|
Post by keelycorrigan on Oct 20, 2013 23:23:04 GMT
To answer my own question, I think what David Foster Wallace is getting at is the evolution of humor—its timely subjectivity. We, as modern American readers, are unable to shed our perspectives on what is or isn’t funny. I agree with Amy when she said that we can’t see the human in the piece because of the way we view humor, rather how we were taught to find humor. I can’t decide how I feel about this article. Part of me wants to go into the defensive and disagree with DFW. But, I can’t because another part of me agrees with his assertions. In class we discussed the complexity of the issues in “Metamorphosis,” including blame, intentions, and fate. Upon a deeper examination of the story, I came to see this consistent duality in his writing. DFW writes, “Kafka's humor -- not only not neurotic but -- anti-neurotic, heroically sane -- is, finally, a religious humor… a harrowing spirituality against which even Ms. O'Connor's bloody grace seems a little bit easy, the souls at stake pre-made. And it is this, I think, that makes Kafka's wit inaccessible to children whom our culture has trained to see jokes as entertainment and entertainment as reassurance," (pg 3). We have become so accustomed to the polarization of things in our culture, what with politics, gender, class, that we believe that most things are one or the other. But Kafka blends elements of humor and horror and surrealism and dreams into his pieces so seamlessly that our categorizing brains cannot calculate their complexities, so we choose the easiest answer for us. This is what I think David Foster Wallace is saying in his article about Kafka’s defining novella, and on many levels I agree with him.
|
|
|
Post by moreno on Oct 20, 2013 23:50:19 GMT
One of my favorite things that DFW states is that "The psychology of jokes helps account for part of the problem in reading Kafka. We all know that there is no quicker way to empty a joke of its peculiar magic than to try to explain it..." This is not only true, but it explains why reading Kafka and uncovering the humor in his stories is so difficult. You cannot dissect and criticize his humor without ruining the joke. Even after our class discussion, however, I was unaware that "Metamorphosis" is funny in any way....though I'm almost content with my oblivion because it reinforces what DFW says about American students and our trouble understanding things "alien" to us. I think DFW is 100% correct in his analysis of even the gifted students, saying that Kafka's funniness is a far cry from what we are use to and that is why we do not find his work funny. Although I agree with the points in the article and now know that "Metamorphosis" is supposed to be funny, I still don't get the joke. I am racking my brain for the humor and I have nothing. If I turned into a bug I certainly wouldn't see it as a joke. More, I can't think of a time in the story where I would have laughed, even in the right mind-set. I feel like the stereotypical American student DFW so clearly describes. Yikes. I really hope we get to talk about the article and the story more in class.
|
|
|
Post by emilybrinkmann on Oct 21, 2013 0:45:42 GMT
After reading the article by DFG I found a different side of the story that I hadn't looked at. I went back a read some passages from The Metamorphosis, and I can't say I liked the story much more but I did see where DFW was coming from as far as the humor angle. I mean a normal guy turning into a giant bug does have some humor in it, even if the humor is not portrayed in writing but in the story. I agree with what lmo is saying about the roses. DFW says, "the literary equivalent of tearing the petals off and grinding them up and running the goo through a spectrometer to explain why a rose smells so pretty". This just makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time, just like the story. The idea of tearing of the petals to a rose and grinding them up seems cruel. But I understand the science of taking a part the rose to better understand it, and to imagine of rose goo under a spectrometer is more than a little funny. Just like the idea of a giant bug man is a little funny, but also sad and lonely. I felt that DFW had a great way of explaining Kafka's writing in a way that stayed true to the story and gave it a new perspective.
|
|
|
Post by coreybrown on Oct 21, 2013 0:57:30 GMT
I feel like whenever I try to reason with this article I end up going in circles. On one hand, the article points out that "...the particular sort of funniness Kafka deploys is deeply alien to kids whose neural resonances are American. The fact is that Kafka's humor has almost none of the particular forms and codes of contemporary U.S. amusement." I'd be quick to say that's pretty accurate as I did not find the story humorous. While I didn't laugh or smile or anything else that typically goes along with a successful joke, I definitely acknowledged and appreciated the things Kafka was saying (and poking fun at) about society. Because of this, I think it's unfortunate that we are unable to appreciate Kafka's humor. On the other hand, is it really a surprise that we can't understand the joke? This article makes a big point in saying that the humor we know as Americans in today's world is vastly different from that of Kafka's writing. But I have to think, we weren't his target audience. Kafka's jokes are intended for a 1915 German reader. Now, I can't say for certain that they would appreciate his humor, but I can't help but think that they would have an easier time getting the joke. Is this a good thing? I don't know. I think it's a disadvantage that we don't get it and, without truly tearing the jokes apart and killing them, I would relish the opportunity to try to understand them, but as I said before, it's not a surprise to me. At the very least, I think that perhaps at least some of the humor was lost in translation. Yet, while all the humor may not have survived the trip to the US, the messages that The Metamorphosis brings still rings true and prompts readers to take a second look at the world and their place in it.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethmeyer on Oct 21, 2013 1:04:34 GMT
I found David Foster Wallace's view of Kafka as confusing as the journal prompt quote from Kafka himself: "The terror of art is that the dream reveals the reality". I'm starting to think that The Metamorphosis is just supposed to be a paradox, and it looks as though (in regard to the DFW article) that Kafka's other works are also paradoxes. On the one hand, I'd like to say that that's just terribly confusing and how could Kafka write such bewildering stories? But on the other hand, I really like paradoxes, so now I'm just really interested behind the method to this madness. Maybe it is just what DFW was saying; Kafka's writing is confusing for Americans because we view it through the wrong lens. If we could view it through a different lens - European, perhaps - then we might be able to understand it more because we might be able to see the humor in it. While I do believe that the right-lens-wrong-lens thing has something to do with it, I also think that Kafka's paradoxes are somewhat more universal in nature. I think even if we were viewing his work in whatever lens would make it make the most sense, we would still have to deal with the paradoxes. I definitely wouldn't be able to clearly define even what those paradoxes are (maybe because that's the nature of paradoxes), but I think they have something to do with the basic things that make us human, like DFW was saying. Either Kafka just had a really good way of pointing the paradoxes of life out, or his stories, especially when viewed through different lenses, make readers come up with the paradoxes of life for ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by allegra on Oct 21, 2013 1:20:56 GMT
It feels as though David Foster Wallace is expressing disappointment for American kids because they've been taught that humor is something that one just "gets" and that if they don't get it that it is not humor. In our society, we believe humor is some form of entertainment; that we are meant to laugh at it or be amused. And, while Kafka's humor is amusing, to call it entertaining greatly reduces the complexity of such humor. There is much to his writing, such as subtlety and literal metaphors, that add to the humor that can be derived from his writing. Kafka's mastery comes from his stories that seem, at a glance, to be simple but in reality have much meaning to them. It is not that American children cannot grasp this, but that society's teachings have prevented them from doing so.
|
|
|
Post by abbylyons on Oct 21, 2013 1:37:32 GMT
Nobel Prize -winning scientist Wolfgang Pauli was and still is well known for his punchy, colorful criticism. He once said of an unclear physics paper, "It is not only not right, it is not even wrong." This quote encapsulates my impression of this piece of literary criticism. Because there is no thesis or any other statement of its purpose, I had no idea what it was about until I was close to the end. It also lacks concrete examples from Kafka’s literature, so it’s just a list of assertions. Kafka is an excellent writer—I'm sure Mr. Wallace could have found great evidence for his theories (assuming the evidence exists, of course).
The meaning of this essay is lost in the darkest depths of exceedingly ornate writing. For example, when I read the phrase “Not only neurotic but anti-neurotic, heroically sane,” I was bewildered. What does that even mean? To an active reader, that statement is completely worthless without further explanation. And by further explanation, I don’t mean ambiguous references to other writers. In many instances, referencing other works or writers without providing more information (like a quote or paraphrase) for the reader means that the connection does not actually exist—the writer is simply using an intimidation tactic to prevent the reader from questioning him. Usually I’m not so skeptical, but I have read the book of Psalms and I still don’t understand what it has to do with Kafkaesque humor or heroic sanity.
|
|
|
Post by patricktbutenhoff on Oct 21, 2013 2:03:57 GMT
I think the two main problems we have with the humor in Kafka's writing are that we aren't trained to look at The Metamorphosis humorously and that Kafka's (and, from what I can discern from Wallace's article, European) humor largely occurs on a large scale, while American humor and that which we are used to are on the smaller, stylistic level. America has humorous words and sentences; Kafka has humorous stories regardless of wording (which is why his humor survives the translation process, unlike puns in another language, which just make no sense in English. One example I can think of is this line from a movie I watched in French class: "J'ai un velo de courses. Pourquoi? Pour faire les courses." There is no way to translate this into English and make it funny, though it's humorous in French because the words for races and grocery shopping are the same). With this in mind, the main "humorous" aspect of The Metamorphosis is that Gregor doesn't change a bit despite the fact that he's been turned into a giant insect. When he wakes up, his first instinct is that he needs to find a way to get out of bed so that he can go to work. Even after this proves impossible, he remains a doormat whose only goal in life seems to be making his family happy. As such, he just does whatever his family dictates, which happens to change with his corporeal form. Most people, when told, "You're so ugly it pains me to look at your face," will either come up with a retort, leave the room, or just cry. Not Gregor: he hides his face under a blanket so his sister doesn't have to look at it. Gregor's dogged refusal to change throughout the story despite his changing circumstances might be humorous to some; I looked at it and was only irritated by his obliviousness. Another "funny" thing is that Gregor is acting exactly the same to his family as he did previous to his transformation, but before, they appreciate him, while afterward, his actions are treated as crimes of the highest degree. Because the language isn't funny, we assume that Kafka isn't funny, but this is simply not the case. Another reason few of us saw humor here is that we weren't looking at it expecting humor. A few people have already brought this quote up, but when we analyze stories in English, we've basically been "tearing the petals off and grinding them up and running the goo through a spectrometer to explain why a rose smells so pretty." We've been focusing too hard to take a step back and see the greater humor in Kafka's work. If one were to look at the "Who's on First" sketch from an analytic perspective, one would probably conclude that the characters are somehow confusing the interrogative pronoun "who" and the baseball player named Who and that both characters are complete idiots and altogether rather shallow and poorly written. You don't see humor if you examine the words too closely. If the first letters of every line on a page of one of our books spelled out, "Faulkner is the best author ever," I doubt anyone would notice it. Why? Because we're not looking for it, we're looking for symbolism and metaphor and plot and theme. As Wallace points out, a lot of people try too hard when they read Kafka and thus miss the humor in his works. I think the same thing applies to us: we search really hard for things that will be in the discussion the next day and look right through Kafka's humor.
|
|
|
Post by stever on Oct 21, 2013 2:10:09 GMT
This article reminds me of situations I have been in where I have said something was "funny," but upon realizing that calling something that is perhaps tragic "funny" can be construed as insensitive, I quickly add "but not ha-ha funny, you know?"
We often think that "funny" things are life affirming. We watch comedies to feel happy. Laughing produces endorphins in the brain, and since laughing is the usual result of humor, humor usually leads to happiness. Because of this, we often use humor to relieve tension or find light in a dark situations.
The humor I refer to above would be "ha-ha funny," the usual American form of humor, whereas the humor in Kafka's story would be what I call "not ha-ha funny." Because of this, I think the title "Laughing with Kafka" is a bit misleading. While Kafka's stories may be humorous, I would find it odd if someone were to laugh out loud at the tragic neglect Gregor faces when he turns into a coachroach. While I recognize the humorous absurdity in "Metamorphosis," if I reread the story, I could never see myself laughing at it because I empathized so much with the human qualities of Gregor's character. This is why I think the author should defend his jarring title or clarify the definitions of "funny" and "humor" he is using. While he spends plenty of time challenging the Western notion of humor, he does not spend very much time discussing the definition of humor Kafka's stories fall under or why any reasonable person would laugh at the tragedy present in his stories (assuming the title is a literal interpretation of his ideas, which it may not be.)
|
|
|
Post by adamgrace on Oct 21, 2013 2:24:39 GMT
First off, I think the article was unnecessarily complex and the word choice was absurdly intricate. I found myself looking up words constantly to attempt to decipher what the author was trying to communicate. I feel that the article was obviously not meant for me to read, as I could barely keep up with the writing style. Anyways, what I managed to understand about the article was that Mr. Wallace was explaining that Kafka's humor simply goes straight over our simple American heads. He's saying that Americans don't see Kafka's stories as humorous because the translation of "humorous" is very different in varying cultures. In America, something that is humorous makes people laugh. This may not be the case in many other countries. Something can be funny and not make you even let out a slight chuckle. You can recognize humor without it making you laugh. I agree with this statement but I don't really see the point that he's getting at. It might just be me but I already kind of understand that there's a certain aspect of humor behind Kafka's writing.
|
|
|
Post by garygates on Oct 21, 2013 3:26:42 GMT
The primary message that I received from David Foster Wallace's speech on Kafka is that we, as American students, understand the messages and see the humorous points in Kafka's writing but that we do not interpret Kafka's humorous messages as humorous. It is not that we miss the punch line to Kafka's jokes, or that his jokes are hidden to the general eye of the US student but that we have not been trained to accept what is humorous to other cultures as humor in our own minds.
After numerously rereading Wallace's sentences and trying to draw meaning from his teachings and connections to "Metamorphosis" I still cannot comprehend what Wallace explains as Kafka's humor. I can see the tragedy in "Metamorphosis" and in a cynical manner I can see the humor in our lives' futility, however I do not believe that this is exactly what Wallace is trying to get at (the type of humor that Wallace sees in Kafka's writing), and do not think that after reading Wallace's speech briefly that I should have an immediate understanding of Kafka's humor. It has taken me years to develop my eye for cynicism and my ability to laugh at such dark matters. By this long and extensive journey to understanding just a small portion of the lenses of humor in the world, I think that the gap between understanding the American cultural humor and the way that Wallace's other portion of the world (and an ill-supported location at that as he no other people other than himself that have the ability to understand Kafka's humor-Wallace must be a superhero!) understands humor in general is so large, and I do not believe that it is possible for me, or for any of my classmates for that matter, to gain an understanding of Wallace's "cultured" humor in less than an hour. Nor do I believe that they or I should have the ability to apply a new understanding of humor to Kafka's writing, yet I must be wrong as they seem to have immediately (and quite miraculously might I add) gained an understanding of the humor that they and I had missed just the other day in "Metamorphosis." Thus, I believe that it is not entirely important nor is it realistic that my classmates understand Kafka's humor. But then again, maybe I am just jealous of my peers' lightning-quick understanding and since I myself cannot see this humor, just want to watch the world burn.
|
|
|
Post by jennyxu on Oct 21, 2013 3:27:30 GMT
Wallace tries to convince readers that Kafka's "Metamorphosis" is a joke, but not the laugh out loud type, which is why readers find the story difficult to understand, but then backpedals and says that the story is not fundamentally a joke. I find his logic a little hard to follow, but I particular love the metaphor he ends the speech with. It makes a good point that readers cannot try to decipher Kafka's writing and must accept the mystery that surrounds it, which is actually the main idea. Though I feel like his comparison of Kafka's writing with a joke (that the magic goes away when you try to explain it) is very accurate, I find it hard to accept Wallace's idea of humor. Yes, Kafka's writing is very real and tragic and is a "literalization of truths", but it is difficult to categorize it as humor. Readers would probably have an easier time approaching Kafka's writing as metaphors constructed through literal, spooky imagery that reveals a deeper truth, such as his use of a cockroach to represent Gregor's position within his family.
|
|
|
Post by clairem on Oct 21, 2013 3:31:07 GMT
I greatly appreciated this new 'lens', of sorts, that David Foster Wallace presents in his article "Laughing with Kafka". I appreciated that Wallace broached the subject of humor in a humorous fashion as he made me laugh with lines I could easily relate to like, “we all know that there is no quicker way to empty a joke of its peculiar magic than to try to explain it”. For some reason I found his points hit me as more valid because he was able to write as if he had been studying humor writing for some time. The most interesting point that Wallace brings up is the scary reality that in our modern society we cling to humor in hopes that it will reassure us in our “horrific struggle to establish a human self.” I have always been masked to the profound meaning of humor as I felt that is was something light-hearted that simply made me laugh and nothing more. Unfortunately, I merely exemplify the idea that I am one of the children of modern culture who has been “trained to see jokes as entertainment and entertainment as reassurance.” The scariest image in Wallace’s writing is the readers pounding on the door of Kafka’s art out of desperation and realizing they were already where they needed to be. Kafka’s writing originally left me thinking I needed something more to be fulfilled but I realized now that he is not trying to present on a silver platter exactly what all other modern humor writing makes me think I need. Instead, Kafka presents what I, as a human, have been trying to deny, “that our endless and impossible journey toward home is in fact our home.”
|
|
|
Post by racheladele on Oct 21, 2013 3:38:45 GMT
Wallace insinuates that Kafka thinks in a very unique way and that he wants to project that onto his readers. According to Wallace, Kafka’s works use slightly bizarre circumstances but make them seem relatively normal. This is portrayed in The Metamorphosis when Gregor does not question his cockroach-ness. The idea of turning unusual conditions into the setting of a story makes me appreciate Kafka’s quote that we had to journal about: “the terror of art is that the dream reveals the reality.” I think Wallace’s point is backed up by Kafka’s quote.
The kind of humor that Wallace discusses is what I consider a sort of false-optimism. He claims that Kafka’s stories cast an “oh-well” light on the failures of humanity, and I wish I had read more than one so that I could validate this with evidence from places besides The Metamorphosis. What I mean by this is that Kafka sees the lack of compassion and morality in humans, but doesn’t provide false hope for change. Instead he accepts this behavior and cryptically shows it to his readers. (In The Metamorphosis, Gregor’s family end up seeing him as a pest beyond the physical state, just as some turn on a person who has contracted a terminal illness. In both cases, the victim cannot help his state, but often the others cannot be blamed for their behavior because of the disintegration of the relationship.) That said, Kafka’s writing is not, in fact, funny. When I read The Metamorphosis, I recall appreciating the descriptive images as potentially humorous, but I only outwardly smiled once. This is appropriate because, as Wallace says, that is not the nature of this brand of humor. Because of this, I’m not sure I approve of Wallace’s use of the word “humor” because according to most dictionaries, humor means something that we find funny or laughable.
Wallace calling The Metamorphosis humorous has seemed to shift the way that many people see the story, according the posts I have read. This reminds me of the idea of critical lenses; Wallace happens to have a “humorous” one, and now we are all seeing The Metamorphosis as possessing ideas that question humanity in this way. This provides a new interpretation of the story, but also (as lenses do), it focuses our view perhaps a little too far. Again, I am not sure I agree that Kafka’s writing is humorous. I would rather describe it as interesting, unique or compelling beyond the level of the obvious, such as the description of a human-sized bug.
|
|
|
Post by samwerner on Oct 21, 2013 4:17:21 GMT
Humor? Hmm... That is the last thing I expected to be reading about. I must agree with DFW that Kafka's humor lies so deep and is exposed so subtly that is resonates very little with the typical American student. I have a hard time, even post-reading, accepting Kafka's work as humorous. Antipathy is what surfaces in my head far quicker than humor. DFW's idea that American students are incapable of discerning the humor in Kafka's work really interests me. I think he points out that we have a very one-dimensional view of what humor actually is. If it isn't deliberate, clear, concrete or inescapable, we either don't pick it up or don't acknowledge it as humor.
In trying to expand how I view humor, I find that Kafka's subtle humorous undertone is evident, but I must admit I still hesitate to call it humor. We (Americans) tend to analyze things very seriously, and I found myself reading the piece and finding purely negative reflections of society because of the critical lens I am most apt at using. DFW has taught me that I should step away from the "how does this piece reflect some deep trend in society" lens that I would argue many of us use frequently. I disagree with him, however, that even brilliant students can't find the humor he is pointing out. It's not a matter of arguing its existence, I think after reading DFW's speech we all have the tools necessary for decoding the complicated humor entwined within "Metamorphosis." I find it to be more of a matter of whether we agree humor is actually present or not. Kafka writes in a way that takes an incredible amount of critical thinking, and it's tough to decipher it even now.
|
|