[ilds] Kafka and Durrell

Bruce Redwine bredwine1968 at earthlink.net
Mon Jul 23 11:58:04 PDT 2007


Yes, reading Kafka is a beautiful and refreshing experience.  (One of my favorites:  that opening paragraph to Das SchloB.)  I don't know if we won't get to know Durrell, at least much better, but we certainly won't ever understand what Kafka saw and expressed with such mysterious clarity.


-----Original Message-----
>From: Vittorio Celentano <vcel at ix.netcom.com>
>Sent: Jul 23, 2007 11:35 AM
>To: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>, ilds at lists.uvic.ca
>Subject: Re: [ilds] Kafka and Durrell
>Actually, I feel Kafka could easily reflect our present state of affairs. I
>am now reading Briefe an Milena, a beautiful book. Durrell, at his best, is
>poet and a painter if somewhat hermetic. His beautiful images are beyond
>analytical interpretation. Durrell, the man, we shall never know.
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Bruce Redwine" <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
>To: "Durrell list" <ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
>Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 1:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [ilds] Kafka and Durrell
>> Richard Pine asks why I consider Kafka incomprehensible and baffling.  A
>short answer, in a Durrellian context.  Kafka is not incomprehensible (I
>didn't say he was); in fact, his Czech German is quite lucid and a delight
>to read.  What's baffling is his subject matter, in particular parts of The
>Trial (the famous, "Before the Law") and the entirety of The Castle.  He
>writes in mysterious parables about an incomprehensible social and cosmic
>order.  This is not Durrell, whose odd English cannot match the clarity of
>Kafka's German.  Durrell seems to be using language as a smokescreen to hide
>something.  Kafka sees a smokescreen, which language cannot penetrate.
>> Bruce
>> -----Original Message-----
>> >From: Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
>> >Sent: Jul 22, 2007 7:49 PM
>> >To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
>> >Subject: Re: [ilds] John Press and Durrell
>> >
>> >Which poses an interesting problem.  If the poems are intended to be at
>least in part incomprehensible, who will read them?  The poet is destroying
>his own audience.  I'm trying to think of antecedents for this.  Perhaps
>Kafka?  Who published almost nothing and wrote mainly for his own
>satisfaction and amusement?  And we all know how baffling Kafka is -- and
>how great.
>> >
>> >Bruce
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >>From: Michael Haag <michaelhaag at btinternet.com>
>> >>Sent: Jul 22, 2007 6:25 PM
>> >>To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
>> >>Subject: Re: [ilds] John Press and Durrell
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Like it or not, Durrell may not want readers seeing too much into his
>> >>poems.
>> >>
>> >>:Michael
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>On Monday, July 23, 2007, at 01:14  am, william godshalk wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>  "At times, his vision is so private that, lacking the key, we find
>> >>> ourselves unable to decipher the vivid cryptograms which lie before
>> >>> us."
>> _______________________________________________
>> ILDS mailing list
>> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
>> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds

More information about the ILDS mailing list