--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "James Michael Rogers" <jeddak5@...> wrote:
> Ok, that's a valid point. However, knowing that Kafka thought his stuff was a scream at least opens the reader up to an alternative interpretation. Kind of like when Beckett cast Buster Keaton in Film.
Yes, the biographical aspects of Kafka are interesting in themselves, but that is history, not reading the actual texts. If you heard that Shakespeare thought his plays were pure hackwork, terrible stuff only excusable by having to put bread on the table, how relevant would that be to reading/seeing the plays? If you add enough conditioning outside the text, you can reach any conclusion you want. But the experience of the text is actually direct, it is what it is. In a sense, it is innocent. Once you add ironic aspects, you spoil art.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 12 Aug 2010 EDT