My first reaction after reading the 'Description of a struggle' was one of complete resentment. I neither understood the plot, nor the hidden meaning the reader had to take home.
Haunted by this disturbing feeling, I decided to search for reviews of this novella. Quoting Wikipedia,"[the work] .. is often dismissed by critics turned off by its fragmentary nature and lack of polish. John Updike, in his foreword to an English language collection of Kafka's stories calls it (along with Wedding Preparations in the Country another early story) repellent containing something of adolescent posturing and advises new readers of Kafka to skip them. Updike encourages readers to return to these early stories once initiated with his other works."
While this was encouraging, it did not relieve me of the sense of discomfort. I re-read the story only to realize that the fact that the narrator never identifies himself was part of his style of writing. In other words, one never gets to know who the protagonist is, what he does, where he lives and so on which builds a surrealism that is sometimes hard to digest.
How can you ride (like a horse) an acquaintance from a party?
He says "I leapt onto the shoulders of my acquaintance and by digging my fists into his back I urged him to a trot." One suddenly realizes that he is not in the real world any more.
The description of the fat man being carried by the litter was revolting. For example, "His folds of fat were so carefully spread out that although they covered the whole litter and even hung down his side like the hem of a yellowish carpet, they did not hamper him." The conversation with the supplicant is a scathing criticism of religion - a young man with an emaciated figure who throws himself on the ground and beats his skull in the palms of his hand on the stone floor - is a hypocrite who does what he chooses to because he gets attention. It almost feels like Kafka pities people with blind faith. Why are they believers - not because they strongly feel so from within, but because there are people watching their actions.
In short, the narrator has an acquaintance-the acquaintance meets a girl he falls in love with. No one ever knows who is the narrator, acquaintance or the girl he loves. One only works with emotions-some questions that seem apt to ask at the moment, but perhaps rising out of incidents that occurred in the past.
This being my first read, I take Wikipedia's advice to heart and will bravely read some of his other masterpieces before revisiting this novella again.
My first reaction after reading the 'Description of a struggle' was one of complete resentment. I neither understood the plot, nor the hidden meaning the reader had to take home.
Haunted by this disturbing feeling, I decided to search for reviews of this novella. Quoting Wikipedia,"[the work] .. is often dismissed by critics turned off by its fragmentary nature and lack of polish. John Updike, in his foreword to an English language collection of Kafka's stories calls it (along with Wedding Preparations in the Country another early story) repellent containing something of adolescent posturing and advises new readers of Kafka to skip them. Updike encourages readers to return to these early stories once initiated with his other works."
While this was encouraging, it did not relieve me of the sense of discomfort. I re-read the story only to realize that the fact that the narrator never identifies himself was part of his style of writing. In other words, one never gets to know who the protagonist is, what he does, where he lives and so on which builds a surrealism that is sometimes hard to digest.
How can you ride (like a horse) an acquaintance from a party?
He says "I leapt onto the shoulders of my acquaintance and by digging my fists into his back I urged him to a trot." One suddenly realizes that he is not in the real world any more.
The description of the fat man being carried by the litter was revolting. For example, "His folds of fat were so carefully spread out that although they covered the whole litter and even hung down his side like the hem of a yellowish carpet, they did not hamper him." The conversation with the supplicant is a scathing criticism of religion - a young man with an emaciated figure who throws himself on the ground and beats his skull in the palms of his hand on the stone floor - is a hypocrite who does what he chooses to because he gets attention. It almost feels like Kafka pities people with blind faith. Why are they believers - not because they strongly feel so from within, but because there are people watching their actions.
In short, the narrator has an acquaintance-the acquaintance meets a girl he falls in love with. No one ever knows who is the narrator, acquaintance or the girl he loves. One only works with emotions-some questions that seem apt to ask at the moment, but perhaps rising out of incidents that occurred in the past.
This being my first read, I take Wikipedia's advice to heart and will bravely read some of his other masterpieces before revisiting this novella again.
Haunted by this disturbing feeling, I decided to search for reviews of this novella. Quoting Wikipedia,"[the work] .. is often dismissed by critics turned off by its fragmentary nature and lack of polish. John Updike, in his foreword to an English language collection of Kafka's stories calls it (along with Wedding Preparations in the Country another early story) repellent containing something of adolescent posturing and advises new readers of Kafka to skip them. Updike encourages readers to return to these early stories once initiated with his other works."
While this was encouraging, it did not relieve me of the sense of discomfort. I re-read the story only to realize that the fact that the narrator never identifies himself was part of his style of writing. In other words, one never gets to know who the protagonist is, what he does, where he lives and so on which builds a surrealism that is sometimes hard to digest.
How can you ride (like a horse) an acquaintance from a party?
He says "I leapt onto the shoulders of my acquaintance and by digging my fists into his back I urged him to a trot." One suddenly realizes that he is not in the real world any more.
The description of the fat man being carried by the litter was revolting. For example, "His folds of fat were so carefully spread out that although they covered the whole litter and even hung down his side like the hem of a yellowish carpet, they did not hamper him." The conversation with the supplicant is a scathing criticism of religion - a young man with an emaciated figure who throws himself on the ground and beats his skull in the palms of his hand on the stone floor - is a hypocrite who does what he chooses to because he gets attention. It almost feels like Kafka pities people with blind faith. Why are they believers - not because they strongly feel so from within, but because there are people watching their actions.
In short, the narrator has an acquaintance-the acquaintance meets a girl he falls in love with. No one ever knows who is the narrator, acquaintance or the girl he loves. One only works with emotions-some questions that seem apt to ask at the moment, but perhaps rising out of incidents that occurred in the past.
This being my first read, I take Wikipedia's advice to heart and will bravely read some of his other masterpieces before revisiting this novella again.
No comments:
Post a Comment