Can anyone explain Kafka's prose to me? Is it just me or is it too simplistic, long-winded like a first draft? Am I just too used to the poetic cadence of Fitzgerald's greatests, that Nabokovian flair, or works with rich voices that mesmerise you sometimes so deeply while you read you tend to hear the music but not the lyrics, such as Hunter Thompson, Conrad, Yates?
Kafka is definitely an enticing storyteller (The Metamorphosis is the only story – that I can recall – that I teared-up, wept at, so props for that) but maybe I'm just missing something.
by Voice_Live
12 Comments
The only one I’ve read is *The Castle* and it was painful. It literally was a draft published posthumously.
But if his other novels are similar in style, simple and long-winded as you say, I won’t be touching them.
The quality of the translation must play a part too, though.
Kafka was a Czech Jewish man who wrote in German. He claimed to never feel comfortable with the German language. He died at 40 and his work was mostly not edited/published during his lifetime.
Unless you are reading in German you are not reading kafkas prose, you are reading some other persons prose, and this other person could be translating with many possible goals in mind. Perhaps they are trying to do a more or less word for word translation, or perhaps they are trying to capture the “feeling” of his prose, or perhaps they are trying to tell the same story and convey the same meaning while making it read well in the English language etc.
When I read the trial I remember finding the prose cumbersome and unappealing, but when I read the metamorphosis I found the prose an absolute delight to read. I do not know if they were by the same translator but I am guessing they were not.
I think it is supposed to be kind of long-winded, describing all those bizzare seemingly unimportant circumstances just builds the anxious atmosphere. At least for me it has this effect, always makes me feel super anxious and I can usually read only few pages of Kafka at a time. It feels the same way as having a very “real” nightmare.
Writing reflects the author, Kafka’s no exception. His life was very miserable (also simple and unexciting compared to the other authors you mentioned) and his hypersensitivity made it even worse, he was full of hopelessness. If there’s nothing poetic about your life, there probably won’t be a lot of poetics in your stories. But he’s a master of expressing in such a deep way everything he was experiencing. There’s no pleasure in it and that’s what makes it outstanding imo.
I also get the vibe that his novels were just short stories ballooning out, too.
Don’t get me wrong I dont think he should be uncrowned king of distress, dejection and despair or Lord of Dystopian stories, just struggle to understand what makes him so revered.
Btw I also think Shakespeare (tho many a line phenomenal) speaks a lot of rot that’s not called out on – but loving all your responses. This has been the first post I’ve ever posted on anything ever lol
Keep them comin, much love ^^
To re-iterate others, Kafka wrote in German not English, and to make the translation harder, he was very creative with language. Apparently he was inventive with compound nouns (note I don’t speak German, this is just what I’ve read), which are difficult to translate. He preferred simple/common language apparently because he didn’t want to seem pretentious or overly literary. And the long, never-ending sentences and paragraphs without a break (eg in The Castle) are deliberate attempts to exhaust the reader.
I have found his writing to be difficult sometimes but definitely worth the effort.
Flowery prose is overrated. Kafka isn’t depressing, either, and “kafkaesque” as a term completely misses what he was going for. His writing is incredibly humorous and treats dark topics with a lighthearted tone. This post feels reminiscent of all the hate Hemingway gets online for his simplistic writing style. Maybe it’s just not for you. Personally, I find Fitzgerald and Nabokov needlessly wordy and self-indulgent. People have different tastes.
Art should entertain, educate and inspire
Probably just not for you. I love Haruki Murakami and Kafka, and could totally understand people who don’t like the experience of being the reader as part of the story telling process. That’s sort of what I take from it. Feeling like it’s dragging you along puts you more in a place to “feel” the story. Not for everyone.
I’ve hears his prose described as legalistic. I read the Schocken translation (or interpretation?) of his short stories and The Trial, and I kind of see what you mean. But given that I can’t read German, I’m at the mercy of the translators, so… In any case, I read Kafka for the content not the form. His stories get into the heart of things that other writers shy away from. The Trial was a punch to the gut and resonated with me on so many levels that the prose/form became almost irrelevant. I should say however I enjoy straightforward non-embellished prose, and I found Nabokov’s Lolita a little too fancy.
And funny you mention first draft because a lot of the published material were not supposed to be published at all. Kafka only gave (Max Brod) permission to publish a few of his works and the rest were to be destroyed. But obviously Brod did not comply and the rest is history. A number of the short stories are unfinished, so they might actually have been literal first drafts.
Regardless, I think Kafka’s one of the few writers where the content is so unique and powerful that the prose style takes a back seat to what he is actually saying.
Kafka pays considerably closer attention to his use of language than most writers. His word choice is centered around emphasizing the themes of his stories, not poetry and aesthetics. Obviously, as others have said, you can’t analyze this in translation. Some examples:
The first sentence of The Metamorphosis is a perfect example, and it’s been argued about by translators a lot.
“Als Gregor Samsa eines Morgens aus unruhigen Träumen erwachte, fand er sich in seinem Bett zu einem ungeheueren Ungeziefer verwandelt”
There are 2 main things about this sentence that are important and impossible to really reproduce in translation. The first is the word order. Specifically the last few words. Literally, it’s “found himself in his bed into a monstrous vermin(?) transformed.” The last thing you’re told is the key piece of information. He is transformed into something horrible.
The second is the word choice. “Ungeheueren Ungeziefer.” Ungeheueren means something like “monstrous” but there is no equivalent for Ungeziefer. Literally it is “an unclean animal, unfit for sacrifice.” This is a peculiar word, and he chose it very specifically, as themes of sacrifice run through the story. They’re also both negations, that is, they begin with “un.” He never tells you what Gregor IS, he tells you what Gregor IS NOT. Again, consistent with the fact that he’s never identified as anything specific. There are some relatively vague descriptions, but Kafka never says “he’s an insect” and he specifically requested that Gregor not be pictured transformed in any of the art for the story.
When I read “transformed into a big bug” I feel like it creates a goofy and childish atmosphere. When I read “transformed into a monstrous vermin” I think I feel something much closer to what Kafka intended to convey.
These are the sorts of things that Kafka is doing in his prose. In “The Trial” he also uses tons of procedural/legalese type language to emphasize the confusing, bureaucratic atmosphere of the story. Most of this is also destroyed in translation. “Der Process” has a different connotation in German than “Trial” does for English speakers. I suggest looking around for some explanations about his use of language and some details about the various translations of his work.
One thing that makes me really love his style is how it mirrors the claustrophobic notion that everything is controlled by some absurd sort of intangible law or order. I think his language is very influenced by education in law and his job as an insurance officer, but also by the Jewish tradition and the notion of divine law. It is also very non human in a creepy way, like humans are just functions in this big absurd construction of arbitrary order. I don’t think that his prose is beautiful or poetics Rather the opposite really. A bit formal and dry, but effective in what it’s doing.