DFW on Kafka Article Response

I like DFW's explanation for Kafka's writing style. "Ridiculous" is the word I would use to describe my emotions reading Kafka's short story. "His father is grabbing apples as weapons? Ridiculous. "He is stuck on his back and cannot flip onto his front? Ridiculous." I wouldn't be able to judge the normality of my humor but when I see a bug (roly poly, lady bug, etc) on its back, legs flailing, I find myself slightly amused. (Completely different from cruel amusement as I always assist the bug immediately afterwards.) I do not find myself slightly amused though when Gregor is on his back, legs flailing. I find myself thinking "Ridiculous." It interesting to me that though the situation is the same, (bug on back, legs flailing) add a human to the picture and everything becomes more depressing. More ridiculous. Kafka is a pretty cool guy in my opinion if he purposefully meant to do this. I would diverge from DFW's explanation though in the sense that I do not find Kafka funny. Kafka's stories successfully dance on the fence between funny and morbid. This is the beauty in his writing. It is also why it's hard for us to accept his pieces as they are. To put a single label on his writing in finalization is desired though I would argue that it would be inaccurate in doing so.

Good gracious does Davis Foster Wallis know how to have fun with the English language. The speech was so aesthetically pleasing and well constructed, I can only imagine how it sounded aloud. I enjoyed the order of words ("Ms. O'Connor's bloody grace seems a little bit easy, the souls at stake pre-made") and all of the words which Microsoft Word did not recognize, especially in description of American comedy. Composition aside, I enjoyed the article also because it supported my takeaway from "The Metamorphosis". I found the piece hilarious. It was tragic and heart-wrenching at parts, for example when Gregor is neglected and even abused, but even then Kafka leaves bread-crumbs that can remind the reader of the complete absurdity of what they are reading. Before Gregor is beaten by the apples his father throws, Kafka writes, "Gregor was amazed at the enormous size of the soles of his boots" and be my amused response intended or not, I realized that I was reading of a man who has become an insect and the family who deals with him. It seems to me that the struggle which Foster Wallis outlines is not that students don't find humor in Kafka, but that they don't find humor in irony. DFW makes it clear that he finds Kafka's central joke to be that "the horrific struggle to establish a human self results in a self whose humanity is inseparable from that horrific struggle". I suppose that the students of which DFW speaks just don't find struggle all that amusing, though they might benefit from doing so and taking literature and life less seriously. I am receiving a bit of a mixed message from standardized education.

I feel like the kind of "funny" I would associate with Kafka's Metamorphosis is the "isn't it "funny" how that kind old man died half an hour before his 100th birthday?" That kind of funny is not a humorous funny but rather an acknowledgment of the absurd and somewhat tragic aspects of life.

Metamorphosis was funny is the way it was absurd. The fact that a man would wake up a giant cockroach and instantly be concerned about how he would get to work is "funny". But DFW is right in his assertion that it is not what Americans consider typical humor. In fact I think in order to be call humorous in American society the humor has to overshadow the tragedy, and Kafka's Metamorphosis certainly does not. I wonder if this societal limitation is something we can be taught to rid ourselves of. It is not just whether or not we can use DFW's explanation of humor to identify it but if we can also agree with it. As DFW says, "We all know that there is no quicker way to empty a joke of its peculiar magic than to try to explain it" The true magic of humor comes when we can identify it ourselves. But Kafka's style of writing and morose themes adds a level of difficulty to deciphering the humor within the story. Kafka does not supply lighthearted jokes or cheery humor. Kafka's humor is hard to discover and even harder to understand.

Like many people who have commented, I did not see Metamorphosis as particularly humorous. Now that I think about it, I can easily understand why someone would call it that. It is funny in a slightly demented way because of the absurdity of the situation coupled with the apparent seriousness of the reaction. Come to think of it, I guess I did kind of laugh at that and think it was funny, but the overall dark and depressing tone for the rest of the story made me forget about it. I would guess that most of us did think it was somewhat humorous at the very beginning, particularly based on the first sentence. It is a funny situation, especially as it is juxtaposed with the realism and seriousness of the consequences. But the seriousness of the situation escalates, and soon we forget about how absurd it first seemed and only think about how awful a situation it is for all the characters. The tragedy of the story overcomes in my mind the small glimpse of comedy, so that I would certainly be reluctant to call the story overall "funny."

I do not think, however, that this is all Wallace is saying. In fact, I think I really do not fully understand what he is saying. It is possible that all he meant by it being funny is what I just described, but I am more compelled to think that I am just missing out on something. I am that student he talks about who does not "get" Kafka's humor. In this case, I also really do not "get" Wallace's description of it. I agree with David that it is admirable in Kafka that he does not "stoop down to please the masses" and write for the tired reader. I just think that, assuming Wallace's analysis is completely accurate, I am that tired reader, and am, sadly, missing out on some great humor and literature.

If the question is “What is DFW trying to get at, and do you think he’s right?” then I’d say that DFW is getting at the wrong thing, and I think he’s right.

Let’s clarify that.

Based solely—and thus perhaps incorrectly—off of this one Kafka story that I’ve read, I’d say he’s right. He’s right that “the really central Kafka joke [is] that [the] horrific struggle to establish a human self results in a self whose humanity is inseparable from that horrific struggle.” I get a sense of this lack of separation from struggle and person from Metamorphosis. And perhaps Mr. Parris alluded to it when he asked us, “Is Gregor a giant cockroach because that’s how he sees himself? And/or is that possibly how his family already sees him?” The point is, I’m willing to say that DFW seems to understand and accurately describe what I feel Kafka’s work represents (the “grotesque and gorgeous and thoroughly modern complexity” of it), and although he may not describe it simply* (at least for me), when you take time to analyze Wallace’s words, he makes points that seem acceptable.

(*Using the assumption from last year that “simple” is good, the ability to convey a complex idea and make it easy to understand, while “simplistic” is a lack of complexity or thought.)

But I don’t think this is humor, and that’s where I think he is wrong. I would dispute his assertion that the problem is that Kafka is just not “U.S.” enough for us to get his humor. The fact that I thoroughly enjoyed Candide suggests that, for this work at least, the ocean between the author and reader didn’t much matter.

I guess I really dispute his title claim, “Laughing with Kafka,” and the idea that Kafka uses humor in any of the traditional senses of the words. Wallace seems to dispute this himself when he writes, “It’s not that students don’t ‘get’ Kafka’s humor but that we’ve taught them to see humor as something you get.” This ambiguous and societal “we” may have taught us all to view humor this way, but that doesn’t mean that we’re looking at things the wrong way. In fact, if humor is subjectively defined by a cultural norm (sort of like “abnormal,” which changes depending on what is normal), which I believe it is (because it is certainly a subjective term), the definition of humor is what the majority may see it as—and we see it as something to “get.” And if Kafka’s humor is not to be “gotten,” then doesn’t that beg the question of whether or not it’s humor in the first place? If you don’t “get” humor, than what is humor? All of a sudden, jokes are no longer “humor,” just entertainment or cheap comedy. Wallace proposes an entirely different definition of humor in making his argument, and while I’m all for symbolically redefining words (“Art” comes to mind, as does “Critic,”), I think a better way of describing Kafka’s effect makes use of a different word.

It seems that Wallace’s point and his description of that point—the idea that Kafka’s work illustrates that we seek something that turns out to be the seeking—are contradictory. Because if Kafka’s message is that “the impossible journey toward home is in fact our home,” I can “get” that humor. It sounds a lot like searching for your glasses only to discover you’re wearing them, or looking for a lost watch only to look to your wrist to see how much time you’ve spent looking, register that you’ve spent ten minutes in the search (according to your watch, which is on your wrist) and then go back to looking for another five minutes until you realize how stupid that was. I think we’d all agree that those are situations with a lot of “humor.”

But although we can “get” the humor in those situations, Wallace tells us we can’t “get” the humor in Kafka’s work. Thus, under Wallace's claim, the humor we do understand does not come from a correct grasp of Kafka. Heck, he even states that “maybe it’s good they don’t ‘get’ Kafka.” And it’s this contradiction where Wallace loses my belief in his point. If it’s a “good” thing that we can’t understand the humor, and humor’s purpose is to entertain, to offer escape, or to amuse in some way, then if we can’t achieve any of those effects it is not, in my mind, humor at all. So Wallace seems to be saying “it’s great that you can’t understand the humor,” but what he should be saying, under these assumptions of what I posit humor is, is “it’s great that you cannot understand the humor because that means there is no humor to not understand.”

To try and clarify that, let’s use another of Wallace’s examples. If “there is no quicker way to empty a joke of its peculiar magic than to try to explain it,” and Kafka’s joke must be explained to all, then there is no joke in his work (Wallace). Think of it on an individual basis first. Let’s say you’ve just told a joke you created to a friend. The friend doesn’t think it’s funny. He doesn’t “get” it. You try and convince him otherwise, but to no avail. There is nothing you can do to convince someone that he missed humor the first time around (unless the reason they missed the humor was for some lack of other secondary knowledge that is necessary to understand the joke, like referencing a celebrity the other person doesn’t know). So I see Wallace as the unconvincing friend, and the majority of readers as the unconvinced one. There is simply nothing he can do to get us to believe, at the deepest level, in humor we miss. At most, all he can do, and all I believe he does in his work, is convince us that he has a valid reason for his personal opinion that there may be humor in Kafka’s work.

So let’s go back to my original statement. As to the meaning of Kafka’s stories, I think Wallace has the right idea. Kafka very much seems to examine a theme best explained by the concept of a “horrific struggle to establish a human self [resulting] in a self whose humanity is inseparable from that horrific struggle” (Wallace). But Wallace is getting at the wrong thing—this isn’t humor. If a large majority don’t “get” it, and, furthermore, that’s a “good” thing, then this effect is not humor.

I can’t name a single comedian, humorist, or joke writer that would agree that it’s a good you don’t find his/her work funny. Nor do I bet that he/she would say that this lack of laughter is just because you don’t have the right teaching to seeing his/her humor. Rather, he/she would more likely sooner admit that what he/she thought was a solid joke was certainly the opposite, and that there is no humor.

Finally, I pose this question: to all my fellow classmates who said that they now see the humor in Kafka’s work, do you truly see humor, and experience a traditional humorous effect (laughter, amusement, entertainment, a smile, anything at all), or are you simply acknowledging that Wallace may have a valid reason for why he finds Kafka’s work humorous?

As others have touched upon, a person's reaction to "The Metamorphosis" and the DFW article do both rely on a person's sense of humor. I read some of the comments on the forum before I read the article, and I didn't think I would actually like the article. However, although I don't particularly agree with it, I thought it had some very interesting and well-reasoned points. It's almost as if DFW had a "satirical criticism" lens on. He analyzes, interprets and evaluates the story in terms of humor, and his conclusion is that it's use of humor is effective. If nothing else, I find this article an intriguing example of what it looks like to criticize piece of literature in a certain light.

The line that struck me the most from this article was in the notes. It reads, "Those naked boys hanging upside down out of their frat-house's windows on Friday night are simply trying to get a few hours' escape from the stuff that any decent college has forced them to think about all week" (4). Granted, I am not a college frat boy, but it just seemed really sad to me that this is how some people choose to escape their problems. This line also resonated with me because I feel it encompasses one of the things I picked up on in "The Metamorphosis": a lack of appreciation for one's body. I believe the general consensus from class was that we would all freak out if we woke up as giant bugs, or had a family member wake up as a giant bug. We quiver at this yet, when was the last time we woke up and jumped for joy at our young, flexible, healthy bodies? At the end of the day, I understand Kafka's point but don't agree with it. I found the story to have more of melancholy tone and thus I think that DFW's take on the story is a bit insensitive.

    I tend to think of a joke as something that one either understands at first or will never understand, and like DFW says, "...there is no quicker way to empty a joke of its peculiar magic than to try to explain it." I do not know whether DFW's explanation of the humor in The Metamorphosis clarifies or ruins the story for me. Because I never saw the humor in it, I am tempted to say that DFW's speech acts as a clarification. Regardless, I still do not see why the story is funny, at least published as it is. I would have found the story funny had it been read aloud to me because it is so absurd and messed up. It is unpredictable -- I would never expect someone to recite a story like this to me aloud. That is funny. However, I experience the story differently while reading it. This is because I have come to expect unpredictability in the books I read. Nowadays, when we are asked to "read hard" while reading novels or short stories, I instinctively interpret that as searching for obscure metaphors throughout the stories. Maybe Gregor's transformation into a bug is a metaphor for his or his family's transformation into something else. Although this may be true, what if Kafka is literally trying to tell a story about a man who transformed into a bug? This, especially read aloud, would be humorous, and this humor is exactly what DFW suggests when he asserts, "The claim is that Kafka's funniness depends on some kind of radical literalization of truths we tend to treat as metaphorical." Since this story was assigned to me in an English class, the last thing I thought was to take it literally, but DFW claims, and I agree, that this literal interpretation, the unexpectedness, is what makes Kafka's story funny.