Some Remarks on Some Remarks on Kafka's Funniness

I am currently reading a book of David Foster Wallace essays including his 1999 passage, "Some Remarks on Kafka's Funniness". Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Kafka. I read bits of Investigations of a Dog, but found myself skimming because there was so much analysis and so little action. It was a creative idea; I admire the concept of writing from such a foreign point of view. I don't have the literary authority to suggest that Kafka could have encapsulated this point of view in a more grabbing way, but I will say that I struggled through it. Wallace's short essay on Kafka regard my reaction precisely. He says that American students struggle with Kafka's works because we fail to see the humor in it. Wallace cites Kafka's humor as being atypical to modern American humor. He classifies it as literalization of metaphor with an underlying essence of tragedy.

I both agree and disagree. I agree that I, and American student, did not pick up on much of Kafka's humor. His writing was ironic in some ways, and the absurdity of him writing from the perspective of a dog was funny, but not laugh out loud funny. Kafka's literalization of metaphor went right over my head. (In fact, after having it brought to my attention by Wallace's essay, I am tempted to pick up the story again and see if I can recognize it. Maybe it will make the story more...artful? Enjoyable?) The tough part about reading classic foreign literature is sometimes it is that sometimes the humor does not translate, both through language and time. Take Shakespeare, for example. His work can be a pain to read because it feels so foreign. However I love watching his plays acted out because they have an element of hilarity. Even Hamlet - a famous tragedy - is full of humor and irony that I did not pick up on when I read it, but was so apparent on stage. The same goes for Kafka. I missed a lot of it because it didn't translate clearly and I didn't think to search for it.

Humor is a sensitive technique. The ability to find it shows a person's full understanding of a story or situation. There are elements of Kafka's humor, such as his literal take on metaphors, that are typical of his work. They may come across more clearly to someone who follows his work more adamantly or who is familiar with his environment. Lack of these supplementary inlets of understanding hinders the modern American reader from fully appreciating Kafka's work.

On the other hand, I disagree with Wallace's idea that comedy underlined by tragedy is un-American. Seinfeld is an all American TV show. The people on that show have such sorry lives and as viewers we find it hilarious. For instance the one time that George Castanza finds any success is in the episode when consciously does everything the exact opposite of how he normally would. That right there is purebred tragedy. Michael Scott from The Office is another prime example of a tragically funny character, as is the dad from Modern Family. If anything, I would say that tragic comedy is the most timeless type, and that it is blindingly present in 21st century American entertainment.

I am someone who appreciates both humor and classic literature, and relishes in the moments when they meet. I agree with Wallace's analysis that there is a gap between the humor offered by a classic author and that perceived by the modern American reader. However I believe that unfamiliarity with context and author's style is more to blame for the gap than the reader's inability to perceive tragic humor.