilt" (strange religious preoccupations, anyone?).
It's not hard to see how The Trial, The Judgement, or The Metamorphosis in particular, among many others, capture this perfectly.
It's the indeterminant, or maybe unfocused is a better word, quality of this guilt (so it seems to me) which led Kafka to write willfully vague stories which nevertheless go out of their way to encourage us to attempt a solution which does not exist. Just so there was no solution and no meaning to his guilt, and just so the pain and confusion it engendered ensured that Kafka would spend his life searching for an answer which he quickly came to realize wasn't there.
It's not surprising that the biographers would find repressed homosexuality as the most likely factor to account for this. That explanation is very near to hand; for that very reason it is worthy of increased skepticism.
Not that any of this really matters, but it is interesting.
Incidentally, Kafka wasn't that crazy and did not lead a life of unrelieved despair. If anyone wants to get a sense for what he was like free from his own late night self-torments or the prying accountancy of biographers, I suggest looking at Conversations with Kafka by Gustav Janouch, who befriended Kafka when he was a young man.
Posted by Alan Hogue at March 23, 2005 11:43 AM...the prying accountancy of biographers...
This suggests that by nature biographies are bad. They often are, especially if the goal is to unlock secrets. But a decent critical biography sometimes increases our enjoyment of a writer's work. And let's face it, after a first time reading of Kafka, one is left with a gnawing desire to find out who the hell the guy was.
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at March 23, 2005 12:57 PMHm. I think you have to distinguish what might be interesting and fun to find out in its own right, and what might actually enhance an appreciation of the literature. I don't think that biographical details usually help much in that sense.
Posted by: Alan Hogue at March 23, 2005 01:06 PMI agree that Kafka's work can stand alone quite well without the aid of biographical information. You need know nothing about Kafka to marvel at his craft. Yet there is always a human face behind every page of writing (and I'm sure Kafka would have hated that thought), and while you might say getting to know that face is only interesting and fun, I believe it can have power; knowing that face won't improve the story or make it any more fathomable, but it can increase the pleasure you get from reading it.
At the moment, all I have at hand is Daniel Boorstin's The Creators, in which he devotes 13 pages to Kafka (which is a lot considering he's trying to cover everything from the Egyptians to American cinema). I can't vouch for his accuracy, so bear that in mind. But he writes this about Max Brod's pledge to destroy Kafka's work after his death.
...Kafka was in character when he left his instructions to the one person in the world who had his complete confidence and who therefore could be trusted (as he had assured Kafka in advance) not to carry out these instructions.
If this is true, it adds (for me, not you, I understand) a little something to the experience of reading him. I see Franz with a wry smile behind the page.
Another Boorstin clip:
The classic photograph of Kafka shows a man who never laughed. But those who knew him say he broke into uncontrollable laughter when he read his stories to friends.
For me, this detail puts some fun into reading Kafka.
Now, I know Boorstin was only providing a sketch, and again, I'm not vouching for Boorstin.
Posted by: Booby Farouk at March 24, 2005 05:35 AMFor me, this detail puts some fun into reading Kafka.
Well, that's good. Most people don't get the strange humor of his stories largely because, like Orwell, his reputation not only proceeds him but is actually woven into our culture. And that reputation is one of a "borderline", as I think the reviewer said, depressive who lived a life of torment and crippling self-consciousness (your phrase, I think).
I do think his humor would come out in the stories if not for this cultural static. So, if a little biography helps us cut through it, I can follow you that far.
I start to get nervous when people:
a) massively reinterpret stories based on biographical details or even idle speculation (about being a repressed homosexual, for instance). Or, conversely, use "evidence" from stories to justify such speculation. There is a bio of Borges that is pretty well skewered for this in a recent issue of Harpers.
b) Think that after surveying a sufficient amount of facts about the author's life, that they can reconstruct the author's intent.
c) Think, even if they did know the author's intent, that they have found the correct interpretation regardless of how the stories are actually experienced and received in the culture.
These are all common practices and assumptions. Ultimately (I feel like I can say this around here now that Alan has gone pomo on us with Colonial Williamsburg) a dead author is no less a cipher and we are no less interpreting and refashioning the story of that author's life than we are his or her works. So appealling to the author to understand their stories is in the end pointless if your goal is to come to anything more general than a personal understanding (which most people don't and that's fine). It's similar to the first mover fallacy, you appeal to God to explain creation, but it turns out God suffers the from the same problem that the universe does.
And that means, to me, that these details might be a useful corrective against certain kinds of preconceptions and make the stories more interesting to you, but as a method of understanding or explaining them they are totally flawed.
Again, I understand that the vast majority of people are only interested in their personal experience of literature and that I'm the freak here, so just humor me.
Incidentally, I just saw Will Farrel in Elf last night. Highly recommended, although it's best to turn it off right after the scene where Farrel is beaten up by the midget. It gets maudlin after that.
Posted by: Alan Hogue at March 24, 2005 09:58 AM...crippling self-consciousness (your phrase, I think).
That phrase now seems a little too strong, but I wouldn't want to back off it completely. You can suffer from it, can struggle with your sense of self-worth, and still not only see the humor in your situation, but also be brilliantly funny about it.
I think Hemingway said something about it being hard enough just to write, that he should not be expected to explain it. He could have added that just as it was impossible for him to explain his work, any study of his life would fail as well.
Again, I understand that the vast majority of people are only interested in their personal experience of literature and that I'm the freak here, so just humor me.
I'd be interested in having you expand on this. I don't see how anything but a personal experience of literature is possible.
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at March 25, 2005 08:02 AMI think Hemingway said something about it being hard enough just to write, that he should not be expected to explain it.
Unfortunately is commonly thought, and probably always will be, that art -- and especially literature, which is built from the same material which we use for everyday communication -- is just a way of wrapping up some kind of message that could be much more profitably stated directly. Good art communicates (in the broadest sense of the word) something which could not be adequately communicated in another way. Hence my earlier statement that "art that is reducible is bad art". Boiling Big, Two-Hearted River down to a few statements, or even an essay or a book, would not elucidate the story, it would at worst replace it.
Posted by: Alan Hogue at March 25, 2005 02:00 PM