- “Before the Law” is a bipolar parable--that is, it teaches two opposing lessons. One tells us that, like the man from the country, to live is to aspire insignificantly and fruitlessly towards achievement of some purpose (such as admission to the law). The other warns us not to surrender to fear of authority as the man does. I think the man’s actions are both relatable (we all experience fear) and ridiculous. We, like the man, are caught between hope and despair. The parable teaches us to realize this predicament and laugh at ourselves. That’s my take, but it may not (and certainly doesn’t have to be) yours. Do you agree with me? Why or why not?
- Now for some questions about "A Hunger Artist." First: does the Hunger Artist choose to fast and/or cage himself of his own accord? How free is he, really?
- Does anyone appreciate the Hunger Artist’s performance? Can it actually be understood or appreciated?
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
One: "Before the Law" and "A Hunger Artist"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I agree with the second part, but I believe the man has - and by extension we have - more control over the situation than just how he feels about it (hope and despair). He came "pray[ing] for admittance to the Law," which means he's already surrendered control of the situation. Never once did the man demand to be let in, but instead he begged. He hoped, he despaired, he wasted away - and these were his decision alone. I believe the gatekeeper was decidedly against him because though he tempted the man with disobeying the veto, he said, "but take note: I am powerful." The "but" set his power in opposition to the man's entry; had the gatekeeper left that single word out, it would have been less concrete - but there seems to be more than just fear in the man's way. He held the belief that everyone should have access to the Law, but was unwilling to endanger himself by opposing structures that stood in his way, and actually ended up ruining himself because of it. The idea that life is partially defined by hope and despair in the face of things we cannot control is arguably true, but this particular instance doesn't well demonstrate that because of how many methods of gaining access were unexplored - i.e., every single one except sitting by the gate for the rest of your life. We have no evidence that the cause is futile - maybe the man would be openly welcomed the moment he managed to get past the first gate. It is good to point out that the man being ruined is not inherently his fault - there were forces opposing him, after all - but coming prepared to reach for something you know is inaccessible because of corruption, then expecting that corruption to give you a fair shot, isn't a solid strategy. It was his own (lack of) action that barred his access, not a fruitless aspiration for something undeniably out of his reach. I agree much more with the second lesson detailed above - obstacles and challenges seem more difficult or even entirely impossible when seen in person, so what this parable does is show us an abstracted version. It invites us to analyze the man's inaction and by extension criticize and adjust our own reaction to gates and gatekeepers.
ReplyDeleteUnrelated - I thought it was interesting how quick we were to empathize with the man rather than the gatekeeper. Why do we root for the man who wants access, rather than the one stopping him? Why do we see ourselves being barred from a goal, rather than as individuals with the power to enable those around us to reach their goals?
2. The hunger artist says that he'd eat like everyone else if only he found food he liked. He implies that eating is difficult for him, as fasting is to everyone else. He isn't really free, but it is his own dislike of food that traps him, so I'm unsure how he could be freed. Given his distaste for it, it'd be hard to remedy the tendency to starve himself by trying foods until he found one he could stand, and it is rendered impossible by his disinterest in remedies; his actions are art to him, and to disrupt the performance would be an insult. Any lack of freedom is due to his own disinterest in it, and the pride he has in his own cage.
3. The spectators find him entertaining, but only the artist himself fully understands - and thus appreciates - his work. No one in the story understands him, trying to allow him respite mid-performance, glancing at him as they rush by, or replacing him with his antithesis - a lively, hungry panther. No one even tries to understand him, so maybe full appreciation is out of reach. He would eat like everyone else if he found food he liked - but does he prefer this? He appreciates his own art so much that he values it over his life - maybe it's a good thing that the public at large does not fully appreciate it....
I definitely agree with you. The story gives solid evidence for both ideas. He surrenders to the authority and he feels unsatisfied his whole life. We don't want to end up like him at the end (where the doorkeeper taunts him as he dies). He allows authority to get in his way. By not focusing on authority and obstacle, but rather on our own abilities, we are empowered to pass the obstacle. It's easy to laugh at ourselves once we have found empowerment and can see the issues in our old way of thinking, which the man never does. Kafka shows it as a good goal to strive for. We are happier if we can look at both sides of life: the struggle and battles we have already won and focus on the parts we want to.
ReplyDeleteI believe that, while the hunger artist chooses to starve himself, he isn't free. Others want him to be eating and they make a show out of giving him food. He goes through each day and wants to break his own records even though the spectators want him to be flawed. They want him to eat and they like to think he is cheating because they are too weak to resist food. However, he isn't free because he is self conscious about his performance. He sings to try and prove the people who think he is smuggling food that they are wrong. He feels bad that people who stop by him at the circus would rather see the other acts. Kafka is commenting on art as a means of change. In order for his art to be effective, the hunger artist thinks it must be appreciated. Even though the art was created to shock people, not for them to enjoy.
3) Very few people (if any) appreciate the hunger artist's performance. The hunger artist is a performance artist. He is creating a spectacle for people to respect and think upon. However, everyone enjoys watching him for their own entertainment. He expects people to understand his plight, and his pride is hurt when people no longer give him attention. They don't appreciate his performance or he wouldn't go out of fashion as he does. They think he must be sneaking food and they watch not to appreciate or understand him, but to entertain themselves. I think it can be understood and appreciated. We appreciate Ghandi and other figures for fasting because they are doing it for a cause/protest. The spectators are focused on their own pleasure and fascination which is why they don't appreciate or understand. They are too slave to physical pleasure to understand why he would deny himself a physical pleasure
1. I agree with Emma's take. In the parable, there was no physical barrier preventing the man from moving forward; rather, his own fears paralyzed him and in a sense, he was his own worst enemy. However, he also holds onto some sliver of hope, that the doorkeeper will allow him to pass (but again, the only thing preventing him is his own fear, based on a threat) I believe that this parable is telling one to not let your fears (of authority) deter you from your goal, because as we saw with this poor man’s demise, fearing authority leads to nothing good.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that though the Hunger Artist chose to cage himself, he was pressured by the idea of fame and glory, something that the society encouraged through having him as an almost entertainment or showpiece to marvel at. He is trapped by these expectations, to perform and to entertain. Even after the crowd loses interest, he forces himself to continue with his act, as a way to attract any interest or attention at all. He becomes almost addicted to the idea of fame, and his pride leads to him becoming isolated and dying. Along with this, his distaste for food renders him unable to eat, so this is another reason he is trapped in a way.
3. Initially, people do marvel at his performance, which is a reflection of human nature and how humans marvel at another’s pain, in a way. The onlookers enjoy any sort of performance, but become bored with the Hunger Artist, so they move on. However, fasting, as he says, is a type of art, and art is subjective. I believe his performance was appreciated, but not to the extent that he felt it deserved. And while it was appreciated, it was not understood. Though people were awestruck at the condition of his body, no one understood his reason behind starving himself, until he revealed this before his death. So for the duration of his performance, the Hunger Artist was the only one who understood.
1. I agree with Emma that "Before the Law" has multiple lessons to be taken away from the story. However, I I think the main lesson that the parable teaches us is Emma's second idea, which advises us to not limit ourselves from reaching our desires because of fear of authority or the power of others. I think this lesson, or moral, can be seen many places throughout the story. To illustrate the negatives of being afraid of authority, Kafka describes the depressing life of the protagonist, who spends his entire life waiting for permission from authority, the doorkeeper, to enter the doorway. At any time in the story, the man could enter, as the door was left opened by the doorkeeper. However, the fear the man has towards the doorkeeper's authority overcomes the man's ultimate desire, which is to enter. By describing this man's sad life, who never gets the opportunity to enter, Kafka shows that fearing authority is ultimately not beneficial.
ReplyDelete2. I think the Hunger Artist does choose to fast himself in a cage by choice. In the story, he mentions that people don't realize that fasting is very easy for him. He mentions that he doesn't mind the fact of being in a cage, and he doesn't mind the harsh light. Also, when he is forced to leave his cage, he often wishes to remain in his cage to continue his fasting record. His drive to return to his cage shows how he chooses to fast and be in a cage. I think he definetly does have freedom, as it seems he can easily escape one of the many times he is released after forty days. However, he returns to his cage each time without persuasion. I think he loves the fame he receives and his drive to keep fasting is fueled by his desire for appreciation from watchers.
3. I don't think that anybody appreciates the Hunger Artist with as much appreciation the Hunger Artist thinks that he deserves. The Hunger Artist thinks that most people see him as entertainment only and don't really appreciate his talent. The Hunger Artist hates that some people think that the whole idea of his fasting is fake, and it is just a scam for entertainment. He is constantly dissatisfied because he is the only one that knows that he is truly fasting, without sneaking food. The Hunger Artist also doesn't speak during the story so he can't tell watchers he is really fasting. Nobody truly sees how talented the Hunger Artist is, except himself.
1. Both of these morals seem to be contestable and I agree that, to some extent, he wishes to relate these messages to his readers. I also, however, believe that there may be a more paradoxical moral to this story (hear me out). It seems like Kafka is suggesting that the moral of this story is that stories may not have to have morals to have meaning. Yes, that sentence makes very little sense. At first, I thought that there is no moral to this story, and by calling it a parable, Kafka wanted to trick the reader into searching for a moral that doesn't exist. However, based on what little knowledge of Kafka's life and writing I have, he doesn't seem like the type of author to purposefully deceive a reader. The lack of a moral, in my opinion, is almost an accident. Kafka tries to work through his life with an oppressive father, the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and his own medical problems. He saw a lot of dysfunctional bureaucracy and power in his lifetime, so writing a story like Before the Law offered a way for him to warn of the casualties that excessive power can cause. With no solution to this problem, and with vague words (even in the original German text), he failed to impart a true moral onto the reader. As such, the moral of the story can be read as "there is no moral to the story" or "messages that stories may carry do not truly serve the reader because they are fabricated in an unknown world with unknown people, and therefore may not be applicable". In other words, the moral of the story is that morals are bad or nonexistent. This is a stretch, but may be an explanation for why any other proposed moral can be easily countered with the same evidence from the text.
ReplyDelete2. The hunger artist does choose to fast of his own accord (as he is unwilling to eat any food), but he is not free. He is imprisoned by his poor professional deals and by his own stubbornness. He has chosen to make a deal with someone who forces him to eat after 40 days, despite his desire to continue his fast. In addition, he has chosen to work for a circus that entirely forgets about him. While he could, theoretically, leave at any time, he fails to do so out of the hope that someone will appreciate his "craft". He allows himself to be placed before such fantastic beasts in the menagerie, such that he cannot get the attention he seeks. He is also imprisoned by his stubbornness, in that he is a) unwilling to attempt to find other work and b) unwilling to compromise with his body and eat foods that he may not like. As such, he sets himself up to be imprisoned by others because he so desperately wants to work as a hunger artist (or, so desperately wants to get appreciation for his stubborn fasting) that he will do anything to get a job.
3. I would argue that no one can understand the art in the Hunger Artist's work because it is not an art. He does not fast because he wants the appreciation or because he thinks it is beautiful or revealing about human nature, as art usually is. He fasts because he doesn't like to eat. He seems to rationalize his fasting by calling it a high art and taking pride in his "work", but he eventually admits that he does not fast because he believes it to be powerful, he fasts because he doesn't like food, and that he would willingly stuff himself if he were to find something he liked to eat. As such, his "performance" cannot be appreciated as art because he does not truly view it that way.
1. I think that the most significant lesson the parable teaches us is Emma's second point; this lesson teaches us that the man's submission to fear of the authority and power would prevent him from achieving the goal of what he truly desires to obtain. The moral displays that the one must not spend their life relying on what the authority wants, or they would end up like the man, who spends his entire life waiting for the authority to allow him to enter the doorway. I think that the man somewhat prevents himself from attempting to enter the door because it was open, allowing him to come through; yet he doesn't take the chance of uncovering what is behind the door. I also think that the man is perhaps afraid of discovering what is behind the door because the power he hopes to obtain might not be what he wishes/expects it to be.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the Hunger Artist essentially chooses to fast and cage himself as his own choice (possibly because the profession would gain him fame and interest from the public). However, I believe that his profession of fasting becomes an addiction as time increases. Kafka writes, "...as for adopting another profession, he was not only too old for that but too fanatically devoted to fasting." Kafka explains that the artist's devotion to fasting restrained him from obtaining a new profession.
3. I think that the artist's work is not appreciated by the audience as much as it is appreciated by the artist himself. At the beginning of the story his audience seems to appreciate his work and take interest in what he has achieved, yet as the story continues, the audience begins to lose interest in the artist's work. I think that by the end of the story, the audience does not give the artist the recognition that the artist should earn. Even though his audience once had appreciated his profession, I argue that the artist's audience throughout Kafka's story are never able to understand what the artist undertakes in his profession. I think that only the artist himself understands how his profession works.
1. I think parts of both morals can be found in "Before the Law" but I think the larger lesson is about the human condition in society, specifically, in this case, about the relationship between the individual and the greater authority. People generally defer to authority because it is "the law" and it is powerful. After all, if everyone adheres to it, then it must be good, right? "Before the Law" teaches us to be skeptical of the legitimacy of authority. The man thinks that "the Law" should be accessible at all times and to everyone but instead, it uses doorkeepers to partition itself off from the common people. But all the gates could have been open all along. It is that uncertainty and the unknown that makes the Law a suspicious thing. It uses the tools of intrigue, fear, and mystery to make it inaccessible. Sure, the man could have gone against the limits set by authority and go against the grain, which is a lesson in itself, but it is important to recognize that BOTH the man and the system needs to change.
ReplyDelete2. The hunger artist thinks he is free because he is dedicated to his art, fasting. I think that those who only bow to their own convictions and beliefs are free, in a certain sense, but the purity of his "art" is not as strong as the hunger artist believes it is. In the first part of the hunger artist, I did think that he was free because he seemed to be only dedicated to his "art" but as the story progressed, he appears increasingly less free. He was deluding himself. First, in the physical sense, no matter how much he thinks his mind is free, he is still trapped in a cage and subject to the actions of other people. When his fast broke, he did not want to eat but he is forced-fed and physically handled by multiple people: the doctors, the impresario, and the two ladies. Secondly, he is subject to the wants of the crowds. Because they lose interest after 40 days, he can only fast for 40 days. Third, his "art" is not true. He fasts because he wants to the admiration of people. He's not doing it because he believes in it. Also, he doesn't even have a true reason to fast, he started fasting because he doesn't like to eat and continued because it bought him admiration and fame. After all this time of fasting, fasting is the only "art" he knows and he continues to fast even though fasting has fallen out of fashion. In the end, he is trapped in the idea of fasting and that brings him to his demise. So, no, the hunger art is not free.
3. The people in the world of "The Hunger Artist" does not truly appreciate his art. They are merely intrigued/entertained by it, which is evident because they lose interest after 40 days and once a newer attraction comes along, like the animals in the circus, they leave the hunger artist behind. Humans are fickle and we like new, shiny things. I can appreciate the hunger artist's self control but my appreciation was compromised when I learned the true reasons for his fasting.
1. I partly agree with Emma. I do believe that Before the Law teaches two lessons and I do agree that the second lesson is a warning not to submit to fear of authority. However, I don't agree that the first lesson teaches that "to live is to aspire insignificantly and fruitlessly towards achievement". I think that the first lesson goes a little deeper than that and has more to do with the man in the story acting submissively yet believing he is acting defiantly. The man believes he is going to achieve something great but never fully applies himself or pushes for what he wants. Instead, he just waits by the door, and eventually dies there. I think Kafka is saying something about the importance of having the gall to really work for your goals and the danger in just putting in the least amount of effort possible and wondering why you failed.
ReplyDelete2.Though the Hunger Artist chooses to fast, I don't believe he's entirely free. The reason that he chooses to fast is because he's pressured by both society's construct of fame as well as his own vanity to seem exceptional and note worthy so that people will admire him. He can't possibly live a free life if the pressure from these two sources is so strong that he ends up starving himself for attention. I believe that he freely chose to starve himself because there were many other things the artist could've done for attention.
3. I don't believe that any of the spectators truly understand his work; they merely find it entertaining. If people had really understood what he was doing, then fasting would never have come and gone as just an entertainment fad. It would have stuck around like some new kind of art form. Additionally, if people knew the true reasons for the artist's fasting, they would've been horrified and unsettled. It isn't very easy to gawk and point at specific flaws in your own society.
ReplyDelete1.
I agree that the parable aims to compel us to action against obstacles instead of behaving complacently. However, I don’t agree that the man’s plight indicates that the meaning of life is to strive towards an unachievable purpose. While the man himself may stand for the greater public, we can’t say his experience embodies the meaning of life because the exaggerated nature of his life merely serves as a device to emphasize a social flaw.
2.
While the hunger artist fasts and enters the cage of his own volition, the attention of society prompts him to do so. By making a spectacle of the man by decorating his cage with flowers, hiring a band, and turning the end of his fast into an event (303), the audience condones his behavior and therefore must take some responsibility for his death.
3.
The public appreciates the hunger artist’s performance, but cannot understand it. They initially enjoy his performance, but the artist insists that the audience doesn’t “take his trouble seriously” (305) or accept that he won’t try to cheat. Furthermore, when Kafka writes that butchers typically monitor the artist (301) and the circus places the artist alongside the menagerie (307), he suggests that the audience sees the man as a piece of meat instead of a serious artist.