Allen Thiher

This book is a contribution to the Twayne's Studies in Short Fiction series. It consists of three main parts: (1) Allen Thiher's literary commentaries on Kafka's most prominent shorter works; (2) excerpts from Kafka's autobiographical writings, and (3) essays by 5 other Kafka scholars. A chronology of Kafka's life and a bibliography of works by and about him culminates the book.

In the book's Preface, Thiher comments on the absurdist fiction, black (dark) humor, and "sense of loss and alienation" of post-modern fiction, these all being part of Kafka's legacy. "Since world War II, we have all come to recognize that Kafka's voice is the voice of modern man and woman overwhelmed by the laws of a technocratic society over which, it seems, we have little if any control." Thiher's first chapter deals with Kafka's posthumously- published stories. Next he turns to the author's earliest published work, including the brief texts of "Meditation" (a title sometimes translated as "Contemplation"), and "The Stoker" (first chapter of the posthumous book "America". His chapter 3 focuses on "The Judgment" and "The Metamorphosis", and chapter 4 on "The Penal Colony". Finally Thiher considers "The Hunger Artist", "First Sorrow", "A Country Doctor", "Josephine, the Singer..." and "Report to An Academy". Although I have read all of these works of Kafka's fiction, Thiher's commentaries gave me little insight into them. One minor exception lay in Thiher's view that "A Country Doctor" represents a "dream sequence" enlivened by bizarre platitudes. Another lay with his recognition that questions over the artist and the function of art "underlies nearly all of Kafka's work," as especially evident in "The Hunger Artist".

Part 2 of the book is said to contain "excerpts from Kafka's autobiographical writings. The title is mistaken, as the book includes diary entries along with letters (e.g., to Felice Bauer, which can hardly be considered "autobiographical"), plus written accounts of alleged conversations with Gustav Janouch. Scholars are deeply skeptical of these supposed conversations, which were published by Janouch decades later [after he allegedly found "notes" he'd taken after each the supposed conversations] and which simply do not sound like Kafka). Thiher's uncritical acceptance of Janouch's work and the statements in Kafka's letters casts some doubt on his judgment. Nevertheless, I found Kafka's reflections on some of his works interesting: (a) that the autobiographical nature of "The Judgment" is revealed by a close comparison of names of the protagonist and his fiancé and Kafka and his own fiancé respectively; (b) that "The Stoker" was intended to be for a Dickens-like novel (as surprising observation, given the strange unreality of Kafka's piece); (c) that in publishing "The Metamorphosis" that the insect ought not (and cannot) be depicted; and (d) that Kafka himself was unsure of the meaning of some of his stories and his intentions in writing them.

The five essays in Part 3 of the book reflect a range of interpretations to which Kafka's work has been put, drawing on essays that first appeared in a variety of scholarly publications. Ruth v. Gross takes a feminist perspective on "Josephine, the singer of the Mouse Folk", while Walter H. Sokel adopts a Marxist interpretation of "The Metamorphosis". William J. Dodd offers a Freudian analysis of "In the Penal Colony", while Doreen Fowler adopts a theological interpretation of that same work. Stanley Corngold's essay considers Kafka's "Narrative Perspective". Again, I got very little out of these essays.

One might cynically conclude from a work such as this that the more vague and obscure a writer's work, the more uses to which it can be put by those whose careers rely on writing about such works. One also is led to conclude that in the world of literary analysis, interpretations are neither "right" or "wrong" in any scientific sense; bearing in mind that the author's own intentions don't matter in the least, all viewpoints are equally valid, and their diversity in styles and outlooks are a testament to the power of the original author's own work. Further, it is interesting to note that such analyses never interact with one another, as evident from the fact that the analysts never cite works of other interpreters. Rather, each views the artist's work via a certain "lens" (Marxist, Freudian, feminist, classist, etc.). As a result, there is no such thing as progress, such as characterizes an empirically based field (such as natural science, psychology, history). The enterprise of literary analysis is a self-serving, self- perpetuating one. The literary critic reads the author's work, interprets it from his/her particular perspective, and writes a paper that advances his career and/ or satisfies his ego. Meanwhile, the academic journal gets a work that justifies the journal existence and helps ensure its viability. Everyone benefits.… (meer)