Starts good, ends POORLY
Analysis of Kafka
Jamie Johnstone
Franz Kafka is recognized as one of the greatest writers in the modern age. However, he was without a doubt an introverted man. Therefore, the lack of his outspoken views of his works can leave the meanings behind his works open to varying interpretations. Nevertheless, the man who speaks the least is heard the most. As such, in order to properly analyze the style which has become so recognizable that it has become an adjective-Kafkaesque-it is vital that each word be weighed and considered, as they are all carefully considered and spent hesitantly.
To begin the analysis of his works then, it would be logical to begin with diction, since every word is important when expressed by someone as quiet and submissive as what Kafka is. His words tend to carry a fair amount of sophistication with them and tend to be Latinate in nature. Gregor Samsa does not awake from bad dreams to discover he had been turned into a big bug, but rather “awoke one morning from uneasy dreams [and] found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect” (Kafka: The Complete Stories & Parables, page 89). This is not to say that Kafka does not employ more guttural Anglo-Saxon words. Indeed, quite the opposite, as is seen on the final pages of The Trial in which the words are very Latinate in nature yet again, but the central character is referred to as K., one of the harshest and more Germanic sounds in the English language. The contrast is intentionally created. On the topic of names, Kafka chooses to rarely use them. Instead of names often characters are referred to by their titles, as is seen in the passage from The Trial, where K.’s executioners are ironically referred to as the “gentlemen.” This in itself would make the writing subjective, as Kafka is forced to decide upon the proper adjective to have as the title for the character. Yet, had he given the characters names (note that even this is subjective if the names are intentionally chosen), his writing would certainly still be subjective. The quote from The Metamorphosis, “[h]is numerous legs, which were pitifully thin compared to the rest of his bulk, waved helplessly before his eyes” is hardly something that could be described as objective. However, while these points are interesting, the thing about Kafka’s diction that truly makes it Kafka is the connotative and denotative values that his words hold within them. His diction creates striking images of stark terror, intense paranoia, and often of a strong sense of the puniness that he so often attributed to himself. Also, likely due to his work for an insurance firm, his diction is often bureaucratic, as it is in the case of the “gentlemen” murderers in The Trial, one of which “therefore requested the other to leave the disposal of K. to him for a moment.”
What does Kafka’s diction clue the reader into about his style and his purpose in his writing? The answer is quite simple: a close inspection of Kafka’s diction begins to smelt his writing into the idea of Kafkaesque writing. Its eloquence both sets the mood for a good piece of literature instead of a piece of pop-culture drivel, and also identifies the narrator as an educated person who will give a fairly unbiased relation of the events, with the addition that this level of sophistication could be a representation of the reader, at his or her most cunning. The names, or perhaps it would be more correct to say the titles, of the characters also has two functions; the first being that allows us to generalize and makes the concept of the novel as a possibility of the situation presented in the novel more real, and the second being that it helps dehumanize the characters so that they are little more than a barcode. Finally, the connotative value behind some of the words is what gives Kafka such successful imagery. Yet, it can also make the piece more horrifyingly current to see characters in Kafka’s works sound the same about stabbing a man as politicians in real life, as well as helping to create an idea of dread that comes along with being oppressed by a higher governmental power.
To go a step up from diction is the sentence structure. The three selections (enclosed at the back) had each sentence construction looked at. The Trial selection was predominantly loose and complex sentences with a fair amount of questions. Nevertheless, it still contained a surprisingly high number of periodic and simple sentences. The same followed for the section of The Metamorphosis, with a difference. In The Metamorphosis the majority remains in loose and complex sentences, but the difference lies within the fact that the numbers of the periodic and the simple sentences were each over a third of the sentences in the passage. Finally, in The Burrow, the loose and complex sentences took yet a larger majority than what they had had in The Trial, with a scant few periodic and simple sentences.
Based on the earlier findings of the meaning of Kafka’s work through diction, what seems to be the justification of Kafka’s construction of sentences? It would appear to make sense. The Burrow is narrated very similar to a stream of consciousness so the sentences tend to be very haphazard and the grammatical layout becomes very complex very quickly. As for The Trial, it is only natural that K. would be asking a multitude of questions, as he knows his doom is imminent and is desperately searching for a purpose to it all. The increase in periodic and loose sentences is credited to the fact that K. has resigned himself to his fate and as such his stream of consciousness is not as frantic and can just process one thought at once. Also, seeing the objects such as the knife flashing before his face would cause K. to think of the object of his terror before himself and an action, therefore creating more periodic sentences. Finally, in The Metamorphosis, the main character, Gregor Samsa, can barely distinguish between the person he was and the cockroach he became and as such he no shock to get over-really a minor annoyance at being late at worst-so really all he has is time to think since he can no longer work, which was what his life was based around. Accordingly, his thoughts would come less scrambled into on another, and new items would take precedence in his mind because they would be the things of the most notice. Each section can be easily rationed out via the characters perspective. This shows excellent understanding of the situation each character would be in. Furthermore, it demonstrates that Kafka is attempting to overcome the huge barrier of disbelief that the reader would be so inclined to feel towards a story being narrated by a bug or a mole, or the incredibly ludicrous story of K. in a democratic place. These points build further still off of the theories of Kafka’s diction and compliment each other well.
To step back from Kafka’s work even more and try to get an even bigger picture the next logical step is to analyze the way in which each piece was written. The point of view of a book is one of the most important decisions an author can make when writing; Kafka would not have taken it lightly. The Burrow is special for this because it is one of the very limited number of stories in which he used first person. The break in third person is likely for the same factor that justified much of the diction and syntax: it makes it more real and dynamic at the same time. The mole is so paranoid that all it thinks about are the dangers lurking at every opportunity, and the epitome of his happiness is just silence; silence from the fear no doubt. Having a first person perspective makes it more obvious that the mole is indeed alone and panicked for no reason. It also allows for a closer look at the depths of the mole’s madness, therefore making it more intense and dramatic. However, first person perspective is a rare exception from the standard third person point of view that he uses. The third person point of view has the advantage that it allows for a bit of a look inside each of the characters. However, Kafka rarely lets the reader know what more than one person is thinking, so why chose this point of view? The answer shows Kafka’s skill as a writer once more. While it is frustrating to only know one’s own thoughts sometimes and being able to understand others, at least it is possible to get some satisfaction from knowing one’s own thoughts and feelings. However, third person gives total control to the author, and while many authors use this as a way to give voice to all the characters, instead Kafka removes a lot of the voice from all the characters, making the people’s interactions odd and uncomfortable and not falsely giving the reader the impression that he or she knows what is going on inside the mind of the characters.
To conclude, Kafka writes in a way that imitates real life to the very best of his ability, even delving to a subconscious level of what real life is like. The effect of writing in this style is called Kafkaesque because few other writers have been able to create such connotative images and manipulated the language so well as to have written words be so similar to real human thought. His writing is almost always dark and foreboding; his characters torn asunder by forces beyond their control or capacity to change, but this is a feeling and almost a way of life that is very common in today’s society. As such, generations later Kafka is still considered one of the most influential writers.