The Kafka Stick

March 20, 2019 1:27 PM

The current issue of Harper's has an article by Christian Lorentzen decrying the state of book reviews. He criticizes, among other things, "slapping a conventional novelist with the Kafka stick." What does that even mean? I am a big Kafka fan, but I can't decipher this phrase.
posted by kozad to Media & Arts (7 answers total)

For the curious, here's the article in question.

I'm also unclear what is meant but, in context, my best guess is that he's talking about critic describing a book as "Kafkaesque?" Although, that term is not usually meant as an insult to the work of art being described as such, even if the term is overused and often incorrectly applied.
posted by asnider at 1:44 PM on March 20, 2019

Best answer: Since the phrases on either side of it have to do with reviewers offering irrelevant criticisms ("scolding an author for not writing a book she never dreamed of writing" and "crucifying the celebrated writer for the sins of her admirers"), I'd wonder if "slapping a conventional novelist with the Kafka stick" has to do with a third kind of irrelevant criticism: expecting a conventional novelist to be unconventional. Parsing that out point by point, my thought is they're saying conventional novelists are aiming to be conventional, having conventional aims is fine, Kafka is an example of an unconventional novelist, reviewers overuse comparisons to Kafka, and yet comparisons between a conventional novelist and Kafka are largely irrelevant. But I'd also buy that they just mean Kafkaesque is an overused label.
posted by Wobbuffet at 3:29 PM on March 20, 2019 [6 favorites]

He's on Twitter. You could ask him.
posted by adamrice at 5:12 PM on March 20, 2019 [4 favorites]

"Kafkaesque" generally means "non-conventional" or "labyrinthine", so as Wobbuffet notes, what the writer likely means by "Kafka stick" is reviewers calling a conventional novel non-conventional (not sure what a "conventional" novel is exactly but w/e).
posted by turbid dahlia at 8:32 PM on March 20, 2019 [1 favorite]

Upon review, I think Wobbuffet is probably correct.
posted by asnider at 10:37 AM on March 21, 2019

Response by poster: I'm still baffled, but expecting a conventional novelist to be unconventional is a good enough guess. The criticisms of reviews on either side of the "Kafka stick" criticism are ones I've seen many times. I've don't remember a book reviewer criticizing a conventional novelist for not writing as cryptically as Kafka, but that could be right.

I'd ask the author, but I'm not on the Twitter train. I think Lorentzen is slapping all of his readers with the Kafka stick, frankly. A phrase from an otherwise straightforward article shouldn't be as enigmatic as Franz Kafka.
posted by kozad at 2:43 PM on March 21, 2019 [1 favorite]

I've don't remember a book reviewer criticizing a conventional novelist for not writing as cryptically as Kafka

I don't read a lot of literary criticism, but I do see something like this in film reviews, where the reviewer doesn't review the film on it's own merits but instead criticizes a summer action flick for not being the next Citizen Kane.

I know Lorentzen isn't really talking about genre fiction, but this is really all I think he's getting at. I agree, though, that he's using an unconventional phrase and just sort of assuming his readers will understand.
posted by asnider at 1:54 PM on March 22, 2019