Traveller’s Comments (group member since Jan 14, 2015)

Traveller’s comments from the On Paths Unknown group.

Cecily wrote: "Too long since I read The Castle (though I plan to again in a couple of weeks), but some fascinating points above, and I have no fear of spoilers.

Michele wrote: "It was so long ago that I read Th..."

Hi Cecily! Thanks for looking in. :)
When you do get to it, I certainly hope you'll pop in on the discussion!

Also interesting, is how K., since the villagers keep rejecting him, and since "the castle" also makes it quite clear that K. is an outsider, shows a need to belong by trying to create his own little community with his assistants: ‘You may not speak to anyone without my permission. I’m a stranger here, and if you’re my old assistants then you are strangers here too. So we three strangers must stick together. Let’s shake hands on it.’

Before the assistants arrived, K. kept trying to make friends, kept trying to chat to people and engage them - the schoolmaster, for example, and the villagers in the cottage. However, they kept rejecting him, keeping the boundaries clear: he is an a outsider, and they appear to want to keep it that way.

So we have picked up on quite a few themes already;
1) Bureaucracy and the power-play that often arises along with a bureaucracy, including the scratching out of a pecking-order.

2) The issue of "otherness". Is K. inherently "other" or different to a) the villagers and/or b) the denizens of the castle (whose existence is as yet still rather mysterious), or is he simply just artificially being kept 'alien' because of the rejection and the attitudes of the denizens of both the castle and the village?

Theme 2) links in with theme 3), being an examination of the idea and nature of identity. We are alerted to this by various cues; like Michele mentioned, the question at the very start, of K.'s identity - you wondered if he was simply making up his identity to be allowed to sleep there. There are several more instances where identity comes up, but the biggest and most unusual instance turns around the assistants - besides that we have only their word as to their identity as the "old" assistants, K. is unable to assign a unique identity to each of them, and simply sees them as a generic whole. He gives them a single name, and insists that they share responsibility.

This brings up a whole lot of interesting questions about identity; what is identity exactly? Is it something we can give ourselves, or is it something that others bestow upon us, and if it is both, to which extent?

There are more questions about identity and more themes touched on in what we have read so far, but since I don't want this turning into a monologue, I will cede the floor to any members whom might be interested in engaging with us here and with this interesting and challenging work by Franz Kafka. :)

How do you feel about what I have said, and would you like to add to/counter any of it?

Michele wrote: "Hmmm...so far it reads like a dream to me. Things seem kind of weird or random in a dreamlike way, and patched together, and to convey an emotion rather than a coherent story that makes sense.

For..."

Indeed! Surrealism of course will appear 'dreamlike', and it is for this quality in his work that Kafka is famous.
After all, "Kafkaesque" (named after the qualities of Kafka's work) is a word, that various dictionaries describe as follows:

: of, relating to, or suggestive of Franz Kafka or his writings; especially : having a nightmarishly complex, bizarre, or illogical quality
and
:Marked by a senseless, disorienting, often menacing complexity.
and
: Marked by surreal distortion and often a sense of impending danger: "Kafkaesque fantasies of the impassive interrogation, the false trial, the confiscated passport ... haunt his innocence"
and
: used to describe a situation that is confusing and frightening, especially one involving complicated official rules and systems that do not seem to make any sense.

Get the idea? You have nailed what it means to be Kafkaesque! :)

In the first chapter things did not seem very dreamlike or surreal to me yet - and especially not by the standards of some of Kafka's other works, except for the fact that no road seems to actually lead to the castle.
K. spent the entire day trying to get to it, but instead, exhausted, by evening he's right back at square one where he had started! (Now there's already an example of an ellipse for you, btw.)

I did find the visit at the Tanner's house rather interesting- I think our curiosity is purposely piqued about the refined-seeming breastfeeding woman - it definitely made me sit up and take notice when K. was promptly frogmarched out of the house when he dared to address her! ...and I've been wondering ever since what the story around her is - if she is, as claimed, from the castle, then why is she here, and why are the peasants so very protective of her?

...but where it really does start to get weird for me, is when we find out that the two fast-walking men whom K. did not recognize at all, announce themselves to be his "old" assistants.

Things with regard to his "old" assistants become even weirder as it progresses, like for example where K. pretends to be his own assistant on the phone (he obviously does this to blow up his own importance - as if he is too important to make a call himself- he wants to show that he can delegate to an assistant) and then things just become weirder in the conversation that ensues. (the whole thing around the old assistant and new assistant and wrangling about K's identity.)

I'll say more about that soon, but what do the rest of you make of things so far? Did you also feel there is a sort of power play taking place between the villagers, between those from the castle (because you get to find out that the count most definitely delegates to those around him who are seen by the villagers as being "of the castle", and between K. as the "outsider"?

Derek wrote: "The Church of England, as opposed to the worldwide Anglican church, comes in two forms: High and Low. High Church CofE is practically indistinguishable from Catholicism from down in the trenches.
.."
Ah yes, thanks! I probably missed quite a bit of the discussion because things were going so hectic. We were all posting at the same time! Let me re-read the thread again.

Ah! that reminds me that I had wanted to say a bit more about "Mistah Kurtz - he dead."

Now that the poem has progressed onto death and death's kingdoms, I think we've become so entangled with the "death" idea that we forgot to mention the many ways in which "death" can be interpreted. Unfortunately, one requires a bit of background knowledge of Conrad's HOD to follow my point, but we all have at least a working knowledge: I think it would be safe to say that Kurtz was a person who was spiritually dead. He follows no moral code or the guidance of conscience, and so one can say that he is empty and hollow and dead as a person.

So, with Eliot's intro, where he juxtaposes the reference to Kurtz with that of a GF straw effigy, he is showing us examples of "hollow men". Kurtz is a hollow man just as the straw man is a hollow man (and the straw man becomes a symbolic reference for a person who is empty morally and spiritually).

What thinketh thou?

...and for while I'm gone, I'm quickly posting the next bit and repeating a piece off the previous 'part' which we have not discussed yet:

Not that final meeting
In the twilight kingdom

III
This is the dead land
This is cactus land
Here the stone images
Are raised, here they receive
The supplication of a dead man's hand
Under the twinkle of a fading star.

Btw, I have edited my message 47 in reply to Bloodorange's message 46.

Amy (Other Amy) wrote: "No assumption; stanza I flat out says "We are the hollow men."

But there has definitely been a shift in perspective in between the two stanzas. "

Yes, there has, and that's what I'm referring to. Who is the "I" who is now speaking? Presumably still a "hollow man", but I cannot help wondering why there is suddenly now only a single hollow man. Maybe it's just an unimportant detail, but then I am known as a nitpicker par excellence. :P

Argh, I must go - see you guys tomorrow! :)

I'm assuming that "behaving as the wind behaves" implies (besides being a reference to scarecrows) lack of will and aimlessness - what say you? EDIT: Okay, saw Ewa's post above now, and I like what I'm seeing! Nice bunch of interpretations there! Are you familiar with the tarot? The suite of "staves" is an alternative name for the The Suit of Wands or Suit of Batons.

..and check this, from a dictionary! >>> noun, plural cross-staffs, cross-staves. Astronomy.
1.
an instrument for measuring the angle of elevation of heavenly bodies, consisting of a calibrated staff with another shorter staff perpendicular to and sliding on it.
Also called forestaff, Jacob's staff.
=====

...and last question from me for today : Is death's twilight kingdom the same as death's dream kingdom? Remember that the first kingdom was the "other " kingdom.

Re rat's coat, crowskin, and crossed staves, does anybody find much more than that it is an allusion to scarecrows? I trawled a bit on the 'net looking for symbolism, and I saw someone making a statement that Eliot was a fan of A. E. Waite, that guy who illustrated the tarot deck. And I must say that crossed staves immediately did make me think of the tarot.

Let's just keep that in mind in the back of our minds and see what we come up with.

Bloodorange wrote: "The eyes - a kind of a moral compass, which now manifests in a less threatening, but more ambient manner? As in EVERYTHING is this higher guiding presence?"

Hmm, yes, certainly the eyes are seen as the windows to the soul, eh?

Btw, did you perhaps also wonder about the fact that the narrator is now suddenly "I" whereas at the start of the poem, it was "we", and you assumed it was the hollow men talking...?

Anyway, and to double back on a theme, being THE VOICES - note that where the hollow men had these dry meaningless voices, in the aforementioned stanza, in "death's dream kingdom" : "voices are
In the wind's singing
More distant and more solemn
Than a fading star."

...this certainly sounds more lovely and romantic than the voices of the hollow men, so yes, perhaps this is heaven.

Ewa (and Amy?) mentioned the idea that the poem (at least partly) refers to Dante's Divine Comedy. In that case, there are surely 3 kingdoms after death - or at least, 3 possible places to be - purgatory, heaven and hell.

Let's maybe go on a bit to see if the puzzles start to link in with one another:

"Let me be no nearer
In death's dream kingdom
Let me also wear
Such deliberate disguises
Rat's coat, crowskin, crossed staves
In a field
Behaving as the wind behaves
No nearer—

Not that final meeting
In the twilight kingdom.

Right, rat's coat, crowskin, crossed staves - looks like we have some symbolism to research there...

Anyway, yes, let's officially continue to the next stanza, which as Ewa mentioned, goes:

=====================
II
Eyes I dare not meet in dreams
In death's dream kingdom
These do not appear:
There, the eyes are
Sunlight on a broken column
There, is a tree swinging
And voices are
In the wind's singing
More distant and more solemn
Than a fading star.

================

The EYYYS!

Okay, a question or 2 about this stanza:

Is " death's dream kingdom'" the same as death's other Kingdom? Note that the former kingdom is not capitalized where the latter Kingdom is.

If not the same kingdom, which one is this? ..and are we still talking about "direct eyes" here?

If so, or if not, what does he mean by : "These do not appear"

Certainly eyes that can "see" or perceive the last parts of that stanza are eyes that can perceive the beauty of the world, wouldn't you say, and like Ewa so astutely put it; "spiritual presence".

...so I assume the eyes which can perceive this are also the direct eyes. But Ewa had left out the puzzling part of the stanza, being:
Eyes I dare not meet in dreams
In death's dream kingdom
These do not appear:

Bloodorange wrote: "Traveller wrote: "PS. Anybody think we should maybe divide the discussion into 2 or 3 threads? ."

A thread for stanza or a thread per theme?"

Interesting question - yes, I have been grappling with that in light of the fact that there are several interwoven themes.

I like the idea of taking the poem piece by piece as I have started to do, because one can easily gloss over some lines that actually carries high meaning and deserves attention as well, if one goes only according to themes.

Perhaps still do it bit by bit and simply refer to earlier bits where a similar theme is built on? Which specific themes did you want to work with, Ewa?

Btw! I think we should check out what other people and textbooks say, but we shouldn't be slavishly bound by it, and should make our own conclusions based on all the evidence - but I think we're getting closer!

Bloodorange wrote: "The words 'without', 'without', 'without', 'paralysed' evoke the air of futility, passivity, weakness....."

Indeed, you are right, so perhaps he is indeed not (not even sarcastically) referring to those who make war, but specifically to just those who have lost the way in a spiritual/ psychological/ideological sense.

Of course, he could have purposely left things rather ambiguous, so as to symbolize a general state of being in a more timeless sense.

PS. Anybody think we should maybe divide the discussion into 2 or 3 threads?

Bloodorange wrote: "One thing I thought I might add (unless Crtl+C Crtl+V are absolutely forbidden) - I'm reading this annotated version http://aduni.org/~heather/occs/honors... which says what follows on the "other Kingdom":

"Those who have crossed to death's other kingdom are re those who have left behind a state of spiritual nothingness..."

Well, thar you go? Do we kinda agree on that one? Although I definitely don't think one should entertain only a single interpretation of this work. But it would be nice to get close to what Eliot's intention might have been, especially certain bits like this one.

Bloodorange wrote: "Traveller wrote: "So, we see this cohort of straw men shuffling along, leaning onto one another for support like zombiez, while making whispering noises that sound like wind through dried grass and..."

I know, right? I keep thinking of bits of The Waste Land too, but more in relation to this darn "death's other Kingdom", and the "Looking with direct eyes" thing.

Speaking of the latter, I have thought that with "direct eyes", he means "those who can see spiritual truths" as opposed to those who are spiritually blind and/or blind to moral truths.

Still, to me The Hollow Men is a much more direct and powerful poem. Perhaps partly because it's so short, but it is also so very direct and every single word carries meaning (ironically, given the theme of meaninglessness. :P )

I just wilt before the onslaught of how much there is of The Waste Land....

...and yes, I think you guys are on the right track with the religion bits.

Okay, let's try and make some sense out of whom Eliot was referring to as the hollow men, (which in turn might shed light on death's OTHER kingdom) and I think as far as that is concerned, we are going to have to look outside the text for clues.

To me there are two or three possibilities; the poem was written in 1925, so perhaps not close enough to WWI to refer to it, but the reference to "violence" especially the direct violence, where the text says: "Remember us [...] not as lost violent souls, but only as the hollow men. Is the reference to violence a sarcastic, ironic reference to those participating in WWI? Else, why mention the 'violence' bit at all?

..and since you guys mentioned the religion bit, I had also thought he could be referring to "the godless"; to the rise of atheism and secularism, in which case death's OTHER Kingdom might refer to "heaven", where you supposedly go to live an afterlife as opposed to being dead either with Satan in hell, or dead in the sense of a nihilistic oblivion, as in gone, non-existent.

There are of course, other, more political interpretations too, and more psychological ones, but let me just throw these ideas out there for now for you to chew and spit back into the, er... communal brewing pot, as it were. :D

Oh boy, and now I've left out the darnded eyes. The EEEEYYYSSS!!! TS ELLLIIIOOOTTTTT, whaaaaaa!!!

Oops, yes, we must certainly not forget
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

That is very poignant imagery (these are the refrains to each stanza and almost form a little theme of their own), and I LOVED it before even understanding it, and I might not quite understand it even now; but note that it repeatedly emphasizes form (or in his words, 'shape') over substance. Of course, also, they are paradoxes, because you cannot have force from an object that is paralyzed, and a gesture cannot be a gesture without motion - you can have a frozen gesture, but is it then still a gesture?

Okay, next bit, and this is really a puzzling bit - I'd like to hear some thoughts from you before I add any of my own:

Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us—if at all—not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.

Now, firstly - where is death's other Kingdom, and what does "direct eyes" refer to?

:)
Regarding the sounds; another GR friend just remarked elsewhere about the "sound" and indeed, this poem has very powerful auditory imagery - dried voices that whisper like dried grass (an interesting variation on the straw there) and, what a yucky creepy sound rats' feet scurrying over broken glass in a dark dusty cellar must make!

So, we see this cohort of straw men shuffling along, leaning onto one another for support like zombiez, while making whispering noises that sound like wind through dried grass and rats feet scurrying over broken glass... RAD, MAN! :0 :)

Just, Eliot says it with so much more élan than I just did. XD