Unkafkaesque

This piece first ran on Splice Today.
__________________________

Kafka’s “A Hunger Artist” is about an artist/performer who starves himself for the amusement of the public. Alas, his artistry and dedication are unappreciated, and so he dwindles to nothing alone in a corner of a dirty cage.

The tale is the first selection in Kafkaesque, a new anthology of stories inspired by Kafka and edited by John Kessel and James Patrick Kelly. The choice to open with “A Hunger Artist” seems a deliberate tug at the well-read reader’s heart. Kafka, after all, may have thought he would vanish, but instead, here he is, more robust than ever, inspiring anthologies full of followers. Kafka now seems less like the hunger artist who died alone and unmourned in the straw, and more like the panther who replaces him as an exhibition, a personality so magnetic that “the spectators crowded around the cage, and did not ever want to move away.”

It’s a poignant irony—and as such, it’s very un-Kafkaesque. Kafka’s stories are certainly filled with irony, but those ironies aren’t sweet or comforting or triumphant. They’re baffling and , disappearing into themselves much as the hunger artist collapses into his skin. Kafka wasn’t sentimental, not so much because he looked at the world with cold dispassion as because his creations were so intensely narrow. It’s hard to be sentimental when everyone, even yourself, is just a thing in an ever-shrinking and dreamer-less dream.

Kafkaesque is then a contradiction in itself—it implies a communal experience where there is not even any identity. The stories in the volume most consistently betray Kafka’s spirit when they insist—helplessly, inevitably—that that spirit exists. Paul Di Filippo imagines Kafka as a superhero fighting crime in New York; Jonathan Lethem and Carl Scholz imagine him as a writer for Frank Capra in Hollywood; Philip Roth has him as an aging Hebrew school instructor; Tamar Yellin has him as a cute old man with a terrier in Wales; Carter Scholz (again) puts him in a hotel with Wallace Stevens and Charles Ives. It all has a bravura pomo smugness; Gregor Samsa awaking suddenly to find himself on This American Life. The point of each of these stories is that the author knows Kafka and can send him where the author wills. The point of Kafka’s stories were always the exact opposite.

The selections that don’t feature Kafka as a character often work better, but still encounter similar problems. Eileen Gun recasts “The Metamorphosis” in a corporate office… with a more upbeat ending. T. Coraghessan Boyle recasts The Trial in a service garage… with a more upbeat ending. Indeed, “The Hunger Artist” is alone in the collection in the sordid, insignificant manner in which it offs its protagonist. If anything’s Kafkaesque, it’s having your hero shot at the end “like a dog,” but nobody here has the stomach for it. Instead, the writers prefer more congenial strategies, whether ambivalent personal epiphany (Tamar Yellin, Michael Blumlein); ambivalent apocalypse (Theodora Goss.); or ambivalent anti-climactic domestic mundanity (Jeffrey Ford.)

The best stories, though, are the ones that not only don’t feature Kafka, but don’t even seem particularly inspired by him. J. G. Ballard’s “The Drowned Giant,” Borges’ “The Lottery in Babylon,” and Damon Knight’s “The Handler” are all sideways parables, but there is nothing in any of them that seems to especially demand Kafka as a predecessor. In fact, all seem closer to each other than any of them do to K.

Specifically, Kafka is obsessed with parables of the pains of failure and diminishment. Ballard, Borges, and Knight give us, instead, parables of the pains of success, or at least expansion. Knight’s effort is about a boisterous, beloved life-of-the-party who is actually (to everyone’s embarrassment) a suit worn by a diminutive, boring, sweaty square. Ballard tells about a giant swept up onto the beach whose body parts live on as Brobdinagian mementos spread throughout the city. And Borges’ “The Lottery in Babylon” is about how a mysterious company institutes a lottery which becomes so popular that eventually everyone and everything bows to its totalitarian regime of chance.

Kafka may be the one who was adjectivized, but Borges seems like the more influential writer, both in general and in this anthology specifically. Theodora Goss’ “The Rapid Advance of Sorrow” is self-consciously “magical” and profound in a way that’s much closer to bad Borges than to bad Kafka. It’s Borges’ daemon, not Kafka’s, which is responsible for all those Kafka’s of infinite alternate earths. And the proliferating parts of Ballard’s giant insistently echo the mysterious diffusions of Borges’ “Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius.”

Borges multiplies and insinuates and conquers, then, rather like the lottery he writes about. Not coincidentally, “The Lottery of Babylon” can be read as a metaphor for the sinister exhilaration of capitalism, Babylon’s “infinite game of chance”—with everything, even the omnipotent corporation, dissolving into a rage for randomness—seems like the perfect Libertarian wet dream.

Capitalism is totalizing and expansive; it crosses borders to turn everything into itself. Borges didn’t exactly approve, but he understood. So does Boyle, whose protagonist is trapped in the garage until he figures out that he has no choice but to buy a crappy car from the proprietor. So does Michael Blumlein, whose fashion designer finds odd inspiration in a giant wasp, a winged avatar of success that flies away at the last minute. Endings open out into irony or nothing, but they do open, in thrall to the lottery and its ominously friable possibilities.

Kafka didn’t see things that way. He wasn’t a world-builder or a world-solver, displaying his parables like coins for some secret slot machine. His stories have no possibilities, ominous or otherwise. As the Hunger Artist is dying, he explains that he only starved himself because he had no choice; he could never find what he wanted to eat. He’s a failed consumer, left out of the rat race not because he lost, but because he couldn’t figure out how to play. Nothing absurd or unexpected happened to him; his life just narrowed and narrowed until, off to the side of desire, it guttered out. No wonder everyone prefers the panther, which knows what it likes to eat and exudes the crude virility of wanting from behind its bars. It, not Kafka, paces through these pages. Kafka’s dead.

6 thoughts on “Unkafkaesque

  1. Borges is himself heavily influenced by Kafka, though…so there’s a lineage. He says so (more or less) himself in “Kafka and his Precursors.” Other folks you dislike (like Marquez) are also heavily influenced by Kafka if just in a formal sense—“Weird, outré (even magical) events presented with a “stone face” (or as if nothing weird is going on). Gregor Samsa wakes up to realize he is a giant bug…and his first thought is how he is going to get to work. The stylistic quirk is definitively picked up on by Borges, Marquez, and a whole generation of magical realists (often following Marquez).

    I also think we might think of both Borges and Kafka in terms of “fear of, or anxiety about, the random”. Borges is often interested in conspiracy theories…but these themselves are just desperate attempts to imagine the world as having order and meaning, when in fact it does not. You don’t need a conspiracy theory unless you fear randomness and chance–a total lack of meaning. So…K and Borges have much in common, to my mind…

  2. Well, Borges is in the book, of course. And, yes, he (and pomo magical realism after him) are often seen as heirs of Kafka.

    And I’m saying that while there may be some surface similarities, the things that are most important in Kafka really do not get passed on to Borges. Borges creates edifices; Kafka crawls into corners. Borges is always figured in his own stories as creator and God (even if parodically); Kafka figures in his as abased nonentity. There are some similar themes and they both are obviously influenced by parables and folk tales (and Borges by Kafka too), but the tone and execution are just really different.

    There’s a lot of people who are like Borges, more or less…Barthelme, Calvino, Kundera…just lots of people. There’s hardly anyone who writes like Kafka. Ellison a bit in Invisible Man. Maybe Nabokov at times. But considering how cited Kafka is, the actual influence he seems to have is pretty small — as I think this anthology demonstrates.

  3. Well…Kafka and Borges are not the same dude obviously…but saying someone is like Borges and not like Kafka glosses over their commonalities. It depends on what parts someone sees as “the important bits.” Kundera, for one, is a huge Kafka fan/supporter/acolyte, though I know that you disdain Kundera (despite introducing me to him).

  4. Well, the essay is about what I consider the important bits. The conventional wisdom is that kafka=magical realism. I think there are a lot of important differences between kafka and borges and his heirs which tend to be pushed to the side.

  5. I think there are some Japanese horror novels that use metaphor to describe the dwindling to nothing of the self. Is that “Kafkaesque”? I never understood “Kafkaesque”.

  6. I could never be a modern guy. The only useful context I have is pre-modern or mythical. My inundated notion of the Modernists, though always charming in the conception of their novelty, is one of a linear self-narrative which begins at their end. A novel in which the end is known and the events are divulged incrementally, not lavishly, in contrived retrospect–leading of course to the conclusion of the subject.

    I am a lover of science–as it organizes the gathered information of our context. As an etiology of life it leaves me cold and shivering in the darkness. The three year old can see and feel Helios’ Steed running across the sky, while any modern explanation–of measurements, of time, of endings–seems absurd. The theme of my life is ancient, the stuff of whims and accidents and misunderstandings where everything changes in a moment–joy or agony beyond understanding, yet so known, familiar, and eternal. Modernity is a Sergeant who has not earned his stripes, but exercises his authority with contrived authenticity. (I think you have earned your stripes.)

    Pointless–of course, purposeful and impossible–not sure, fun/horrifying-are these the same thing? Flash/endless!

Comments are closed.