Camus begins by discussing how “nothing is harder to understand than a symbolic work,” (92) because it is difficult to know exactly how a symbol essentially maps onto a story or vice versa. He then discusses how Joseph K. in Kafka’s The Trial is a symbol for “naturalness” or “the human condition,” (93) which is difficult to define or wrap one’s mind around. This symbolism is similar to the idea that Meursault in Camus’s The Stranger represents Christ. The representation on the surface seems ridiculously far-fetched, but without reading too far into it, the symbolism is highly apparent (especially after reading the article my group presented on in the panel presentation). Looking at symbolism is like looking through a far-off galaxy: you can see it through your peripherals, but its image weakens and melts into blackness if you look directly at it.
Camus argues that in all of Kafka’s works, there are many paradoxes in the characters’ situations. All of the works are absurdist, which is why the paradoxes exist. Absurdism also means, according to Camus, that “the mind projects into the concrete its spiritual tragedy” (93). Therefore, to the absurdist, it makes sense to say that each person has some difficulties in life, and their mind is focused on these difficulties such that they appear to the person as having some negative effect on the rest of their lives. In other words, discussing this in terms of tragedy, each character would have a struggle, and this struggle would permeate throughout their entire life and become a tragic struggle.
Kafka goes on to say that tragedies are more effective if the characters’ actions are logical and natural: then fate will have played a greater role. This comment is interesting to consider in the light of The Stranger, when Meursault actually committed murder. Meursault’s actions are not logical, especially because he never makes a conscious effort to keep from getting the death sentence, or to escape arrest in the first place. Thus, wouldn’t one expect Camus’s tragedy not to be very effective, by his own definition? However, on a closer look, is Meursault made to kill the Arab (by the sun, in my view, or by fate…from any perspective except the jury’s, Meursault’s actions in this scene are influenced by something). He is persuaded into all his decisions simply because of a lack of want or ability to refuse to do anything. If Camus intended Meursault’s actions to have been fated, then we see that by his own definition, his tragedy could have been effective. If, on the other hand, Camus intended Meursault to be Christlike, then does Camus believe in predestination for Christ? Or does he intend for his tragedy to not be as effective? Or does he even remember that he wrote this about Kafka?
1 comment:
There sure is something "Greek" about the way Meursault isn't really in control of his actions during the crime scene (the sun seems like a Greek god and M. as the helpless plaything), and this idea of "fate" (which maybe is less about predestination than Camus's sense that all of our efforts to *shape* our fate--"ambition"--ultimately amount to "the same thing") is crucial to the sense that he lands in jail not for any "flaw" of his own, but, like Gregor, simply as a result of a preoposterous confluence of circumstance. If I understand correctly, both Kafka and Camus's sense of "tragedy" depends far less on an individual's flaws or freely chosen actions--it's more a simple fact of the human condition. We're all in a tragic circumstance, in the sense that all our efforts amount to nothing. But there's something "heroic" about our refusal to accept this absurdity, to militate against it, to insist on "hope" even though we know it's absurd and futile?
Post a Comment