Selected Stories of Franz Kafka Translated by Willa and Edwin Muir

I can't remember what show, but my husband was watching some show on TV and they mentioned Kafka or his works.  The show mentioned (or maybe he looked into it afterwards) that Kafka can be very depressing, but there is also a slight humor to a lot of his works and an art in them.  My husband, from the TV show, thought he might appreciate this humor- despite the tragic/depressing parts and rented some from the library.  I have made a goal to be more well-read and to be more rounded in my choice of  literature.  So I started reading them as well.  Franz Kafka was a Jew in Germany, who had a hard life, from what I have found.  He may have died before the Jews faced their biggest trials in WWII, but thinking about it, I'm sure their persecution didn't start then.  Kafka may have faced poverty, ridicule, any number of things, but his works, even when depressing have value and have lessons that can be learned from them.


The Judgment: This first story I'm not sure if I understood the point of it.  It seems two people are affected by a tragedy and one thinks he is the only one moving on, and becomes quite selfish.  The other one takes advantage of the first's complete obliviousness to things not concerning himself and prepares for the ruin of the first.  The part I don't get is the second says he loves the first and then commands the first to drown himself, and then the willingness of the first to do so.  Maybe the first WAS so selfish that the humiliation of NOT being able to achieve everything he thought was too much to live with.  Whatever the case, I did not like it very much.

The Metamorphosis: My husband tells me that Franz Kafka himself got tuberculosis, but in the end died of starvation.  At times I feel this story has some semblance of an autobiography.  I did find most of it amusing- even if just the way he described certain things.  Within the first paragraphs of the story you find that he has been changed into some sort of beetle and is on its back.  I can picture a bug on its back struggling to get back upright, and although it is sad, the way he describes it makes the picture in my head seem quite funny.  There are many things in this book.  The need to fit in, feelings of being outcast, feeling useless, other themes as well.

In the Penal Colony: This one I also liked.  It's based around a torture device that is very inhumane.  To me it emphasizes many things, including the right to a fair trial.  The need to be innocent until proven guilty instead of guilty first.  Considering Kafka was a Jew, I read this one and actually thought of Hitler and the concentration camps.  I related Hitler to the Old Commandant.  But Kafka died in 1924- before Hitler and his concentration camps and persecution of the Jews (though I assume there had been persecution before, though different).  It also, to me, emphasizes the need for us to stand up for things we believe in, that we feel are right, no matter how we feel they may be received.

The Great Wall of China:  This one is an essay that starts out about building the wall of China.  Then in the middle it talks about the citizens of China in the southeast (I believe).  Then comes back to the wall of China.  It wasn't my favorite story, but was well done, in that a German is a Chinese man, and from what I know of its citizens, is pretty accurate.  It reminded me that the wall may have been, not only to keep Mongols out, but foreign influences, that were considered an enemy to and threat to the Chinese culture.  I did like a quote in it: "Try with all your might to comprehend the decrees of the high command, but only up to a certain point; then avoid further meditation.  A very wise maxim, which moreover was elaborated  in a parable that was later often quoted: Avoid further meditation, but not because it might be harmful; it is not at all certain that it would be harmful.  What is harmful or not harmful has nothing to do with the question.  Consider rather the river in spring.  It rises until it grows mightier and nourishes more richly the soil on the long stretch of its banks, still maintaining its own course until it reaches the sea, where it is all the more welcome because it is a worthier ally.--Thus far may you urge your meditations on the decrees of the high command.--But after that the river overflows its banks, loses outline and shape, slows down the speed of its current, tries to ignore its destiny by forming little seas in the interior of the land, damages the fields and yet cannot maintain itself for long in its new expanse, but must run back between its banks again, must even dry up wretchedly in the hot season that presently follows.--Thus far may you not urge your meditations on the decrees of the high command." (p. 136-137)  I am one to "over-meditate" something, and therefore, I'm not sure if I completely agree, but I do agree with the logic behind this quote.  I'll have to think more on it.

A Country Doctor:  In this story, a country doctor is trying to save one person, but no one is willing to help the doctor.  And then he ends up with two people that need his help in two different places, he can't fully help either one and ends up sick himself.  If we don't take care of ourselves, we can't help anyone.  And the tragic-ness of not being able to be in two places at once.  The need for others to sometimes help- especially to one who probably has helped us or our families at one point or another.

A Common Confusion: I liked this story, and I feel most people can relate.  It has to do with missing someone or an opportunity.  But it also talked about being so busy that we miss something and the importance to make time for the important things.  Really short story (a page and a half?).  It refers to the two main people as A and B and the two destinations as H and home.  One quote: "At home he [A] learns that B had arrived quite early, immediately after A's departure, indeed that he had met A on the threshold and reminded him of his business; but A had replied that he had no time to spare, he must go at once."

The New Advocate:  Another really short story.  This one seems a bit philosophical.  It seems reminiscent of the great days with Alexander the Great and one blazing a trail to India.  And then seems to say, all we need now is people who study books (specifically law books here).

An Old Manuscript: His second story where he is now a Chinese citizen.  This one in its capital outside the Emperor's palace.  It talks about foreigners within the city and I actually like the last quote, as a summary of the story.  ""What is going to happen?" we all ask ourselves. "How long can we endure this burden and torment?  The Emperor's palace has drawn the nomads here but does not know how to drive them away again.  The gate stays shut; the guards, who used to be always marching out and in with ceremony, keep close behind barred windows.  It is left to us artisans and tradesmen to save our country; but we are not equal to such a task; nor have we ever claimed to be capable of it.  This is a misunderstanding of some kind; and it will be the ruin of us.""

A Fratricide:  I liked this short story about a murder.  It talks about a person who watches the whole thing but doesn't do anything about it.  It reminds me of our need to be involved in things sometimes.  There was a story once in New York where a girl was being stabbed and killed and yelling for help, yet no one stopped to help.  Some people stood watching, but no one lifted a finger.  I once heard someone speculate that today with youtube and our cell phones, we might stand there and videotape the event, thinking maybe we'll be the first one to report it and get fame, but no one would lift a finger to actually help and intervene.  If we were in that situation, would we try and prevent a crime?  Would we even take the time to call the police so someone else can help?

A Report to an Academy:  I really liked this story about an ape who becomes human.  I mean he still has fur, but he overcomes his ape side and becomes civilized.  This story analyzes, not freedom, but the need to have some direction to move.  Somewhere to go, even if there is no freedom to choose which way to go, one direction to move is good.  It talks about the need for motivation to move and I think gives a good example of overcoming adversity, trials, flaws in our own character.  In this, the ape is not resentful, but he does not look at his act of being civilized as right.  He does not feel other apes should seek to do the same, in fact he feels pity for one chimp, but for him, he felt it was necessary and he does not regret what he did.

I have now finished and will try to finish giving brief summaries of the last few stories.

The Hunter Gracchus: Starts out very descriptive, almost felt like the beginning of a novel.  It was short and curious.  I don't know if I understood the intended message, but it's about a hunter who befalls some tragedy and then is cursed to roam the earth on a boat.  Never able to linger long, not able to receive help or eternal rest.  I kinda liked it, but it definitely wasn't my favorite.

A Hunger Artist: This one has to do with a man who fasts for a living.   I want to say that Kafka died of starvation, but I could be wrong.  Anyways, there are times when he seems to glorify fasting or starvation.  This seems like one of those times, except the character dies at the end, very frail and pitiful.  He wants to make a new record for fasting and insists he can go "one more day" until by death he is stopped.  It talks of very many things relating to fasting, but it seems to miss the point for me.  I realize Kafka was a Jew- so he did not believe in Christ's teachings as fact, but to me Christ tells us what fasting should be when he talks about how hypocrites fast and make sure people know it and it is for the glory of men and not for God's help as it should be.  (St. Matthew chapter 6).  In conclusion, I think this story helps emphasize what I have noticed as a trend of Kafka's to focus on fasting and starvation, but it wasn't my favorite.

Investigations of a Dog:  I thought this had way too many side notes and didn't make one clear point.  It seemed to me that his main investigation has to do with, once again, starvation.  The dog thought he saw food that didn't fall to the ground but followed him through the air and pursued him.  So he decides that he must starve himself to see if food will come to him.  But when he first noticed this phenomena he was not starving, so why he felt the need to starve himself to try his experiment is beyond me, besides the fact that Kafka was intrigued by starving and/or fasting.  It is very philosophical in nature and doesn't really reach any conclusions.  Luckily the dog does not die, he is too tempted by food and therefore his experiment failed.

The Burrow:  I'll admit, I think I spent too much time while reading this trying to figure out which animal, precisely, was being depicted.  It doesn't much matter though.  It talks of a safety net.  It talks of a treasured area, and getting distracted, not thinking things through, allowing danger to enter, and then becoming to scared to think through things logically.  I can relate in many ways, looking back on this story and although I didn't like it much while reading it, I think I like it more when thinking about the message it was trying to convey.

Josephine the Singer, or the Mouse Folk:  This one insists that mice do not sing or like music, except for that which comes from Josephine.  I kinda liked this one, though I'm not sure if I got the intended message.  It talks of how she craves attention, wants to be listened to, feels her message is vital to all mice.  It talks of how entranced all mice are with her voice, and spends a little bit of time going into how she may or may not make those sounds, that no other mouse can.

Overall I liked these stories.  They weren't all intriguing, and so it wasn't the fastest read for me, but I feel there are good points in at least most of the stories, and good messages, even with the tragic, and sometimes weird endings.

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll

So, up til now I've heard a great many things about this book- how it's creepy- how it's weird.  Honestly, I've had friends who aren't fond of the movie.  As for me, I enjoyed it.  Alice falls asleep and has a marvelous dream.  Her subconscious takes you through a great many things- it shows her offending others and having to watch her tongue and temper and learning a few things herself.

"'Who are you?' said the Caterpillar. 
This was not an encouraging opening for a conversation.  Alice replied, rather shyly, 'I--I hardly know, sir, just at present-- at least I know who I WAS when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then.' 
'What do you mean by that?' said the Caterpillar sternly.  'Explain yourself!'
'I can't explain myself, I'm afraid, sir' said Alice, 'because I'm not myself, you see.'
'I don't see,' said the Caterpillar.
'I'm afraid I can't put it more clearly,' Alice replied very politely, 'for I can't understand it myself to begin with; and being so many different sizes in a day is very confusing.'
'It isn't,' said the Caterpillar.
'Well, perhaps you haven't found it so yet,' said Alice; 'but when you have to turn into a chrysalis--you will some day, you know--and then after that into a butterfly, I should think you'll feel it a little queer, won't you?'
'Not a bit,' said the Caterpillar."

This lovely conversation with the Caterpillar talks about who we are- or who Alice is and is a good section to ponder our own self-esteem and self-worth.  Alice should make sense to anyone who isn't sure of who they are.  How can you define yourself if you aren't yourself?  How can you know who you are when things change so often?  Alice has grown huge and less than 2 inches tall in one day.  She feels like she doesn't know herself anymore.  There is one point where she convinces herself she must be someone else entirely- someone who is dumb, and as a result she can't seem to remember parts of her lessons and convinces herself she is not Alice anymore.  Who we are is not changed by things on the outside- growing, or shrinking or even turning into a butterfly.  Who we are is more than that- harder to change.  We are not defined by one action or circumstance.  We may change and grow as things happen to us and we choose to react to them- but who we are remains the same.  Life is still happening to the same person that first encountered a first obstacle. 

And then in talking to the Cheshire cat:

"'Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?'
'That depends a god deal on where you want to get to,' said the Cat.
'I don't much care where--' said Alice.
'Then it doesn't matter which way you go,' said the Cat.
'--so long as I get somewhere,' Alice added as an explanation.
'Oh, you're sure to do that,' said the Cat, 'if you only walk long enough.'"

What is our purpose?  Where should we go in life?  Many feel lost at one point or another- which path should they take?  Well, if you don't care, then it doesn't matter which direction you head.  But if you do care, make a choice- choose your destiny- choose where you want to go and actually WALK in that direction.

By being in a dream Alice is able to address many questions through a subconscious and metaphorical way that I actually really liked.  I would recommend this book to anyone.

hush, hush

This post is actually more of a book critique than things in my life. (****SPOILER ALERT****) I read a book called "hush, hush" this weekend by Becca Fitzpatrick. I was told that if I loved Twilight then I would love this book. I mean, it was good. I liked it. BUT I don't know that I loved it. When I read Twilight I felt it was pretty original- considering. I mean Meyers recreated vampires- vegetarian vampires? WHAT?! But the whole, innocent girl falling in love with the bad boy type or the forbidden love- that isn't anything new. Juliet falling in love with Romeo, the forbidden love theme has been around for forever. But this book I felt mirrored Twilight too much. There's a transfer student- this time it's not the girl. The boy is dangerous. Acts like he is annoyed with the girl as does Edward in Twilight. Bella and this girl are both annoyed with the guy, and have a love/hate thing going on inside of them. Against their better judgement they fall for the guy (don't get me wrong- I love Edward in Twilight and I actually like the guy in this book as well- but really?) The boys in both books are creepy stalkers, stalking around the girl's bedroom windows. Freak accidents. Even one where there's a car involved in both books. There's even a fateful trip out of town to the "big city" nearby. Anyways, for me there was a lot of similarities that I don't think I could ever call this book original.

What I DID like about it? In this book the bad guy is a fallen angel. He never directly tells the girl but tries to give her hints. He is definitely a bad boy type. But in the end, he overcomes the bad. He overcomes his evil side. He ends up changing his nature. Not just a vegetarian vampire- who is still somewhat dangerous by definition, but he is ACTUALLY changed at the end. The girl has to come to terms with him not being who his past defined him. Key word there was defined being PAST TENSE. In life we go through lots of things- things that help shape us into who we are. But our past doesn't have to define WHO WE ARE. What we learn from it, how we use it, how we change and the choices we make NOW and what defines who we are. That is what I gained from this book. Cheesy at times, and sometimes far from original, I liked the message that based on what we choose to do now, we can change. We can be forgiven. We can start anew. How far we may have come shows our strength and perseverance. What we've learned from it shows our wisdom we have gained. How we live now shows our wisdom and who we are- what we have become.

On one more critical note. I found an error on p. 320,
The girl is trying to call her mom and try to explain where she's been all evening in a way that her mom won't get too mad. I don't know where it should switch over, but it starts with the girl saying, "Here's the deal--" and then going on to say she had to turn back and get a room in Milliken Mills. But if you follow the conversation down, the MOM is the one who is in Milliken Mills, not the girl who the quote is attributed to. The girl is at home and becomes relieved to find that her mom didn't notice she was missing and left in search of her. Anyways, now that I've spoiled some of the story for you- read it if you wish. Just know that you will probably see similarities between this book and Twilight and I might've spoiled the ending for you- though I tried to be as vague as possible. I could only be so vague and still get my points across. So sorry if I have spoiled this experience for you!

"Dear John"

So I read the book "Dear John" by Nicholas Sparks. WARNING: this post may contain spoilers- if the movie follows the book....

My thoughts- I loved it, and I hated it. I loved it because it's a great story- I could relate to it. But I hated it because it reminded me of one of my relationships. I met this boy, once upon a time and there was a connection. I, like John, don't believe in love at first sight- but it was as if I had already met him before. Anyways, the story is different, but in the book they date for 2 weeks before he leaves to go back to the army. In my story, I knew him for a while, but when we dated, it was only for two weeks before I left. I can relate to both characters in some ways. We did the whole email and phone call thing and IMing for 3 months before I left on my mission. Then it was only letters- snail mail. No phone calls, no emails or IMs. Anyways, with only two weeks we were as serious as they were in the book. We had said I love you's and talked about marriage- and somehow I knew I would marry him. (For any of those who know my dating status and the book, you know what I mean... )

Well, in the story the girl was naive in some ways, and relatively innocent and religious- that was me. The boy, had a "dangerous" past but was a gentleman (or at least he was to me). Anyways, in the book the girl "Dear Johns" him. The same thing happened with me, but for different reasons. The stories differ here but not the feelings. She had fallen in love with someone else but still did love John. When I broke it off with the guy I still loved him. I thought I was doing the right thing though. Anyways, I broke it off, but in the book and in my story it was the guy who cut off contact- which really was best for me and for Savannah (the girl in the book). In her case he loved her enough to let her live her life with her husband and not break up their marriage. For me, we really had gone on different paths and it wasn't right anymore. He cut off communication for who knows why, but it was best for him and for me. I like the girl still think of him. He was my first in a lot of ways and I will always remember him and those times with fondness, but it didn't work out. And I AM glad for it. I know I'm better off, and I know he's doing well. I don't know what would have happened had I not sent the Dear John letter, but I no longer know if it would've worked like I once believed it would. Anyways, if I went through little by little I could probably draw endless conclusions but I think this suffices. I liked the end of the book but it was sad to me. She had moved on, and I wish he had moved on, at least a little more, if they could never be together. In the end, I feel like I'm in his position. I no longer wish to be with that guy, but I want to know that he's happy. I haven't seen him, but I know he is and that's what matters. And I know I'm happy too.

Protector or Creeper?

So, with New Moon that came out a few weeks ago, I got talking to my sisters and my Mom about the movies. I love them because they are a representation of the books I love, but honestly I thought Twilight was REALLY cheesy. I mean there's a lot of scenes where the camera seems to be swirling around them as they're laying in the meadow, or laying in her bed and NO interaction. AND Edward, to me comes off as a creepy stalker in the movie and that wasn't the impression I got in the book. So, I'm an Edward fan- at heart, but when I watch the movies I become a Jacob fan.

Anyways, I have a few things that I want to say relating to Twilight, first off has to do with what my mom said when we were critiquing the movies. She was like, Edward IS a creepy stalker that Bella falls in love with. The whole book is about a girl who falls in love with the bad boy instead of what's good for her. I kinda see my mom's point, but at the same time I became defensive- that's NOT the Edward I know and love from my book reading experience. (I don't use love seriously. I'm not so much "involved" with him as some people. I do not expect people to live up to the expectations that Edward creates, nor do I fantasize about a real life Edward, but if a book is written well enough I become part of the stories as I read them. That to me, is a good book. So now, back to the current subject.) So, I started thinking that maybe Edward IS just as creepy as he comes across in the movie. Maybe I loved the books so much as a passing obsession, after all, I've only read them once. So I started reading them again. And I am STILL an Edward fan. Here's the thing, there are subtle hints all along the way of ways that Bella was MADE to be in his world. Yes, he's a vampire, there's a dangerous bad boy edge to his character. But in the books he has risen above it. He has become a "vegetarian" as they call it because he doesn't want to be a monster. He did not start off as a creepy stalker, from reading the books again and a SMALL amount of Edward's book from the brief version online you find out that Edward was attracted to her scent, and he hated her for it because he felt it brought out the monster in him. So what does he do? He leaves for Alaska for a little while and then realizes he can't stay away. Love or lust? I'm not going to go into it in this posting, but he's drawn back but still tries to keep his distance because he knows it's best for her. There's the whole scene where he saves her from being smashed by a car. And he can read thoughts, supposedly EVERY guy went after her, and clearly in the book you see at least 4 examples other than Edward, so how would he not think about her with her being the new commodity running through everyone's head. Once again back to the car incident and various other accounts that he witnessed through thoughts of her clumsiness she proved herself a danger magnet. So he leaves for a weekend and the first creepy stalker account happens after that weekend when he ends up watching her when she's in her backyard. Once again, not going into whether the attraction is more than surface deep or not, but he wanted to know she was safe. More of a protector than creepy stalker, after knowing her ability to find disaster. The incident in Port Angeles, he followed her, but gave her space keeping tabs on her from time to time. He didn't follow her when she went off on her own which is why she had to be rescued from her almost attackers. Then AFTER she basically admits to being obsessed with him, that's when he starts coming to her window and watching her sleep. So basically I'm still under the impression that he's more of a protector than creepy stalker.

On to another point I want to make. I was heading out from my dance class this semester and this guy is writing a paper on attraction- I don't remember full details or how it fulfills the writing requirements for his class, I just remember the basics. We were talking how, shallow as it may be, looks are what usually attracts people to each other, at least initially. He brought up Edward and Twilight and basically said that HE thinks Edward is a creepy stalker, but Bella is so entranced by his looks that she doesn't care. I don't fully agree with that, but maybe it's because I see similarities between Bella and I that maybe I'm in denial about. Either way, he asked a girl if she thought George Clooney was hott. She said yes, so he then asked if she would find it creepy if he was stalking her. She said no. He claimed that it's all based on looks, and I claimed, "well, you see if George Clooney were to stalk you, it would probably just come off as really good acting. Kinda like Jonny Depp, he can play the weirdest creepiest characters and still, I just think he's an amazing, talented actor. Same with Heath Ledger and playing the Joker. You watch that and you're not creeped out when you see Heath Ledger, you just think he was amazing to pull off the Joker. (I guess in his offense, those are ALSO good-looking examples, but still, to me Edward is not a creeper.)

Back to when my sisters and I were critiquing the movie Twilight, my sister and I talked about how we thought they should've replaced some of the boring camera swirls and techniques of just them lying next to each other with better scenes from the book. It's true, you see nothing of the day Bella fainted at the smell of blood (which is kinda important to understanding how she fits in his world- Edward says humans don't smell blood.) You don't see much of their interaction in Biology, you don't see the scene where Edward sits with her at lunch, just the two of them and they have their first real conversation. You don't see SO many things that would be better and go more into their actual relationship than just the surface, superficial staring at one another while laying down scenes.

So my conclusions: liking the books was not a passing obsession. They may not be the best books, but I still love them. And Edward in my mind is still not a creepy stalker. Edward and Bella were made for each other.