By Zaiti Athirah
99 years after his passing, Franz Kafka, a famously enigmatic Czech writer, still lives free in his indelible literary legacy. His signature labyrinthine exploration of the human psyche still muses the literary landscape today, that many works are now often described as ‘Kafkaesque.’ Though almost overused, and omniscient, one still couldn’t help but wonder what the adjective truly encapsulates.
So, what does it really mean by ‘Kafkaesque’?
Merriam-Webster states that it’s “of, relating to, or suggestive of Franz Kafka or his writings, especially: having a nightmarishly complex, bizarre, or illogical quality.” Some (literary snob) say it’s the eccentric matrimony of surrealism and existential unease. But one perhaps shouldn’t point to anything ‘surreal’ or ‘paranoidal’ as Kafkaesque, because then it would be almost as if proclaiming you are German just because you have been to Germany. Cavalier.
The thing is, whenever an author's oeuvre becomes the inspiration for an adjective to describe a certain style (think Orwellian, Dickensian, or Proustian), the true essence of that adjective lies in the interpretations of the original writings. So, regardless of what the dictionary may claim about ‘Kafkaesque,’ its real meaning is not found in dry definitions but rather in the discourses and analyses among literary critics exploring the enigmatic world crafted by Kafka himself.
For the record, in 1991, Kafka’s biographer, Frederick R. Karl, defined the term this way:
What’s Kafkaesque is when you enter a surreal world in which all your control patterns, all your plans, the whole way in which you have configured your own behavior, begins to fall to pieces, when you find yourself against a force that does not lend itself to the way you perceive the world. You don’t give up, you don’t lie down and die. What you do is struggle against this with all of your equipment, with whatever you have. But of course, you don’t stand a chance. That’s Kafkaesque.
But does it always require an utter cathexis towards Kafka himself in order for you to be certified to denote something as ‘Kafkaesque?’ I would say, it shouldn’t be as daunting, really. You could probably take this article as a cheat code to have the sheer idea of what it means.
Something Kafkaesque lies somewhere in the spectrum of the labyrinthine bureaucracy of “The Trial” to the intense alienation in “The Metamorphosis.” Without reading any of these books, think of ‘Kafkaesque’ as something espousing the existential paranoia laced with the relentless search for identity in a world that often seems indifferent, ensnared in the maddening gyre of absurdity, blurring the lines between nightmare and reality. Pretty simple, isn’t it?
Though Noah Tavlin argues, the term ‘Kafkaesque’ has entered the vernacular to depict experiences that are needlessly complicated and frustrating, particularly when dealing with bureaucracy. However, Tavlin questions whether mundane activities like waiting in long lines or filling out confusing paperwork truly capture the depth and intricacy of Kafka's literary vision.
In truth, it seems unlikely. To truly grasp the essence of Kafka's work, one would need to delve into his own brilliantly crafted and extensively studied fiction. But in that case, perhaps it is only fitting to reserve the term "Kafkaesque" exclusively for Kafka himself.
While prescriptivists advocating for strict limitations on the usage of terms like "Kafkaesque" may be fighting an uphill battle, there are some unintended positive outcomes. It totally allows for a deeper understanding and culminates appreciation of Kafka's literary genius, and serves as a medium to celebrate his unique introspection to the literary world.
Comments