Kafka for Beginners
 |
Vrsta: deo edicije "za početnike" Crtež: Robert Crumb Sadržaj/priče: David Mairowitz & Franz Kafka Izdavač: Hinaki (2000/2004) Premijerno: 1993 Dimenzije: 21 x 14 cm, SC Br strana netto: 173 Tiraž: 500 + 300 Žanr: humor, biografija, psihološki Kolor? c/b Politički obojen? Ne sećam se. Sumnjam. Golotinja? Mislim da ne. Rasprodato? Da. Crtež: 10/10 Sadržaj: 10/10 Ciljne grupe: anti-bonelijevci, anti-marvelijanci, pajtonovci Prednosti: originalno, inteligentno, opičeno, kontinuirano odličan crtež Minusi: format |
 |
NAPOMENA: Ovo sam čitao pre nekih pet godina pa se mnogih detalja ne sećam. Kada/ako budem ponovo čitao dodaću još tekstova. Robert Crumb's Kafka je prvi put izašao s nazivom Kafka for Beginners 1993, a kasnije i kao Introducing Kafka. Ovo nije zasebno izdanje, već je deo britanskog serijala zvanog "... Za početnike". Primeri drugih titlova su Platon za početnike, Genetika za početnike i Mafija za početnike. (To što je Mafija za početnike u Srbiji izašla u 90-im je prilično zanimljivo. Da li je neko od tadašnjih dizelaša možda pokupio po koji savet odatle? Teško... Sumnjam da je iko od njih išta pročitao u životu. A možda ne bi svi pocrkali kao zečevi da su je pročitali? Ili bi izgradili prave mafijaške imperije umesto tih par uličnih bandi, a koje su se ovde veličale kao bog zna kakve organizovane grupe. Zanimljivo je i to da su na primer italo-američke bande, koje su dizelaši veličali, bile u konstantnoj borbi protiv države, te su zato morali biti jako dobro organizovani i promoćurni. To je bilo u suštoj suprotnosti sa dizelašima koji su konstantno sarađivali sa državom (Miloševićevim režimom) pa nisu morali puno da se plaše hapšenja. Glavni problem su im bili suparnički klanovi, a zato su i krenuli da se međusobno uništavaju munjevitom brzinom, jer su bili suviše divlji i primitivni za bilo šta drugo. A time su dokazali da onim italijanskim mafijama iz 20. veka nisu bili ni pod nokat. Voleo bih da nađem jedan primerak Mafije za početnike. Baš me zanima u kom fazonu je urađeno, i kakav je crtež.) |
 |
U Srbiji je već odavno izašla hrpa ovih "za početnike" naslova, nekih 20, ali u smešno limitiranim tiražima tako da ih je teže naći. Zašto reprinta (tih drugih brojeva) i posle 20 godina nema, ne bih znao reći, ali možda je potražnja suviše mala. A možda je izdavač u medjuvremenu propao. Moguće je i to da je knjiška publika suviše primitivna da bi ih ovako nešto preterano zanimalo. Moguće je i da knjiškim snobovima smeta što je ovo previše blizu stripu (a oni su suviše "rafinirani" da bi čitali stripove), kao što je moguće da je ova sveska stripofilima suviše bliska knjizi pa ih to odbija - jer se gade knjiga. Pošto su većina stripofila kao i bibliofila bolidi, ne bi me uopšte čudilo da je tako. Zato među knjigama dominiraju gluposti kao Harry Potter i tupavi ljubavni romani, a među stripofilima Bonelijevi kauboji i Marvelovi maskirani klovnovi. Ljudi ne žele ništa da nauče, samo ih zanima jeftina zabava. (Zašto ne može i jedno i drugo?) A onda se pojedini bibliofili kurče kako "čitaju knjige", dok fibratori sebe smatraju "uzvišenijim" stripofilima. Džaba i jednim i drugim svo to čitanje ako su knjige (i ta hipsterska fibrijana) sve u paketu sranje! Po čemu su onda bibliofili "bolji" odnosno pametniji od stripofila? Po cemu su fibratori "uzvišeniji" od Bonelijevaca? Ne samo da je serijal neka vrsta hibrida između stripa i knjige - što odbija tupsone među čitaocima i jednog i drugog - već nije u pitanju fikcija nego obrazovno štivo. A pošto je nivo obrazovanja na Balkanu u kanalizaciji, onda se ne bih trebao suviše čuditi što je potražnja toliko mala. Znači ne samo što ove sveske imaju nedefinisan izdavački format, već spadaju u nefikciju. A pritom je i obrazovni format nešto između ozbiljno intelektualnog i onog prilagođenog/podjednostavljenog za "neintelektualnu" publiku. Sasvim je moguće da je intelektualcima (odnosno žvalavcima koji sebe tako vide) ispod časti da čitaju ovakva izdanja, a da je plebzu i ovo suviše intelektualno. Znači opet se ovaj serijal nalazi negde između dve krajnosti, između dve stolice! A meni je baš zato ovo zanimljivo, odnosno još zanimljivije, jer je drugačije. Koliko su ljudi samo konzervativni i ustaljeni u svojim dosadnim navikama... A možda ja previše kenjam o svojim stripskim kolegama (i mojim daljim rođacima bibliofilima), jer je pravi razlog za manju prodaju eventualno bila previsoka cena. Te maloprodajne cifre od pre 20 godina ne znam tako da tu temu sada završavam. |
 |
Samo da ne dođe do zabune, ne smeta meni nešto preterano što ovi ostali titlovi ne mogu da se nabave u Srbiji, već zato što konkretno Kafka za početnike ne može nigde da se kupi, sem na oglasima. Razlog takvom stavu je zato što su većina ovih sveski napisane od strane levičara pa čak i marksista. Niče za početnike je pisao levičar, isto važi i za James Joyce za levičare. (A i sâm Joyce je bio levičar.) A iz ovih primera se potvrđuje po milioniti put koliko su levičari nefer: Joyce-a je smeo da uradi levičar, a Niče-a nije smeo da uradi neki desničar, iako bi to po nekoj logici ove edicije trebalo tako da bude. Ako već levičari pišu o levičarima, onda daj makar poneki desničar da piše o filozofima koji nisu bili levičarski nastrojeni, a to je definitivno slučaj sa Ničeom koga levičari nimalo ne mirišu. Jer nije lupetao gluposti kao Marks, Spinoza, Ruso, pa čak i Platon. Kao što komunjare ne mirišu ni Šopenhauera, koji je bio notorni, legendarni realista, verovatno najinteligentniji pragmatični mislilac od svih tih velikih imena iz filozofije. Nije me iznenadilo da ne postoji Schopenhauer za početnike, a toga nikada neće ni biti - sem ukoliko se neki levičar ne seti da bi bila dobra ideja da se nabljuje. Nije nemoguće, jer sve više se Šopenhauer pojavljuje na YouTube-u, pogotovo od strane nelevičarskih vlogera, pa zato mozda levicari uskoro krenu u kontranapad da ga izblate. Jer su u tome eksperti. Ali nije samo politika u pitanju. Kramb je veliki izuzetak jer je jedini veliki stripadžija koji je deo ove edicije. Zbog ova dva razloga je logično da pretpostavim da su ostala izdanja daleko slabija od Kafke, bez obzira što je tematika kod nekih vrlo zanimljiva. (Mafija, genetika, Hoking, Niče, Jung, i romantizam. Eventualno i Aristotel i Platon.) Zašto bih čitao Genetiku za početnike ako je loše nacrtana i ako ju je napisao neki levičar? Ne želim da mi levičari sole pamet o bilo kojoj grani nauke, čak i o onima totalno nepovezanim s politikom, jer je razmišljanje levičara generalno veoma nelogično i iracionalno. Pritom su skloni ubacivanju propagande čak i u teme koje su kompletno nepolitičke; to je jednostavno jače od njih. (Istina je da puno serendam o politici na ovom blogu, ali to je zato što stalno nailazim na levičarsku propagandu u stripovima, a ne nameravam o tome da ćutim već se uvek bunim.) Jung za početnike je napisala žena koja se bavi astrologijom! Samo zato što je Jung imao ozbiljno interesovanje za tu "oblast". To bi bilo kao da neki od pythonovaca napiše knjigu o Elvis Presley-u zato što je Elvis voleo Monty Python. Valjda o Jungu treba da piše neki psihijatar, a o Elvisu neki muzičar ili muzički istoričar! Prema tome ja više podržavam ideju ovakve edicije, da se poznate i kultne ličnosti iz umetnosti i nauke približe ljudima na jedan lak način, nego što ovu konkretnu ediciju podržavam. Ne podržavam je zato što ne vidim da je urednicima crtež bio preterano bitan, a pritom su u pitanju levičari koji dominiraju edicijom. Ništa novo: levičari su ekstremno pristrasni i ne tolerišu druga mišljenja. Još za vreme Jugoslavije je bilo izašlo nekoliko takvih knjižica, od drugih izdavača i u sasvim drugačijem pakovanju. Imao sam Marks za početnike i Frojd za početnike, a postojali su i priručnici za Lenjina, Ajnštajna i Darvina. Marks i Frojd su mi bili prilično zanimljivi, mada je crtež skroman. Marks izdanje je bilo malo bolje nacrtano (mada primitivno) dok je Frojd bio tematski mnogo zanimljiviji, ali sa previše pikasovskim crtežom. Tada, pre više od 40 godina, nisam znao maltene ništa o marksizmu, pa nisam ni mogao da provalim koliko je ta sveska pristrasna, neobjektivna i pretpostavljam prepuna gluposti. Njen autor Ruis je okorela komunjara, stoga bi Marks za početnike trebao da se zove Marksistička propaganda za početnike, ili još bolje Marksistička propaganda za neupućene a kojima je zbog toga mnogo lakše ispirati mozgove. |
 |
Kramb je ovaj nazovi-strip crtao početkom 90-ih, upravo kada se bio spremao da se preseli za Francusku. (Podrobnije o mentalitetu Amerikanaca koji misle da im je Francuska spas možete naći u mojoj recenziji za Drawn Together, link dole.) Trebalo mu je godinu-dve da završi "album". A namerno kažem album, iako je sveščica u pitanju, jer se nadovezujem na moju glavnu - i jedinu - frustraciju. Ovakav jedan "strip", maltene savršen, trebalo je da bude izbačen u tvrdom povezu u A4 formatu. Ili makar u marvelovskom formatu. Ne kapiram o kakvim (p)izdavačkim budalaštinama se ovog puta radi, da se baš nijedan pizdavač u svetu nije ikada setio da na ovakav način unapredi ovako genijalno izdanje. Kramb i Kafka! Pa gde će bolje od toga? Crtež je onaj najbolji za koji je Robert sposoban, a tematika ne može biti interesantnija. Pritom ovo nije samo analiza Kafke (hiljadita po redu) uz po koju ilustraciju, već je Kramb uradio nekoliko priča i skraćene verzije glavna tri romana. Da stvari budu još gluplje, postoji niz totalno besmislenih ultraluksuznih A4 HC izdanja od nemačkog Taschen-a, kompilacije Krambovih skica i žvrljotina, takozvane Sketchbooks. Ima ih čak osam. Ja ih ne preporučujem nikome, jer za paprene cene dobijate uglavnom škart. To su mahom loši crteži koje je Kramb na brzinu izbrljao, a pritom se ne radi ni o kakvim stripovima ni pričama. Kompilacije (od)bačenih ostataka i beleški! Ova hrpa govana je trebalo da izlazi u skromnom pakovanju, a Kafka da bude u luksuznom. Izdavači širom sveta kao da su većinom retardirani; često sve rade obrnuto, kontra logici. Toliko grešaka prave, kao da su trolovi koji namerno sabotiraju stripove. Biraju pogrešne formate, pogrešan papir, izbacuju kompjuterski kolor bez potrebe, ignorišu kolorne verzije kada su one bolje od CB, izbacuju od crtača slabije radove dok najbolje ignorišu... Tu nema nikakve volje niti inteligencije već se posao samo otaljava, onako preko one stvari. Ponekad se pitam zašto se pojedinci uopšte bave strip izdavaštvom kada ih ono uopšte ne zanima i kada u stripove uopšte nisu ni upućeni. Ko hoće veliku zaradu na brzinu, to može postići efikasnije u drugim oblastima biznisa. To je slično buzdovanima koji otvore restoran, a pritom niti se razumeju u kulinarstvo niti ih nešto posebno zanima kvalitet hrane, pa se onda čude kada im restoran propadne u roku od samo godinu dana. Nisam bio nimalo iznenađen da je Kramb Kafku smatrao "srodnom dušom". Da li je to njegovo mišljenje bilo pre odluke da uradi Kafku, ili je to ukapirao tokom rada na stripu, to ne znam. U svakom slučaju se radi o dva neurotika, jednom težem slučaju i jednom malo blažem. Moglo bi se čak reći da su obojica napravili velika imena od sebe uglavnom zato što su bili tj jesu žestoko opičeni. A ključni razlog njihove slave, osim očiglednih talenata obojice, je što se nisu libili da svoje neuroze i strahove podele sa čitaocem. Takva iskrenost je izuzetno retka, u literaturi a pogotovo u stripu. Franc je bio čudak i veliki ekscentrik. Greška bi bila nazvati ga totalnim ludakom, uprkos nekim veoma bizarnim opsesijama i idejama, jer je u pravom životu relativno normalno funkcionisao. Možda ne u privatnom životu, koji nije bio bajan i sjajan, ali definitivno u profesionalnom. Mnogi ga zamišljaju kao depresivnog luzera koji se gubio u svom svetu mašte. To je samo delimično tačno, jer ljudi koji su ga poznavali su pričali kako bi im čitao pojedine segmente - dok se valjao od smeha! Ja njega ne zamišljam kao nekog samoubicu koji lije suze dok piše svoje bizarne tekstove, već verujem da se tokom pisanja ponekad ludo zabavljao. Uostalom, osim raznih boleština ima tu i puno humora. Prijatelji su ga opisivali kao duhovitog čoveka. Imao je probleme sa depresijom (mada verovatno ne klinička), ali to ne znači da je čitavo vreme piljio u pod pognute glave. (Ljudi vole sve da podjednostavljuju jer ih kompleksnost i kontradikcije zamaraju. Što bi pythonovci rekli, "my brain hurts!") Stiče se i utisak da ljudi koji nikada nisu čitali Kafku imaju mnogo veću tendenciju da ga doživljavaju kao nekog preozbiljnog ekscentrika. Mada i mnogi njegovi čitaoci ne provaljuju koliko zajebancije ima u njegovim pisanjima. Nekim ljudima je humor očigledan samo kada im se unosi u lice, kada je stereotipičan. Da ne bude da samo kenjam o drugima i o tome koliko su oni ludi a ja kaobajagi normalan, i ja sam pronašao izvesne paralele između sebe i Kafke dok sam bio čitao razne priče i dva od tri glavna romana. A bogami postoje i paralele sa Krambom! Nisam ni ja sasvim čist u glavi, niti sam ikada tvrdio da jesam. Uostalom, da bih pronalazio toliko zabavnih momenata kod Franca (a pogotovo kod Kramba) verovatno je neophodna i izvesna doza identifikacije sa mentalitetima autora. Kramb je apsolutno idealan za Kafku, možda čak i najidealniji od svih strip crtača iz poslednjih 50 godina. Ne samo zbog toga što imaju sličnosti pa ga Robert dosta dobro kapira, već i zbog samog crtačkog stila. Takav tradicionalan crtež, koji mnogo asocira na prošla pa čak i davna vremena, je baš onakav stil koji bih ja lično izabrao. Modernistički pristup mi se ne bi uopšte dopao, a kamoli neko nedisciplinovano pikasovsko žvrljanje. A da ne govorim o Krambovoj vanserijskoj sposobnosti da prikaže mizeriju, depresiju i psihičku torturu. Pošto je vrhunski karikaturni crtač, on s lakoćom i velikom preciznošću dočarava sve emocije potrebne za ovako nešto. A pritom ume i realno da crta, kao i da kombinuje realu s karikaturom. Sve ume. Ima i drugih crtača koji su se bavili Kafkom, ali nisu vredni pažnje a kamoli novca. Na primer Peter Kuper sa svojim hladnim modernizmom. Tako nešto bi eventualno moglo da prođe kod knjige sa nekolicinom ilustracija, ali kao čistokrvni strip tako nešto nema svrhe. |
 |
| A ima i totalnih klovnova koji su ovakva sranja naškrabali (slika gore, prilično očigledno), a onda se bez ikakvog ustručavanja usudili da ovakav proliv proturaju kao "umetnost" ili "zabavu". To su netalenti bez ikakvog obraza, okoreli šarlatani. Ako imate iole samopoštovanja ili trunke smisla za estetiku, ne nasedajte na promovisanje ovakvih bolida. Samo pravite budale od sebe, a finansirate antiumetnost. |
 |
Scenario je pisao Mairowitz za koga nikada nisam čuo. Pošto dugo nisam ovo bio čitao, ne mogu da komentarišem koliko je dobro ili loše odradio posao. Odnosno definitivno ga nije loše odradio, ali znajući mene skoro je sigurno da sam imao neke zamerke; jednostavno ih se ne sećam. Ali pošto je ovakvu temu vrlo teško upropastiti, pogotovo sa ovakvim crtežom, to što sam visoko ocenio "strip" ne znači da je to u velikoj meri njegova zasluga. Pretpostavljam da bi većina iole kompetentnih novinara/pisaca scenarista odradili solidan posao. Pošto sam ovo davno čitao, ne mogu da zalazim dublje u temu, ali ono što mogu je da ubacim stariji tekst koji sam napisao o Zamku. Na engleskom je. Znam da ovo nije književni blog, niti sam ja veliki fan književnosti, a blog je pritom na srpskom - ali koga zabole? Moj blog, moja pravila... Inače, ja takozvane klasike ne čitam, odnosno izuzetno retko, a Kafka dođe kao izuzetak. Jednostavno mi leže taj pajtonovski humor, suludi dijalozi, opičenost, i to što sama radnja nije toliko bitna. Ko će još da se bakće sa Tolstojem ili Dikensom... Tekst sam napisao na engleskom, jer nisam mislio da će završiti baš na ovom blogu. Samo još da pomenem notornu glupost kada sam kupovao The Essential Kafka u Vulkanu, pre nekoliko godina. Knjigu nisam mogao da nađem na policama pa sam pitao radnicu da li je još uvek imaju... Ona: "Kako ste rekli?..." Ja: "Kafka." Ona: "Kako...? Kaf...?" Ja (zbunjen): "Kafka! Franc Kafka." Riba nikada nije čula za njega! Kao da sam joj bio tražio nekog opskurnog kineskog pisca koga čita 500 ljudi. A to mi je bilo totalno fascinantno. Inače gotovo nikad ništa ne kupujem u Vulkanu i veoma retko tamo zalazim, ali uprkos tome sam nedavno imao još jedan sličan susret, sa još jednom njihovom lobotomiziranom radnicom. Zaključak je da vlasnici Vulkana zapošljavaju isključivo preko rodbinske veze i slično. Ne samo da radnice uopšte ne moraju da se razumeju u literaturu, već verovatno ne moraju ni da budu pismene. Valjda je dovoljno da umeju da potpišu svoje ime da bi dobili posao. Jer poznaju nekoga ko poznaje nekoga ko poznaje vlasnike... Da li je ovako i širom sveta sada u knjižarama, ili je više tipičan balkanizam, ne bih znao reći. |
 |
THE CASTLE I don’t do book reviews. Ever. (Except for autobiographies, which you can find on my music blog.) But considering how insane both this novel and its author are, it was almost inescapable. It was irresistible. I just had to add my 5 cents to the “debate” i.e. this century-long guessing game. How ironic – and kind of pointless too – that my first book review is that of one of the most over-analyzed works ever. I might not say anything new, considering how many volumes had been written about TC, but then again... I am convinced that the odds are in my favour, that I probably do offer some new viewpoints, simply because I think outside of the box regarding all things, and because I’m not a pretentious sheep critic saying all the things one expects to hear about Kafka. Most importantly, I’m never afraid to give the full extent of my opinion. Some of the following you may have expected to hear from me, but certainly not all. The Castle is an anally-obsessive story about extreme bureaucratic hell, written by a highly neurotic individual whose background as a legal professional reveals itself not just in obvious ways, but excessively and throughout. Anyone not privy to Kafka’s private life (which is more interesting than any of his books or stories – and I don’t mean this at all disparagingly) yet who is reading this book should suspect immediately that he may have studied Law. The painstaking detail with which Kafka describes the infinite "maze" of this world’s absurdly complex bureaucratic system is one of the defining traits of The Castle. For example, there is an almost 50-page near-monologue by Olga, in which she describes her family’s precarious situation to the main character K. It is an alternatingly amusing, absurd and tiresome account. In fact, the book gets quite tiresome in its last third. A Monty Python skit such as the “Cooker Sketch” trashes extreme bureaucracy in mere minutes, quickly and efficiently. Whereas Kafka just goes on and on and on, piling on the garbage to no end. Some have compared TC to a maze, or a labyrinth, which is true to an extent. I just wish it had been a labyrinth with more variation, more locations, more surprises. Instead, Kafka autistically hammers home the same point(s) over and over, and he does it utilizing excessive amounts of detail, and relentlessly, with the gusto of a madman fixated on only a few things. TC is an autistic novel written for other autistic people, though I'm not implying that he was necessarly autistic. I enjoy it more as an opportunity to get to know the mind of a disturbed, crazy, individual – who should have been committed to an asylum for life, by most accounts – rather than enjoy it as a stand-alone “classic” that's supposed to "educate". If anybody else had written this pile of nonsense I would have been far less forgiving of its obvious flaws. But because it came out of the head of a disturbed individual, it holds some degree of relevance and interest. Sort of the way Mein Kampf would have been a truly worthless book if authored by a nobody, but because Hitler had written it, still it attracts attention. (I hope you're all intelligent enough to realize that I am not comparing these two.) Also, because Kafka possibly didn't intend this book to be published, one cannot criticize it as one might criticize a commercial undertaking. Franz wasn't necessarilly writing for an audience, hence did not have any impulses and reasons to explain himself every step of the way. Whatever might appear illogical or unclear can be excused more easily because of this. (Though that doesn't mean that we can completely ignore it, either.) Going back to Olga’s verbal onslaught, TC is sometimes tiresome because 50 pages of anything can easily become too much, let alone when it’s excessive detail about one family and its unjust ostracization. However, it is also amusing, because it reminds the reader just how anal Kafka was about this kind of unnecessary detail – and because Kafka’s villagers are such damn morons, besides being utter lunatics. The villagers behave like utter sheep; they are basically zombies, willing slaves to a cretinous, inhumane system that places the “elites” practically as gods compared to the utter “worthlessness” of the worms that deify this awfully amoral ruling elite. The patheticness of the villagers, specifically in this case of the utterly stupid Barnabas clan, is always present. We are ceaselessly reminded that Frankie inhabits a village of retards, or at the very least a bunch of masochists with zero self-respect. Almost as if they deserve to be oppressed. Almost as if they want to be oppressed. The appalling submissiveness of the villagers toward their tormentors – the ruling bureaucratic elite – is very reminiscent of Kafka’s own low sense of self-worth, and stems from it. Franz often regarded himself as a worm, or a worthless rodent who wanted to be ignored by everyone, who fully deserved to be treated like shit. That's the only way I can interpret those short stories. He may or may not have been mocking about with the idea of being a pitiful rodent, but some of his true character shines through; it has to. His whole life he fantasized numerous ways how he could best be killed off by others. (I doubt this was done as a joke, although he may have injected some of his dark humor into some of it.) His desperate impulse to be invisible, because his self-worth was presumably low (in most ways, because I assume he did value his own intellect and/or education and/or social status at least) led him to write about these things: about worthless worms, about dumb plebians, about strict class divisions within an organization or outside it... These were some of his obsessions. Like most obsessive, autistic-type personalities, Kafka seems to be expert on certain things, but clueless about others. (Admittedly, this could be said about many if not most people.) Where he horribly fails is gender psychology. His portrayal of Frieda is the best example, the character around whom the most nonsense occurs. Despite being homely and unattractive, she has all her “clients” i.e. customers worshiping her every move – and just because she happens to be the (self-proclaimed) mistress of the hot-shot Klamm, the elusive official who is treated as a deity by every single character in the book. We are meant to believe that a homely, unsexy woman automatically becomes attractive to men just because of her high social status, just because she is a big-wig’s woman. And not even a proper wife, but a mistress. But that’s not what men are like. Men act on impulses, on sexual instincts, and social status has nothing to do with that. Women are like this. Women find power and social status attractive, and decisive even; they can do an immediate 180 the moment they find out that a fat ugly man is extremely powerful and wealthy. Show the average woman a fat, bald, old, ugly man and she will completely ignore him, treat him literally as air. Tell her that he is the CEO of the world’s largest corporation and instantly she will be attracted to him, even if not physically; she might even marry him. Not all women, but most women would marry such a guy. Or can you actually imagine that a majority of women would deny themselves the opportunity to be married to a billionaire, even if he is physically totally unattractive to them? Whoever disagrees with this has bought into leftist propaganda about women being moral saints. Power and status are much more important to (many) women than physical appearance. They're not to be blamed for this, it is simply biological wiring which benefits the species in the long run. They don't do it on purpose, they are programmed that way. Men, on the other hand, are primarily about women’s physical appearance i.e. men are far more guided by their genitals than women are by theirs. (I discussed this in my Female Masochism post, on my political blog.) Give a man the choice between Oprah Winfrey and her billions on the one hand, and an anonymous barmaid with exceptional beauty and a perfect body on the other hand, and the vast majority of men will pick her instead of Oprah. Especially if they're drunk. Men’s sexual impulses are direct and overwhelming, quite uncontrollable, whereas female sexuality is far more reclusive and less important to women. Women can rein in and direct their sexual attraction with more control, which is why they use sex far more often as a weapon of manipulation than men do, or can. Men's strive for power and Status as a means to an end, not as the ultimate goal, and that end is to get the best-looking woman (or women) that they can. They climb various social and corporate ladders precisely because they instinctively feel that that's what is required to impress the best women. Or what they perceive to be the best women. Hence this “big reveal” in the end that Frieda had manipulated not only K but all the other men into liking her, despite her crap looks, and just because she is Klamm’s mistress (big frigging deal!), doesn’t wash. Not even within the context of this bizarre, utterly alien world which has its own logic. But I don’t care how “weird” your world is, because some basic “gender logic” always needs to be in place, otherwise things get too chaotic. They get dumb rather than just absurd. The very least this strange world should have had is more gender-appropriate behaviour. Excuses that this novel is a like a dream world, hence doesn't have to abide by gender logic, aren't good enough. Besides, these are the same defenders who claim that the novel acts as a strong satire of bureaucracy. You can't have it both ways: you can't argue that it's dream-like when things don't make sense - but then insist that things make enough sense to connect to the real world. It's either satirical or absurdist. Kafka, I am certain, didn’t commit this error on purpose, nor did he do it to amuse himself, but did it because his understanding of the genders was so confused. There are anyway generally many misconceptions about the genders. Just as women are programmed by biology to manipulate men with their sex appeal, men are programmed to respond to the manipulation like the naive dumb creatures that they are whenever they get horny. This sexual game has been going on for hundreds thousands of years and ensures the survival of the species. Franz was disgusted and appalled by the sexual act itself – so could we truly expect any logical sexuality and non-bizarre relationships to develop? Of course not. He may as well have been a pervert; if he had been a pedo his notions of what makes a female attractive would have been just as unfamiliar and baffling. In fact, even a pedo has a more familiar attitude toward male-female relations than a person who hates (or at least avoids) sex of any kind. His very limited experience with women heavily contributed to his ignorance about gender behavior and gender differences. Even guys who have had a lot of women often acquire a very false read on female mentality, the reasons being wishful thinking getting in the way of truth, or just a basic lack of intelligence. This is why most guys live under severe delusions about women well into their old age, believing them to be romantic creatures and all sorts of other over-idealized nonsense with which they place women on a moral pedestal. Not to mention that currently Marxist Western culture deifies women as flawless victims of the "male patriarchy". Which is complete bullshit, as almost everything Marxists claim. This pro-female/anti-male feminist-leftist propaganda only exacerbates the delusions about women that men already possess. If Frankie were our contemporary he'd probably be completely wrong about everything when it comes to women. Though that would also depend to how easily brainwashable he is. Even highly intelligent people can become victims of fairly transparent and idiotic propaganda, as the concept of the "intellectual moron" readily proves. Frieda’s highly far-fetched “master plan” (to seduce K just to - eventually - increase her social status!) is perhaps the most ludicrous revelation of all. Especially absurd (and not in a good way, but in a dumb way) is her realization that 4 days of being away from her old job would be ideal to increase her notoriety, and 4 days would be just enough to be able to go back to her old job once she dumps K. Five or six days would have been too long, according to the narrator i.e. had she extended her plan just by one or two days Pepi would have been probably impossible to replace i.e. Frieda’s replacement would have become permanent. I don't have to explain just how dumb this is; it sounds like a desperate plot-device used by an incompetent beginner rather than that of a world-class writer who knows what he’s doing. Clearly, there is nothing Kafka could have conceived of – no elaborate bullshit rationalization – that could possibly convince anyone that Frieda could possibly know exactly how many days would work to her advantage, and how many would be too many or too little to carry out her plan. That is ludicrous. Who knows why he did this. Perhaps he thought it was funny. Another absurdity is Frieda’s plan being based on increasing her notoriety by creating a scandal. Nothing in the novel suggests that scandals might be considered beneficial in the village. Yet somehow Frieda’s status increases because she ditches a high-ranking castle official... Which is nonsensical. It seems to contradict this world, in which scandalous behaviour is more likely to destroy a reputation rather than enhance it. K’s actions were often deemed scandalous by the villagers – so why did he only garner minus points for his actions then, while Frieda’s scandalous behaviour was deemed good? Kafka wanted Frieda to be this female ogre who uses men for her own selfish ends, which is fair enough, but he does this so clumsily that the entire K-Frieda plot falls apart like a deck of cards – at least from her side. At the very least he should have made her beautiful. Making her ugly kills the logic, nor is it funny in any way. In fact, this major plot-twist involving Frieda is quite telling regarding Kafka’s writing style, or to be precise his preparations or lack thereof. Any attentive reader may notice how Kafka sort of improvises, “cheats” his way through the novel, making things up as he went along. I am convinced he didn’t have a clear outline before he started TC, but instead wrote in a stream-of-consciousness way that would allow a person who is writing for fun to not be burdened by structure. He had simply decided at some point, late in the game, that Frieda’s love was never real and that it was all an elaborate conspiracy, so he went about explaining how she tricked everybody, especially K. To pull this off, he needed to pull something big out of a hat, like a magician. Except that the magic hat, in this case at least, gave us a big pile of shit instead of a big shiny white bunny. The explanation doesn’t work on any level, not for our world nor for this "fantasy" world. Far-fetched bullshit is sometimes universal, hence cannot be justified or excused by anything, not even for the book’s inherently weird world. As if weirdness on its own can be an all-purpose excuse to get away with everything. If this were the case then all of Lynch’s films would be masterpieces... Then Franz throws us another big twist: K suggests that Pepi’s story of deceit and betrayal is a paranoid fabrication, he doesn’t believe in it. Now, as much as I lambasted Pepi’s version of events as laughably absurd, what is the alternative? That Frieda is an impulsive masochist whose absurd behaviour vis-a-vis K should be taken at face value? If we were to not believe Pepi’s version, Frieda is the most absurd character in TC, by far. Every step of the way her actions and reactions are baffling, illogical, contradictory, random and mystifying. Above all they reveal amazing stupidity and the naivety of a 3 year-old. For example the ease with which K’s assistants – whom she knows since childhood - allegedly manipulate her into ditching K. At least within Pepi’s version – as far-fetched as Frieda’s “alleged” masterplan is – a lot of Frieda’s decisions become understandable and more logical, intelligent rather than dumb. Given a choice between Frieda being an easily influenced imbecile (K’s version, though he never describes her this way) and a conniving manipulator (Pepi’s version), I choose the latter, simply because it makes more sense. And sense is something sorely lacking in the village. (A fact which, I understand, may actually contradict my choice.) Also, Frieda’s completely unfounded hatred of the Barnabas clan supports Pepi’s unflattering version of her as a bitch. Besides, K’s naive response to Pepi’s theory of events seems to only confirm Pepi’s suggestion that K was very naive as far as Frieda is concerned. Also, K lies or deceives himself in claiming that he didn’t tire of Frieda – as Pepi claimed – which is untrue because we had been told far earlier that K was starting to find Frieda less interesting and attractive soon after she lost her status as Klamm’s mistress. I choose to believe Pepi’s version, despite her youth, which K uses as a flimsy argument to denigrate her story. Did Kafka even know i.e. decide which version is true? K, who falls for Frieda way too easily, quickly and foolishly, through this (ultimately failed) romantic relationship alone, tells us that he is just as inexplicable as the villagers. He is definitely not the straight man here, the one normal character surrounded by loons, that one person the reader can latch on to and identify with. His reasoning is often bizarre, his decisions are questionable, and his behaviour is occasionally no less silly or erratic than that of the uniformly brain-damaged villagers. He is introduced as the classic outsider, the “stranger who rides into town”, but he fits in with these castle-worshiping boneheads far more than first appears. We just assume, right from the gate, that K must be the normal one, that he is like us, because that's how it is in the vast majority of books and films: normal, or at least normal in the sense that he could stem from our world, the real world. But this isn’t the case. This is unfortunate, because a normal person’s reactions to this bizarre world and his interactions with it would have been more fun. The contrast in mentalities alone would have provided many amusing, interesting situations. As it is, K is just a loon visiting a loony village. In other words, as far as we know, this entire world might be nuts. Not just the village. K may be somewhat more “well-adjusted”, but hardly very different or different enough from the cretins who make his stay miserable. In a sense, even though the main character K is considered by many to be an extension of the author himself (or at least a version of him), Kafka is in fact a lot more like the pitiful villagers (who act as if the castle’s officials were divine beings and they mere insects who get in their way when they actually dare expect that these “elites” do something concrete for the village i.e. for society). At least as far as their sense of self-worth is concerned. Intellectually speaking, Kafka was very far from a moron, obviously. Only a highly intelligent loon could concoct such blissful rubbish as this goofy, mostly pointless story. I say pointless, because ultimately there isn’t that much to learn from it, except - maybe - about the writer. Why not though? Why doesn't the book give us any real insight into the real world? Because this society is so far removed from anything we have on planet Earth that it’s tough to make any valid analogies. Exaggerating to make a point is one thing, but there is such a thing as going so far with it that the point is not only lost but there is no proper interpretation that is possible. We can’t really learn much either in the way of psychology because regular humans do not behave this way. At best, TC gives us insight into madness, or at least Kafka’s specific brand of lunacy. Another problem is that none of the characters are likable. K is vaguely likable, Pepi and Olga are too, to some extent, perhaps Barnabas and a few others are tolerable too. But every character, even those who aren’t utterly evil and corrupt, is so far gone in their insanity that it occurred to me at one point that the best way TC would end would be like the movie If... in which most characters just get gunned down. The emotional retardation and the utter hopelessness and decadence of TC’s world makes one not give a hoot even if somebody simply nuked the entire village. This society is so deeply flawed that its mere existence is annoying, on some level. Worse yet, the narrator doesn’t condemn it. If anything, the narrator (whoever that may be, might not be Kafka’s perspective fully, or at all) is more critical of K than of the lunatics who make his life difficult for no credible reason whatsoever. This raises crucial questions. If Kafka as narrator isn't rooting for the main "hero", then maybe K is the villain in the story? Or at least a troublemaker. Maybe the villagers are the victims of an intruder who wants to stir the pot. Even if the pot is dysfunctional, it belongs to the villagers and that's the life they want to lead. That's one interpretation. It would mean that Kafka believes people should be subservient, the way he'd mostly been. Another interpretation could be that Franz is ambivalent about this whole thing. He may feel defensive about the villagers just as he might be disgusted with them. At the same time. This is quite possible, and I believe might be closer to Kafka's intentions - whether deliberate or subconscious - than to be a defender of either K or the villagers. No side is being taken, that much is for sure. At least not clearly. And if it's not done clearly then it's very difficult to extrapolate the "message" or a moral lesson, if there even are any. I don't understand why readers assume there must be one. This is Franz Kafka, not Leo Tolstoy. Whether the truth is that Kafka was ambivalent, or that he sympathized more with the villagers, the whole notion of this being a huge critique of bureaucracy falls almost completely. If he sided with the villagers then he would have no reason to condemn the bureaucracy that they so strongly tolerate and support. What did Kafka try to say with TC? This is the question (pompous) book critics probably mull over the most. Firstly, we can’t be even sure he wanted to make a concrete “point”. I doubt that a guy as intelligent as Kafka saw TC as anything more than a fun mental exercise, something to keep himself occupied with, i.e. yet another venture into one of his bizarre worlds – simply because he was an escapist who enjoyed running away from himself and reality. The book may not have a “message”, at least not intentionally. It could be free for interpretation, which is something many readers and so-called experts are uneasy with. Because they want everything to be neatly divided into boxes. From what I know, he mostly wrote for his own entertainment and that makes a huge difference from the other 99.999 % of writers, who write for an audience, sometimes even for a very specific demographic. They write to please others; the satisfaction of their audiences is of paramount importance to them i.e. readers being happy fuel their egos and/or their bank-accounts. Kafka had no such ambitions or concerns, or very few; he wasn’t nearly as interested in popularity, fame or even money as most other writers are. There appears to be ambivalence within him: I want my stuff to be read, but on the other hand I am terrified to be so exposed to the public. He wrote because he had to, as an urge, essentially being petrified at the very idea that his works get published. Always the “worm”, wanting to be unnoticed and left alone, marginalized, smaller than an atom – kinda the complete polar opposite of a non-talent buffoon such as Stephen King. Now, there's a lesson! That talentless buffoons want fame, while brighter people might not. What he may have wanted to unconsciously say with TC is up for debate, but it’s a somewhat futile debate that can anyway never be settled because Kafka is no longer living. He’s been deceased for almost 100 years, so no, we cannot say with certainty what he intended – unless there is some private correspondence regarding TC that I’m not aware of, in which he clearly formulates his intentions or at least hints at them. Perhaps in his letters to Milena there are some clues, because he wrote them late in his life, while writing TC, and because Milena was allegedly whom he based Frieda on. I haven’t read these letters, so I can’t either confirm or deny. If he wanted to criticize excessive bureaucracy, then he may have achieved that with TC, though a lack of logic and confusing characterization are obstacles. In fact, he went way overboard with it, pummelling that point incessantly. But that’s just an assumption because he never takes clear sides with K. The fact that TC is an incomplete novel changes little as far as its interpretation, because Kafka isn’t some average horror writer who gave the readers a sudden and unexpected twist at the end. The argument that TC would have made more sense or even complete sense had Kafka completed it is a theory I can’t totally disprove, obviously, but I suspect that a complete version of TC wouldn’t have made a lot more sense. Coz he never had an outline, and had already entangled himself in flawed logic. I very much doubt he set out to write a story that was coherent and had a clear beginning, middle and end. I don't think he cared about the structure at all. I believe he was just out to have some fun, and to see where the writing takes him. This would anyway be in line with somebody who isn't necessarily writing for a publisher, and somebody without a fan base to have to worry about. It would make much more sense for somebody treating writing as a hobby. If you're writing primarily or only for yourself then you have limitless freedom, in the sense of breaking various rules. You can literally do whatever you want. And that includes not having a point, not having clear allegiances toward anybody or anything, being contradictory, and confusing the potential reader. One thing is certain. The world in TC isn’t a world as we know it – anywhere. Kafka’s worlds are uniquely alien, nightmare-like, sometimes humorous, but never realistic. We don't even know for certain what the intentions were. From the reader’s standpoint every single character in TC is a lunatic. A lunatic society whose very existence is not possible. But that’s the biggest appeal in his writings, this weirdness that isn’t forced i.e. contrived but comes off “naturally” out of a highly eccentric individual. Frankie was autistic, at least in how he wrote. Variation wasn’t of any importance to him. Nailing the same point, over and over, is more what his writing was about. Very determined, fanatical, one-dimensional, one-note, and obsessively revolving around just a few themes. Not so much a labyrinth as an endless loop of repeating themes. Anyone new to his writing, you're better off starting with The Trial, which makes more sense and has more of a story arc to it. |
Nedavno apdejtovano:
https://vjetroscomics.blogspot.com/2020/10/drawn-together-robert-crumb.html
Još:
https://vjetroscomics.blogspot.com/2020/09/muke-sa-zenama-robert-crumb.html
Recenzije rok/metal autobiografija:
