Reacting, Thinking, and Paraphrasing Parts of “Hope and the Absurd in the Work of Franz Kafka,” and Determining Some of Camus’s Views on Tragedy

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?

Part 2, Chapter 5 Observations

As I was reading the last chapter of Camus's The Stranger this past week, I made some notes on my impressions and ideas in the margins.  My goal is to jot these down here, and explain my thoughts a little.

• Meursault goes through a thought process towards the beginning of the chapter which results in his idea that "from the moment [his sentence] had been passed, its consequences became as real and as serious as the wall against which I pressed the length of my body" (110).  This is the first time in the novel that Meursault essentially admits to himself that actions did have consequences.  It is the closest he ever comes to regretting anything, to saying that he regrets not trying to do anything to keep himself from being sentenced to death, or sentenced at all, or from killing the Arab.  The inclusion of this statement brings out a little more humanity in Meursault, because it hints that he is not so focused on the present as it might otherwise seem.
• Meursault is having a very philosophical discussion about being condemned and having no chance when he begins a new paragraph by saying "I was also made to see that until that moment I'd had mistaken ideas about these things" (111).  The reader expects Meursault to continue even more philosophically than before; instead he surprises the reader by discussing stairs on guillotines vs. lack thereof.  This seemed to me starkly simple and anticlimactic compared to what I was expecting.  However, readers are made to recognize the significance of the stairs through a veritably “Bakeresque” focus on the mundane.
• Meursault convinces himself at about the middle of the chapter that he “had to accept the rejection” (114) of his case in court.  He reminds himself that whether he dies now or later really would not matter in the big scheme of things…and yet, he has been constantly promoting this idea throughout the book.  Thus, Camus shows that death is the ultimate test of existentialism, that if one is truly existentialist, they would not care whether or not they died if that was what was happening to them.  And Meursault passes this test in this passage here.
• Meursault discusses Marie and says that since he won’t see her, it doesn’t even matter whether she is alive or dead.  He then says, “I wasn’t even able to tell myself that it was hard to think those things” (115).  This comment begs the question: how and when and where is Meursault writing this novel?  Are readers supposed to assume that because the book ends before Meursault is executed, he is writing the book prior to execution?  The rest of the book seems very immediate, as if Meursault is narrating events as they occur.  And yet, the whole thing is in past tense upon closer inspection.  Interesting…
• How does Meursault’s resolution not to become religious relate to his existentialist views?  I think we answered this question during the panel presentations on Thursday.  Camus sees humans as trying as hard as they can to add meaning to their meaningless lives, so he shows the Meursault sees religion as another one of these attempts at adding significance.
• As Meursault describes his longing to see Marie, he describes her face as “as bright as the sun and the flame of desire” (119).  This comment is interesting because he is comparing her face to the sun even as he had just accused the sun of being guilty of murdering the Arab.  He also complains about the sun during his mother’s funeral and in the courtroom, but it does not bother him when he is swimming, or on his Sunday afternoon.  And the very last mention of the sun in this book after it has played such an important role is in a passing description about Marie’s face, which he had “searched for…in vain” (119).
• At the very end of the chapter, Meursault begins to give more thought to his mother, a fact which in itself is interesting because it shows his love for her that no one else really seemed to have ever seen, maybe not even his mother herself.  In any case, he says that “nobody, nobody had the right to cry over her” (122).  This comment serves as a possible explanation for Meursault’s behavior at his mother’s funeral: if he considers crying disrespectful in some sense, then he was treating his mother with the greatest respect if he did NOT cry, or for that matter show emotion.  .  The fact that this sentence exists in the book serves to shed new light on Meursault’s behavior in the first chapter of the narrative.  It is likely that Meursault also intends his comment to disparage customs behavioral expectations in general, specifically French ones.

Food for Thought

For the panel presentation, our article argues that Meursault is like Jesus, giving a lot of evidence based on his actions from the book.  Camus himself wrote that he intended Meursault to be like Jesus...and yet Camus also intended Meursault to be existentialist.

The Question: If Meursault is Jesus, how could he also be existentialist?  How is it possible to have an irreligious Christ figure?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having thought more about this issue and done more work with the panel presentation article, I have a thought as to the answer to the above question.  I think that Meursault and Jesus share the same type of mission (amongst many other similarities): to spread the truth about the nature of the world.  Meursault's mission is to spread an ironically irreligious existentialist philosophy, whereas in Jesus's case, it is to spread a suitably religious philosophy of God/Son/Holy Spirit (depending on what you believe).

The Metamorphosis vs. Frankenstein: Modernism vs. Romanticism

The Metamorphosis, by Kafka, and Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley are similar in that they make similar points and observations about society and are different in that they are writing from different perspectives and different time periods.  I got some information about the Romantic vs. Modern periods from Wikipedia, from my English notes last year, and from http://staff.edmonds.wednet.edu/users/hansonk/LITERARY%20PERIODS%20AND%20THEIR%20CHARACTERISTICS.htm.

The Metamorphosis From the Modern Period, which tries to break away from traditional writing styles, including those of the romantic. Cautionary against not enough ambition.  Previous to metamorphosis, Gregor did not have enough drive for personal betterment so he could be used by his family, which could be an explanation for his metamorphosis. Modern authors reflected on Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest: Gregor dies partially because he is no longer fit to live in human society, since he is a cockroach.  He cannot be productive, and his family thinks he cannot understand them anymore. Modern authors reflected on Marx's idea that money and class structure define a nation.  We see Gregor trying to make his family become part of a richer class, but Gregor was part of a class who works extremely hard with no apparent gain.  His work is "insect-like" for this reason. The new technologies that emerged during the Modern period influenced Kafka's writing.  He includes technology as an integral part of life in passing (Gregor spent his nights studying train schedules) but withholds judgement.  Nothing from nature is glorified either.  To the contrary, Gregor's transformation is wholly unnatural.

Frankenstein From the Romantic Period, during which authors fit their works to a traditional frame of style and shape of novel. Cautionary against the dangers of ambition.  Frankenstein is ambitiously pursuing his ability to make a living thing, then begins to ambitiously pursue destroying this living thing; these two ambitions combined destroy his life. Though from the Romantic time period, Frankenstein believes his creature must die for the same reason.  He looks repulsive, and Frankenstein thinks he cannot be loving or understand humanity, so he is not fit to live in human society. In Frankenstein, we see little reference to money or class structure, because it does not play an integral part in the judgement of the creature's or of Frankenstein's evil in this literary period.  Feelings and intuition ruled as a judgement method; Shelley condemns Frankenstein's science, or reason. Romantic authors were writing in response to the Age of Enlightenment, and so they portrayed nature and freedom as good and science and technology as bad.  Frankenstein's downfall is an overload of scientific discovery; he is happiest when in nature.

Kafka - What political system would he want?

As I was reading The Metamorphosis, I had some questions about what sort of a social system Kafka would have thought would be ideal.

Capitalism?  On the surface, certainly not.  He portrays Gregor as the one who works, and Gregor is absolutely dehumanized in his treatment, beyond simply the fact that he has been turned into a giant cockroach.  Yet Gregor is not one of the working class.  He is not one of the hardworking dregs of capitalist society.  He is not someone who can provide barely a hovel, working 12-hour shifts, with scraps on the table.  Instead, his family seems to be living in relative luxury, with a maid in a nice apartment.  So maybe Kafka would like capitalism, except for one thing.

It seems almost as if Kafka's criticism of society in this book is not so much that he does not like the working system of capitalism, but that he does not like some of the character traits it breeds.  He dislikes the arrangement of the man trying to support the family alone.  In a sense, Gregor's "fatal flaw" as the tragic hero is hubris, the all-time favorite.  Gregor plans to get his family completely out of debt alone, give them a wonderful apartment (it must be noted that the apartment was one "which Gregor had picked for" the family (42)), and give his sister a university music education.  And all this working as a salesperson!  Anyone would be skeptical, and wish Gregor luck.  And yet, from the first sentence of the book, Gregor is a cockroach.  As a cockroach, he continues to have these aspirations.  The aspirations are absolutely surreal, along with his bodily form, and yet we as readers can't help but wonder if he just might have been successful in all that he reaches for if her were not a giant insect.

Kafka seems to point out a flaw of socialism.  In a socialist system, one is distributed goods by the quantity and quality of work performed.  Yet Gregor would always be sneaking his family things that he had earned, in a socialist system, because he loves them and feels bad for them, whether or not they deserve it.

Similarly, Kafka points out a flaw of communism.  In a communist system, one is distributed goods and services based on need.  In The Metamorphosis, how do we define need?  It seems that Gregor is living in a one-man communist dictatorship, run by his family and the maid.  He is powerless to make decisions himself (for example, he cannot convince his family to stop removing his furniture).  So his whole life is run by other people, and what he gets is based solely on what they think he needs.  He is powerless to gain items for himself, to work for what he can earn.  He is distributed food on a need-based basis; the quality is lacking.  And when his family neglects to clean his room, what can he do about it?  Thus, Kafka may actually be showing an example of how communism does not work.  Another way he shows that "need" is not necessarily an easy measure is through Gregor's father.  When Gregor can work, we can assume that he wants to act as needy as he can, in order to maximize the amount of money that Gregor will bring home.  We learn that there were more savings than Gregor had thought, and that the general fiscal situation is better than he expected, and he is happy about this.  But this means that the family was hiding this information from him, making themselves seem more needy.  Herein is another reason why communism would not work, from Kafka.

Is there any existing system that would answer Kafka's plea in The Metamorphosis?  It would be interesting to know what his true political and social views were.

Why Brett is not Just a Bitch

It is difficult to argue logically for the "niceness" of a person who sleeps around.  But during the panel presentations, there were some arguments that completely ignored the humanity of Brett behind the sleeping around, the fact that not only did she feel guilt, but that she was not just "sleeping around" for the sake of getting men.
The reason it is difficult to argue for Brett is because her situation is somewhat a paradox.  Her mentality seems to be of the type:
"I must be cruel only to be kind."

She says that she was going to San Sebastian with Robert Cohn for his own good.  She does not pursue Bill whatsoever; probably because he does not pursue her.  She spends time with the count because she seems to like his company, and again because he seems to sort of be courting her, in a way.  In the least, he shows off his war wound to her.
According to Jake, she is marrying Mike for his money.  Why can we make this assumption as readers, along with Jake?  He never gives any evidence; we cannot use Jake's assumption as evidence toward this point for Brett's penchant for opulence.  We cannot assume that Jake is a reliable narrator on such issues anyways.  He will always be explaining Brett's actions in a way that is palatable for him.  In order to make her seem loyal to him (to himself), he must make her sound like she is simply having affairs shamelessly with a bunch of men.  This is not necessarily the case.  We must sort through the few things that Brett actually says about her own actions as the only source of truth.

3 Differences Mark the Splits between Books 1, 2, and 3

I see three major differences that mark the splits betwen Book 1, Book 2, and Book 3.

1.  The change in books mirrors changes in the phases of Jake's relationship cycle with Brett.
      In Book 1, Jake feels very attached to Brett but relatively hopeless that their relationship will work out.  This is evidenced by his time alone in his room: "Then I couldn't keep away from it, and I started to think about Brett. ...Then all of a sudden I started to cry" (39).  Yet at the same time, Brett and Jake appear to be relatively close both mentally and physically (they kiss a fair amount in these scenes).
      The end of Book 1 sets up for the beginning of Book 2.  Jake tries to kiss Brett a second time, whereupon she pushes him away with, "Oh don't!" (71) and leaves saying "I won't see you again" (71).
      The fact that Brett leaves Jake physically at the end of Book 1 marks the distance in the relationship between Jake and Brett that seems to be present in Book 2.  On the first page of Book 2, Jake says, "Brett was gone" (75).  Jake and Brett have no intimate interactions throughout Book 2.  Brett neither strokes Jake to settle him down or vice versa.  Nor does Jake really say much to Brett directly during the bar scene in which Mike is introduced, or throughout the entire fiesta, especially considering the long duration when the two were in the same places at the same times.  Brett is dealing with other men (Cohn and Mike and Romero) ahead of Jake and does not seek much social support from Jake during this time.  Their one-on-one conversation in this scene is basically Brett soliciting Jake's help in going off with Romero.  The fact that the two are spending alone time together does not mirror Brett's admiration and love for Jake in and of himself.  She is using him here to help her.
      The end of Book 2 is the epitome of Jake's feelings of apartness from Brett.  Brett has explicitly left him for another man, a man that Jake probably looks up to.  Not only is he a bullfighter, but he is attractive, has the ability to have children, and is kind, understanding, and passionate.  Moreover, Brett likes him.  When Brett pursues Romero, Jake purposefully gets "drunker than [he] ever remembered having been" (227).  When Brett leaves with him, he felt like "about six people were missing" (228).  He feels awful about the distance between them.
      Book 3 marks the beginning of the upward slope in the relationship between Brett and Jake.  During his alone time, Jake has a break from Brett, during which he is not explicitly happy.  Yet he does revel in the fact that France is "the simplest country to live in" because "if you want people to like you you only have to spend a little money" (237).  He might be ironic here: no amount of money could buy him a happy life with Brett, which is the relationship that he would really like to buy with money.  And yet, it is his steadfast quality of loyalty to Brett that brings him back together.  After all of Brett's disloyalty to everybody, she calls Jake back as the only one who she knows will permanently be loyal to her.  Thus, their relationship reaches a point where the two become mentally and physically more intimate again.  Again, they both think about a life together.

2.  A change in book marks the entrance and  fact that a significant change in setting will be taking place.  Book 1 largely takes place in France, whereas Book 2 takes place in Spain.  The end of Book 2 marks the end of the Spanish Fiesta scene; at the beginning of Book 3, Jake leaves Spain (though he returns to Spain upon Brett's call, the difference in Book is still necessary because of the major change in scene that is set up at the beginning of Chapter XIX).

3.  The change in book also marks the change in the groups of people with whom Jake will interact.  In the first book, Jake must interact with a wide variety of people from all over Paris simply because he spends most of his time travelling all over the city to drink, socialize, and do some work on the side.  Book 2 singles out a certain group of characters who is especially volatile when placed together.  Since they are isolated in Spain together, Jake is only communicating with select bullfighters and a group of men who are all fawning over Brett (he never actually says anything to Bill's girl, to my recollection).  In Book 3, after quickly saying goodbye to some other people, Jake has his first daylight hours of alone time, followed by his first daylight hours of one-on-one Brett time.