This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Translation difficulties exaggerated, not unusual, irrelevant, let's delete
Absurd. When is translation easy? Whenever one has to deal with colloquialisms, or with poetry of any sort, when the meaning of words is vague or multifaceted, there's difficulty. We're here describing most of the world's literature. That's a universal translation problem, not something unique to "translating Kafka into English." Want something you can translate universally? I give you Euclid's "Elements."
As for the other specific "difficulty" mentioned here, the sentence construction with the verb at the end, there are at least two problems with this complaint. One is that, were it true, it wouldn't matter, because understanding a text isn't a matter of the psychological impact of your first reading of a sentence. As in, "oh, THAT's the verb, how that changes the experience of the story!" It might be true for inexperienced readers, middle schoolers for example, and it's certainly a problem with comedy because it messes up the timing, but that's it. The second problem (see my use of the subjunctive, above) is that it's not true. English is flexible enough for the verb to come at the end. See Shakespeare for a thousand examples. Yes, in the hands of most translators it will sound awkward, but that just means you need a better translation or a more intelligent reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) November 18, 2014
Kafka should be added to Category:Surrealist Writers
So I really think Kafka should be added to that category. My edit was reverted however with the comment "not in the sense of our article on Surrealist writing". Well I think it's obvious and well sourced (just look it up yourself; example 1, 2, 3; it's even and for good reason included in the article itself) that Kafka was a surreal writer. He might have expanded on the ordinary surreal. But that doesn't make his works less surreal. Hence if the article on surrealism doesn't capture his taste of the surreal thatarticle should be expanded (including mentioning Kafka) instead of having Kafka blocking out of the surreal categorization. And yes that might require shifting the focus a little bit from the art movement towards the "Surrealism" itself (that's the title of the article after all and should be its topic!). --Fixuture (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
To my understanding, to write about something surreal is not the same as being part of a style or movement called Surrealism which began later, according to our article which says it began in the early 1920s, - after most of Kafka' major works were written. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Well then I guess Kafka should at least be mentioned as a precursor or something alike. And I think it's worth a discussion to consider moving the focus away from Surrealism's origins (the cultural movement) towards its essence and characteristics of itself. For example: Cyberpunk was and is also a social and cultural movement (in which it has its origins and life-force), while at the same time being of a specific quality - a property and artistic categorization. The movement and its output are always intertwined and codependent - for any larger cultural phenomena that emerged there's also an underlying movement. The problem with surrealism's article is that for the most part it digs beneath the culturally perceivable plane under which those people united and which they shaped (or: found² [as did Kafka]) to the detriment of the thing itself. The conflict of the adjective surreal and surrealism as a movement should be descriptive of that and not be regarded as any kind of exception to the rule. There are surrealist artists/movement that use their cultural domain to subvert and influence reality by their fiction/art (characteristic being the stark conflict with what is thought to be real; the attempt to make look beyond by making otherwise impossible) as well as there's cyberpunk artists/movement that use their cultural domain to subvert and influence reality by their fiction/art (characteristic being the dystopic extrapolation [continuation, from a realistic technological approach, and disorganized acceleration] of what is thought to be real [or: thought in the real]; the attempt to make look beyond by technological and societal forethought [and human/psychological dystopic introspective]). Where surrealism has Kafka as a preceding (prior and "outside" the cultural mass-phenomenon) artist, cyberpunk has Philip K. Dick (cyberpunk as a movement only really started with Neuromancer). Nothing in the cultural complex is sharply discrete as it's an interwoven continuous fabric - none of it can be said of to have started at a certain point with the previous blended out of sight. My point is that Kafka is a too large strand (root might not essentially be the fitting term here; ²again: recognizing the "found" prospect of it might help in understanding my point) in what is "surrealism" to be left out. Just like PKD's works are too cyberpunk to be left out on the Cyberpunk article, Kafka's works are too surreal to be left out on the surrealism article.
But I guess that's more of a point I should take to surrealism's talk page than here. --Fixuture (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I moved it there by now: Talk:Surrealism#Franz_Kafka. Please proceed with the upper section as you wish and if desired join the discussion on the linked Talk page. --Fixuture (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't Kafka have an Infobox writer instead of Infobox person? It would look the same in the article, but it would look better to all sorts of Semantic Web tools. -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
No, because there is no guarantee that the name of an infobox matches the occupation of the person described in the article it is used on. Besides, the infobox currently in this article includes |occupation=Novelist and |occupation=Short story writer, which are more precise than just "writer". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
In the first line it is said that Kafka has a "Jewish name: אנשיל, Anschel;". Does anybody know what this does mean? As far as the article goes, Kafka's official last name was Kafka, and he didn't seem to use a pseudonym. When or where or by whom was the "Jewish name" used? That should be explained somewhere. Ilyacadiz (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)