"The problem with Kafka's fiction is that while in general the surface presents a generic world, recognisable even to those of us living a century later, the content is not familiar; it does not counsel the reader with wise observations on the human condition or provide practical information and descriptions of places for the reader to absorb and use in their lives; there isn't even a happy ending in sight. The only resort for the reader is critical: 'What do I make of this?'."

That would be instructive in the ways of a culturally
dominant habit of pervasive rationalization that there is a purpose to the way
things are, that each trial is a test of faith and character (judged against a
vague, abstruse creed) and that the individual is required to keep faith and
entrust their well being and souls to Church, State and Banks.
Kafka is an artist precisely he didn't have much for the
finely tuned , beautifully poetic rationalizations of one might term
"moral fiction"; he was rather obsessed, both as individual and as
writer making an aesthetic choice, to be true to his alienated, bleak, cruel
existence where attempts to cajole and seduce a person to look on the bright
side of things only intensifies that nothing makes sense and that existence is
cruel, amoral joke. His loyalty was to truth as he experienced it, and his fiction, splendid eviscerations of
folk tales and judgment past, makes a reader consider their feelings of similar
psychic destitution and do the work of
making something , something beautiful, truthful and meaningful, where nothing
existed before.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated due to spam. But commentaries, opinions and other remarks about the posts are always welcome! I apologize for the inconvenience.