Kafka: Lost and Found

I can't remember if it was in high school or in a college class on Existential Fiction that I was first introduced to the writings of Franz Kafka via his surreal, symbolic story "Metamorphosis." I still have the book Continental Short Stories on my bookshelf with stories by Sartre, Camus, Lagerkvist, Borges and others which I read at Ohio U. Many of the stories made impressions that remain with me still.

Metamorphosis as literature corresponds to what Dali's The Persistence of Memory is to art. Kafka's novella depicts the anguish a traveling salesman experiences when he awakes to find he has been transformed into a giant insect, detailing the effects of this change on himself and his family.

So, I was in the library today looking for books by Han Kang, the newly minted winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature. While scouring the shelves in the vicinity of Kang I found a few Kafka works, incuding a small volume titled The Lost Writings. Translated to English in 2020, the book is a collection of very short entries, from paragraphs to a few pages in length. 

There's no real preface or introduction. Nothing more than a handful of laudatory quotes. One, by Nabokov no less, exclained that "Kafka is the greatest German writer of our time," stating that writers like Thomas Mann and Rilke were dwarfs compared to Kafka. 

Well, that one was a pretty low blow. Who is Nabokov to decide which faces should be on Literature's Mount Rushmore?

*

For students of fiction, The Lost Writings is rich with imagery that fires the imagination. Here is an early entry in this collection. 

So, you want to leave me? Well, one decision is as good as another. Where will you go? Where is away-from-me? The moon? Not even that is far enough, and you'll never get there. So why the fuss? Wouldn't you rather sit down in a corner somewhere, quietly? Wouldn't that be an improvement? A warm, dark corner? Aren't you listening? You're feeling for the door. Well, where is it? So far as I remember, this room doesn't have one. At the time this was built, no one had imagined such earth-shattering plans as yours. Well, no matter, a thought like yours won't get lost, we'll discuss it over dinner, and our laughter will be your reward.

*

Related Links
A Hunger Artist (story)
The Trial (novel)
The Trial (Film directed by Orson Welles)

Nietzsche's and Mann's Divergent Views on Wagner

Richard Wagner (Public doain)

I recently finished reading the diaries of Thomas Mann for a second time now. The first was perhapes 30 years ago. (I'd have to serach my own diaries to find the precise year) When I read this volume back then it was a library book. Earlier this summer I found it on the free books discard shelf, a real steal.

The diary entries cover only a portion of Mann's life and career. In part one we read entries from 1918 to 1921. The diary then jumps ahead to 1933 and covers the six year preceding the start of World War II.

A bit of personal trivia: The first entry is September 11, which happens to be my birthday.

There are a number of interesting details here beyond the historical context of these two periods in his life. Throughout Mann records what he is reading--Tolstoy, Cervantes, Proust, etc. He also makes note of what times he goes to bed (nearly always after reading a while), what time he wakens (usually 8 a.m.) and what medicines he is taking. He records whom he is corresponding with, and what writing project or projects he is working on.

There are numerous entries devoted to Richard Wagner, whom he writes about and goes on a lecture tour to discuss. What interested me is how divergent his views on Wagner were from Friedrich Nietzche's.

For both Thomas Mann and Friedrich Nietzsche the German composer Richard Wagner was a towering figure in 19th-century European culture. While both thinkers engaged deeply with Wagner’s music and philosophy, their perspectives reflecteddifferent relationships to his legacy and their own evolving philosophies.

* * *

In his early years Nietzsche had been a passionate Wagner enthusiast. Later, however, he became one of Wagner’s most severe critics, devoting a whole book to the guy, The Case of Wagner (1888).

Initially, Nietzsche was captivated by Wagner’s music, seeing in it a revolutionary spirit that resonated with his own philosophical ideals of breaking away from the constraints of bourgeois morality. Nietzsche admired Wagner’s grand operatic visions, particularly the blending of myth, music, and drama to create what Wagner termed the Gesamtkunstwerk (total work of art). Nietzsche saw in Wagner’s early operas, like The Ring of the Nibelung, a reflection of the Dionysian spirit—a celebration of primal, life-affirming forces that Nietzsche explored in his first major work, The Birth of Tragedy (1872).

Friedrich Nietzsche

However, Nietzsche’s view of Wagner dramatically shifted as he began to see Wagner as embodying the very decadence and cultural decline that he despised. Ironically, when I read The Case of Wagner I was flying to "Sin City" on a business trip and back. There is probably no greater symbol of empty decadence than Las Vegas. The book itself is a scathing, personal attack on an artist he once revered.*

By way of contrast Mann admired Wagner and was influenced by his synthesis of music and mythology. Mann appreciated the way Wagner blended Germanic legends with profound philosophical ideas. He saw Wagner's genius and admired his innovations. In his essay The Sorrows and Grandeur of Richard Wagner (1933), Mann grappled with the duality of Wagner’s genius: the grandeur of his artistic vision alongside his troubling associations with German nationalism and proto-fascist ideas. Mann recognized Wagner's flaws while still appreciating his art.  Mann was concerned that Wagner's work could be exploited by reactionary forces, a hunch that turned out to be right in the 30's.

  

The key difference between Nietzsche and Mann’s views on Wagner lies in the depth of their disillusionment. Nietzsche’s break with Wagner was total and deeply personal, stemming from philosophical disillusionment with Wagner’s later works. Mann, while critical of Wagner’s political and moral implications, maintained a more balanced view, appreciating his artistic genius while recognizing his dangerous cultural influence.  

As you reflect on your lifetime of interests and passions, what have been your greatest disillusionments? What did you learn from these experiences?

MEGALOPOLIS: What's It All About, Francis?

"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly."
--Leo Tolstoy

When someone spends more than $140 million of their own cash to create a film they had been noodling for more than a quarter of a century, it stirs one's curiosity. When that person is Francis Ford Coppola, who created the Godfather films--according to many critics two of the greatest movies in film history--one can't be blamed for having expectations raised.

So what happened?

Many reviewers--professional film critics and the public-at-large--describe the final result as a trainwreck. Here's one from imdb.com: "Megalopolis is a mess brimming with ambition but utterly devoid of direction and cohesion. It isn't just agonizing, it is an excruciating test of patience. At best, it's mind-numbing, at worst, a total trainwreck I painfully endured."

The project has certainly generated buzz, though not for all the reasons a director would like. Even so,  there are some who give the film a 10/10. So, when NPR was dissecting it last week I made a mental decision to see it and decide for myself.

Whereas on one level the film appears tone "a confusing mess" as others have declared, there is clarity about certain recurring themes including the echoes of Rome, bread and circuses and the overarching decadence, a central theme in the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, underscored in several of his books including The Birth of Tragedy, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, The Genealogy of Morals, and The Twilight of the Idols. For Nietzsche, decadence was not merely about cultural decline but also about the decline of life’s vitality and strength, which he sees as manifesting in various aspects of society, morality, and even the individual spirit. Is this what Coppola was getting at to some degree?

From the very start of the film we see manifestations of a decadent culture. Underneath, however, we also see serious issues being discussed. "When does an empire die? Does it collapse in one terrible moment? No, no... But there comes a time when its people no longer believe in it." (Fundi Romaine)

and

"Mr. Catalina, you said that as we jump into the future, we should do so unafraid. But what if when we do jump into the future there is something to be afraid of?" (journalist)

* * * 

One reviewer asks: "But still, since decadence is one of our great problems, is it something admirable to see it dramatized and critiqued so explicitly, however cumbersome the writing and bizarre the plot mechanics are?" 

And finally, the inability of all this to cohere fully — the fact that Catilina’s vision of urban utopia looks a bit like what you’d get from plugging prompts into an artificial intelligence image generator, the fact that Coppola intuited his way to a story that’s genuinely timely and shot through with complex political resonances but then just couldn’t quite make it work as cinematic art — well, that itself is a signifier of our times.

Besides, in all honesty, how many movies do we really need highlighting our pervasive decadence? It's almost a Hollywood passion. 

* * *

Despite the gauntlet of negative reviews, there are some standouts bucking the herd. Here is one of the positive reviews from imdb.com plus two more that shed light on the final product.

Francis Ford Coppola is the master!

hoomanzenouz19 August 2024

I was absolutely captivated by Megalopolis. Contrary to the mixed reviews it has been receiving, I found this film to be a monumental achievement, deserving of nothing less than a 10/10. The critics are wrong, this movie is an audacious blend of visionary storytelling and breathtaking visual design that left me in awe.

A Glorious Trainwreck

cutie725 September 2024

Full disclosure: This film is a disaster of epic proportions-an absolute train wreck that careens off the tracks, crashes, and then somehow sets itself on fire. It's so bad, it's almost brilliant, the kind of so-awful-it's-genius nightmare that future cult fans will rave about. And you know what? I respect the hell out of Coppola for it. The guy is a cinematic legend who just decided to throw all caution (and coherence) to the wind and go full mad scientist on this. It's a glorious, unfiltered mess from the mind of a genius who clearly stopped caring about what anyone thinks. Bravo, you magnificent lunatic! 👏🏻

An aged and nonsensical interpretation of modernism

I really admire the story and purpose but the interpretation of the younger generation was almost unbearable that I had to laugh. The acting is done very well but at the behest of a pathless plot and lack of an environment. Some scenes were simply bizarre; actors walking to different parts of the room for no reason as if I was watching a Cirque Du Soleil show without the art house beauty, the gaudy and exaggerated portrayal of the wealthy as if they are dumb pigs and just the overall delivery of direction was strange and not fun to watch. I really feel like Coppola had no one to tell him; "Hey that's stupid."  

* * *

For me the use of Roman-era names--Cesar, Cicero, Crassus--came across as silly. I also had a hard time with how the narrator was inserted here and there to stitch the narrative together. I know that it's a technique that is sometimes effective, as in Shawshank Redemption. In this instance, it didn't work for me.

Don't take my word for it. Draw your own conclusions. I never fully grasped the storyline, but there are clues that there's something more here, even if it is only illusory.  

PostScript: After seeing Adam Driver last year in Ferrari and as the lead in Megalopolis, I am impressed with his diversity. 

PS2: I would be most curious to hear what all these actors felt and thought about working on this film, and what they learned.

What do you remember about Valentina Tereshkova?

Yesterday I wrote about the tme capsule inside the former Christian Science church building that no houses a local branch of the Karpeles Manuscript Library Museum. In passing I mentioned that Florence Nightingale was featured in several display cases.

A display on the West side of the room featured another amazing woman. Does the name Valentina Tereshkova ring a bell? For most of us it doesn't, but it should. Ms. Tereshkova was the first woman cosmonaut to go into space and the only woman to have ever flown a solo mission in outer space. Flying alone on the Vostok 6 mission on June 16, 1963, she orbited the Earth 48 times and spent nearly three days in space. At 26 years old during her flight, she’s still the youngest woman ever to go to space, both by reaching 100 kilometers above Earth and by orbiting the planet.

One amazing part of this story is that the rocket men who designed these early rockets did not yet design a safe way to return to earth. Americans are familiar with the early tin can models with heat shields and parachutes. The Soviet approach in the return to earth was for the astronaut to exit the rocket four miles above the ground and skydive to  earth, which is was Valentina Tereshkova did.

Respected & decorated: Tereshkova in 1969.

Before being selected for this space adventure, Tereshkova was a textile worker who also did amateur competitive skydiving. In short, by following her passion for parachute jumping, she ended up making history as a cosmonaut. She retired from the Air Force in 1997 as a Major General and decorated national hero. After retiring she pursued a career in politics until 2022.

Fun Fact
For her orbital flight she was outfitted with all necessities you'd expect--clothing, food, water, toothpaste, but NO toothbrush!

* * * 

To learn more about Major General Tereshkova's career and achievements, visit
Valentina Tereshkova on Wikipedia

Note to Valentina: Congratulations on your courage and example for women. 

A Duluth Time Capsule Goes on Display at the Karpeles Manuscript Museum

The metal container after being pried open.

If you've never been present at the opening of a time capsule, then you are missing something special. The idea of it has to be fun, from deciding what to save for posterity to wondering what's inside when people open it up decades later.

This past Saturday Karpeles Manuscript Library Museum opened a time capsule that had been placed beneath the cornerstone of the former church building that now houses the museum. At the time, this had been the home for a Church of Christ, Scientist congregation that gathered here.

For those unfamiliar with this Duluth treasure, the Manuscript Library Museum is one of many around the country. This one, however, is unique because it's located in the town where David Karpeles graduated high school, Denfeld in Duluth West Side.

I heard about the time capsule only by chance last week. With a little free time on my hands I dropped in to see what the current themes were on dislay. Two of the featured exhibits were Florence Nightingale and the event that generated the famous poem "Charge of the Light Brigade." While there, local museum director Matthew Sjelin notified me of the weekend event.

I found the story intriguing because in 2007 I attended the opening of a time capsule in Tulsa, Oklahoma. A gold and white 1957 Plymouth Belvedere had been placed in a concrete vault that was to be opened in 2007. Boyd Coddington, an L.A. car-builder with a television show was on hand to help get the car started after its 50 year sleep. Inside the trunk were the "time capsule" contents.

So I was curious about the contents that had been hidden since 1912. First off, the container--a metal box--was smaller than I expected, but based on the quantity of books it contained the thing was really packed. A book of poetry by Mary Baker Eddy was one item that caught my eye. There were also newspapers from the day it was placed, as well as photos, Christian Science Journals, Bibles, letters and a sheet with signatures of all members of the congregation.

Here are some of the items they placed in the vault for posterity:

Related Links

Treasures of the Karpeles Manuscript Library Museum

The History of Medicine @ Karpeles

Time Capsules: What Would You Conceal For 100 Years?

Christa Lawler's Account of the Treasures at Karpeles in Duluth

        The Minnesota Star Tribune, 28 Sept 2024

  

Wordless Wednesday: Udder Disaster

A.I.-generated artwork

Original Art used as Prompt:

"Udder Disaster"--24"x 36" Acrylic on panel

Free Speech Is Under Assault

"I'm from the government.
We're here to help you."

Gallup polls have shown that a majority of Democrats are in favor of restricting free speech, while a majority of Republicans are pro free speech. Yesterday, a John Kerry clip was making the rounds.

At a World Economic Forum event John Kerry recently explained the situation this way:

Social media has made it "really hard" for governments to build consensus.

This statement makes clear that consensus is an imortant value for those who govern, even more important than people or truth.*

Kerry goes on to say that the masses tend to go to a single source for news, which becomes an echo  chamber. The assumption is that people are ignorant, though not all. He's calling out those who are suckered into believing disinformation.\

"People self-select where they go for news," Kerry said. "And you get into a vicious cycle."

So, does Kerry want the government to select for them? 

Who then should be the arbiter of truth? For John Kerry the problem is not disinformation. It is the U.S. Constitution with its Bill of Rights. For Kerry, and others of his ilk, the public has to be protected.

"Our first amendment stands as a major block to hammer disinformation out of existence," Kerry asserts.

Again, who decides what is truth? And why is consensus so important? For several years the media presented a one-sided picture of the Vietnam War. The networks shared the scripted Pentagon interpretations of that war. A few brave journalists chose to actually go see what was happening, and it was disturbing. Yes, the government won its consensus, disseminated by mainstream media--newspapers and networks--but what was the reality? It was not what we were being told, and over time the ugly truth seeped out and into the public conscience. I wonder, however, how much shorter that war might have been had more contrarian voices heard.

"I think democracies are very challenged right now and have not proven they can move fast enough."—John Kerry

Does Me. Kerry want King George again? Or a totalitarian? Dictators can move very fast. Ask the Red Queen and you'll see. "Off with their heads!"

* * *

Michael Shellenberg's response to John Kerry: "Most of us enjoy more free speech than ever thanks to X. That’s why the elites are desperate to censor it, ban it, or take it over. Every day another totalitarian makes his intentions known. We must defend a free X. Our lives depend on it."

* * *

Reminder: Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says free speech is a weapon of war, and censorship is necessary to protect free speech.

What do you think of that?

* * *

Ben Franklin had other ideas: "Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins."

Related Links

Censorship Is a Tool of Those in Power

The Westminster Declaration: An Important Statement for Our Times

Censorship as First Step to Totalitarianism

*When I speak of consensus, I am referring to forced consensus