Existentialism Books

I think to say some one doesn't like some one because they can't REALLY grasp/understand it is one of the most arrogant things some one can do, usually; but in this case its necessary. The Stanger is nothing short of life-changing. Simple fact. People that don't admit it are either too stupid, too jealous, or too afraid to come to terms with it.

I say too afraid because of the implications of a philosophy so obviously true. I say too jealous because most of this book seems like things a lot of people think but never end up saying and, well, getting so much credit for. And I say stupid because this book is great and screw them.

Fast shipping and the book was in excellent condition for what I paid for. Would recommend :)

This novel is absurd. This is not arguable. The point of this novel is that you react to it -- you see Meursault and his absurd way of going about life, and you feel the need to change your own.

Meursault's story begins with his mother's death; "Maman died today.Or yesterday maybe, I don't know." In first person perspective, he introduces his neighbor and best friend.He explains his world to you, all the while showing minimal emotion toward the tragedies that encroach upon his life. You begin to feel a bond to Meursault as much as you feel his distance. Each event pulls you closer to him, but pushes away correspondingly. As you read the book, you will know Meursault but become only a visitor to his soul as he gets drawn into a murder. Albert Camus has written a novel that crosses the nonsensical with catastrophe.I am unhesitant to propose that this story be read by all who have seen this review. It's a quick read you will enjoy thinking of for days to come.
Thank you for reading,
C.K.

This is a great book. I would recommend to anyone. It has a great story line and a wonderful setting.

Just picked it up on a whim a year or so back - very interesting underrated book that we can all relate to in some manner, but still retains an air of mystery (since his "crime" is never disclosed) to make you think a bit.

Hopefully I don't sound pretentious, but shortly after I read Ivan Illich Deschooling Society. While justice systems aren't schools, I think the phrase "We confuse teaching with being taught...police for security...politics for order...and overall trained to confuse service in place of value" comes into play with The Trial.

Maybe I'm off, but to me, I think Kafka's main goal was illustrating this concept, even though it predates Illich by quite some time.

By stripping away the actual accusation, it doesn't become a book about stopping a murderer, thief, rapist, embezzler. If the accusation were revealed, you would be tricked into confusing service over value - ie you'd naturally feel the protagonist was guilty if accused of something, or you'd naturally feel the court is in perfect right to investigate a SPECIFIC CRIME...and automatically trust that it's order.

But without an accusation, all you are left to examine is what has been accomplished...ie you question the value, no longer blinded by the service. As the book progresses, you see it's just a show people are tricked buying into - judges are important by title alone not because they stop criminals, defendants are automatically in fear of something they haven't done and question their guilt despite it being ambiguous if it's good or bad, and people automatically judge you on what they're told vs. what they believe and abandon any practical thought of their own to the point where strangers can convict someone you've known for quite some time. In the end, you see little is accomplished and people are just following a 9-5 routine uninspired by actual productivity, actual right or wrong, and everyone trapped into the service, not value, mindset.

Interesting to see what others think,but to me, The Trial is a verbatim portrayal of Illich's books.

Kafka depicts a terrifying world, a man lost in a world of utter unintelligibility - it is the horror story of the 20th century, where man has sought to negate both his own intelligibility and that of the world. Kafka pre-empts the regimes of Stalin, Hitler and all the other crazies of the 20th Century.

So I read this book for a small book club and I could NOT make myself finish it. The whole "no paragraph" thing totally made it unreadable for me. I got through like 2 or 3 chapters before shuting it closed and throwing it on the floor. It had the potential to be a good story too. I say skip it.

Behind Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, this is perhaps the greatest book in which the author immerses his reader into the protagonist's soul. The damnable truth of the matter is there is little absurd in Kafka's "absurd" prose. This book grips you in the protagonist's fear, despair, despondency, boldness, and indecisiveness. He can trust no one, and everyone turns out to be his enemy. Just imagine how great the story would be if the author lived to complete it. Alas, maybe it would not be as good at all. Anyway, enjoy this classic tale, and learn how little stands between Kafka's written word, and current day.

I can't "review" The Trial. As George Steiner writes in the introduction: "The thought that there is anything fresh to be said of Franz Kafka's The Trial is implausible." I will however, comment on this particular edition. I have not read any other translation of the novel, but I was satisfied by the job done by Willa and Edwin Muir. The so-called "Definitive Edition" is worth having, not only for the classic translation, but also for the supplemental material: the introductory essay, unfinished chapters, passages deleted by Kafka, excerpts from Kafka's diaries, drawings by Kafka, and Max Brod's postscripts to previous editions.

I picked up Waiting for Godot with no knowledge of it other than having heard that it was a play in which not a whole lot happened.

Literary types have concocted political, Freudian, Jungian, existentialist, biblical and homoerotic (and many other) interpretations of the play. I am not interested in any particular interpretation, for this reason: the play is extremely boring. By the middle of the second act, every last aspect of the play is tiresome. It's billed as "a tragicomedy in two acts." But it's not very tragic or amusing.

This play's influence on Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead is obvious, except that that play held the interest a little better and offered a little more overt philosophical insight on life.

Waiting for Godot goes into the category of works that some people (pretentious literary snobs and pretentious literary posers) say are so deep and meaningful because they don't have the slightest idea of what it means. Waiting for Godot is not deep and it's not interesting.

I really can't explain my love of this play...at least not very well. I read this in a course centering on Faulkner, Joyce, and Beckett...so to say that we read some challenging texts is an understatement. This was a delightful breath of fresh air in its brevity but impressive in its complexity.

If, when reading this, you open up your interpretation beyond the obvious, you can riddle your mind with maddening contradictions and uncomfortable conclusions - aren't those the best kind of things to take away from a text? This play is suspenseful, hilarious, but most of all, extremely tragic. This may not be your cup of tea, but at least respect this web of futility that will either drive you to despair or to action. I mean, let's be honest...I'd like to see YOU try this :)

I know this is one of those works that are supposed to be masterpieces, but it did absolutely nothing for me. To be fair, I'm not a theater person, and I never got the appeal of absurdist works or anything else along those lines. I got about a third of the way into this and just couldn't stand to read it anymore, it drove me nuts. If you can appreciate that kind of stuff then I guess I can see why so many people love it, I'm just not one of them.

Waiting and Waiting and Waiting and ...

Review of Play: Waiting for Godot - A Tragicomedy in Two Acts

Written in: 1949

Premiere in: 1953

By: Samuel Beckett (1906 - 1989)

Originally written in French and translated to English by the author himself.

This play takes place on a desolate road next to a barren tree. There are two aimless men loitering and passing the time in discussion. They are soon joined by two others. The first act of the play lasts through one evening. The second act lasts through a second evening almost identical to the first. When ever the subject of leaving their spot arises, we learn that they can't leave because they are "Waiting for Godot" and need to stay at this particular spot on the road.

There is a sense of timelessness. The second evenings (second act) seems to be slightly altered copy of the first evening (first act). The characters are "Waiting for Godot" and for salvation. Their wait for salvation might well be endless since all of them are loath to face their true motives, their real needs, their personal wants and honest desires. They don't seem to know why they are "Waiting for Godot" or what Godot (God?) will bring them. When they mention suicide they flippantly dismiss the subject. One time they say they can not hang themselves because they have no rope when in fact there is a rope lying on the stage as one of the few props.

They appear to have voluntarily subjected themselves to a purgatory and don't have the courage or initiative to even question their situation.

The discussion ranges from an inane account of boots being too tight to sophistic meanderings on the purpose of life. The characters seem to relentlessly keep talking to avoid facing something. We are not privy to any of their pasts or in fact any personal information about any of the characters. They might have been meeting on the desolate road for an endless time, so that any past that they had is lost in the mist of their memories.

The nearly barren tree reminds them of a hanging tree and by implication a crucifixion cross. The tree dominates the stage background just as Godot dominates the lives; free choice and every expression of the four main characters. Does the milieu force the characters to think of salvation to the exclusion of a meaningful life? Could their need for salvation keep them trapped in a purgative existence where escape would be a form of condemnation which none of them could tolerate?

The play "Waiting for Godot" forces the reader to ask questions of him/her self.

Waiting for Godot

Krapp's Last Tape

Endgame and Act Without Words



I completely enjoyed and highly recommend this book.

Many parts of this play are comically driven - many are not. And, the majority are neither - or so Beckett may have said as part of his stylistic prank on the reader. Beckett had a target, and he would smile at his target as much as permitted. His dripping dialogue is often interpreted with misinterpretation, misidentification, miscue. That part of the play is resoundingly great.

To not have read this, but experienced it the first time as a member of the audience, may be asking too much of the auditory skills- asking them to constantly respond to clever and contrarian statements which spill off the characters' tongues almost every third or fifth line. One favorite discourse which evidences how fast and clever it can be: "We're in no danger of ever thinking any more." "Then what are we complaining about?" "Thinking is not the worst." "Maybe not. But at least there's that" "That what?" "That's the idea, let's ask each other questions." "What do you mean, at least there's that?" "That much less misery."

Reading thickly carved conceptions like that recited above can easily make one receive and learn more with each reading. This is one of those plays that I could read over and over again, and each time realize something totally new with each reading. This is a "deep" thinking piece of literature.

So who is Godot? Who knows. What does he represent? Who knows. What is the reason that Vladimir and Estragon wait for Godot? Who knows. Are there religious interpretations? Yes. Is God recreated in Godot? After all, Estragon has a nickname - Gogo. Vladimir has a nickname - Didi. Is God a nickname for Godot? If you want to believe such, so believe. Possible religious interpretations are infinite. They absolutely exist. The book starts with discussion of the Bible, and reading of it and some misinterpretation of a proverb. But, beware. Beckett is a master of literary illusion - are the words delivered to portray their nothingness, or by their juxtaposition can the meaningless became most meaningful? Is the Bible part of that "nothingness?"

Sounds almost mean as much as words. The sound of Godot - pronounced the same in English as the original French (Irish Beckett lived in France and wrote in French) - is one example of sound perhaps trumping meaning or definition. One character - Pozzo - is called Bozzo (we grew up watching his cousin Bozo) and later Gozzo. Great inflection of sound. And, sound often is the core of comic reaction - some sounds are funny. Pozzo sounds funny, so does Bozzo, so do many other words in the play.

Admittedly, this is one book you need to read about after having been read. And, to do it justice, I will review this analysis by myself years down the road after I read it again. This could be fun. I can not fathom what it will mean to me then. Who knows.

Adapted from the nightmarish short story from early 20th-century author Franz Kafka, Peter Kuper's graphic novel version breathes new life into angst-ridden hero Gregor Samsa, an overworked young salesman who finds himself getting stepped on--figuratively--after waking up as a giant cockroach. While Kuper's writing seems simple enough, he also decorates the word bubbles to further distinguish each character. And what characters this book has! While the reader may find the Samsa family's reaction to Gregor's transformation to be natural, he/she may actually find Gregor's treatment to be deplorable regardless. And the rough black/white artistic style Kuper brings to the table merely adds the mood for an already dark, dreary story. A nightmare that goes on long after you wake up.

This comic is unrated: Adult Situations.

franz Kafka's "The Metamorphosis" is an absolute favorite of mine. The amount of analysis that has been put into this book by writing critics is simply amazing. We are talking about a story that is fifty something pages long! The great thing is that the story itself is very simple the meaning behind it has been debated for decades.

I recommend this version by Bantam Classic because it is almost pocket size and they provide a suprisingly extensive and varied amount of essays on the possible meanings.I think I payed six bucks! Freaking awesome!

Read this story

As strange and surreal Kafkas "The Metamorphosis" is, it is really about all of us, and just how far we are all willing to go to become who we really are, and truly understand ourselves. The book provides an excellent method for keeping in touch with yourself, and discovering things you never knew. Just stay away from the Raid can.

Literature throughout history has tried to exemplify the personal identity of human beings, but none has done it so creatively and as hilariously as Franz Kafka's masterful novella, "The Metamorphosis". Kafka has created the most absurd situation; a traveling salesman wakes up one morning to find that he has turned into a giant dung beetle. Yet Kafka uses the absurdity of this premise to exemplify how the unfortunate Gregor Samsa (the man-bug) frees himself from a life of servitude and monotony, to assert his own personal identity through his metamorphosis. Franz Kafka uses brilliant symbolism, hilarious tone, and unique characterizations to exemplify the plight and transformation of this unfortunate salesman and it is through these tools that Kafka creates an absurd experience that any reader can relate to.

The use of symbolism throughout this story is what truly allows the reader to understand and appreciate Gregor's push towards independence. Gregor was transformed into a bug, but Kafka uses this transformation as a symbol for Gregor's metamorphosis towards humanity. Before Gregor's transformation, he only lived life to serve others, but through his metamorphosis Gregor slowly comes to meet his own desires, seeking a more personal independence and even coming to appreciate music and art. But most importantly, it is through Gregor's final understanding of love that Kafka truly exemplifies how human the insect truly is. Kafka uses the symbolism of Gregor becoming a bug to represent the tragedy of the life that Gregor was leading, and his metamorphosis symbolizes a more gradual metamorphosis towards an individual humanity. By physically disassociating Gregor from humanity, Kafka perfectly exemplifies how human Gregor has really become. Kafka's use of symbolism is what truly makes the reader's experience relatable to the tale. Although nobody could ever experience what it feels like to wake up as a giant insect, Gregor's struggle for an identity is a trial that is real and relatable to all of us. Kafka represents independence as what truly makes Gregor human, and this same truth exists within all of us. It is through the symbolism of the metamorphosis that Kafka relates this to us, the readers, and he does this brilliantly.

The tragedy and emotional connection that Kafka elicits to the reader is of true merit, but the book's success lies in its ability to tie this tragic tale with such a humorous tone. "The Metamorphosis" is an obvious tragedy and it expresses a very serious message. Kafka leaves us no choice but to pity Gregor for the eventual state of his life, but despite all of this, Kafka has written one twisted and hilarious story. The dark, humorous tone that Kafka injects into his words is apparent from the very first sentence, as the story begins with an immediate shock: "One morning, as Gregor Samsa was waking up from anxious dreams, he discovered that in bed he had been changed into a monstrous, verminous bug" (1). Kafka's very light and nonchalant voice perfectly emulates the tone of the entire book, and it makes this absurd, while admittedly unfortunate situation to be incredibly laughable. Even when Gregor's family is contemplating murdering him, Kafka injects a satirical wit into the tone of the dialogue that the obviously tragic situation is unfortunately funny. Kafka uses humor perfectly to further exemplify the pain that Gregor and subsequently his family experience as they live through this "metamorphosis" and it ultimately makes the sorrowful events that much more apparent. The absurdity of the story makes the connection between reader and bug an ironic parallel that intensifies the humor of the story. Kafka has created a storyline that readers relate to and appreciate, but the sheer humor of the story allows the reader to appreciate this connection even further. The storyline is absurd and unbelievable, but because the reader is forced to relate to this situation, despite the logical impossibilities, we as readers can appreciate the connection we make with Gregor even more. The absurdity of the story enriches our ability to connect with the text.

Kafka's ability to interpret humanity through this great piece of work was ultimately in his ability to invent the perfect character. Gregor Samsa is one of the most pathetic, yet endearing figures in literature. Kafka's characterization of Gregor was perfect in representing his message throughout the story, because Gregor's evolution was the point and purpose of the entire novella. In only forty-five pages, Kafka creates a character that is interesting and dynamic. We see him grow and fall, all the time evoking certain responses within the reader. Franz Kafka has brilliantly invented Gregor so that all readers can appreciate him, pity him, and relate to his struggle and growth throughout the book. This is what makes the book so enjoyable to the reader, we want to respond to the protagonist, and Kafka has invented a conflict within Gregor that is seemingly universal to the development of mankind. There is no background to the tragic figure given before we are lunged into the heart of the story and the author has made it so that there is none needed. Kafka makes it obvious how miserable Gregor's state of being was before his awful transfiguration, and the reader is forced to be emotionally connected to this struggle. Kafka creates a character that is realistic, seemingly simple, but with complex thoughts and emotions as his struggle progresses. Franz Kafka has created a character that resonates with readers that familiarize with his struggle; this is what makes his story such a success.

Franz Kafka is clearly a masterful writer and completely unique in his style and approach to storytelling. He has reinvented a storyline that is seemingly ordinary if not overlooked and recreated in a hilarious, yet completely intricate drama. Kafka has created something that all readers can appreciate as the simplicity and ambiguity of the story allows for people to interpret Gregor's tragic story in many different ways. Franz Kafka was blatantly purposeful in his creation of this obviously ridiculous storyline, because the symbolism that he creates and the characters that he invents allow the reader to experience and interpret this story for themselves. "The Metamorphosis" is just great writing; it will leave the reader feeling sad for the tragic hero, while laughing hysterically at the absurdity of the situation that Kafka creates. This book is a literal classic and is a story that will leave you feeling enlightened and slightly bemused, but ultimately more appreciative of life, family, and the personal humanity that each one of us has created for ourselves.

I just recently read this and am still attempting to digest and understand what Kafka was getting at with this story. Many other reviewers have weighed in with their opinions - please do go through them. I think what I feel to be the fact is that the story is indeed an indictment of the bourgeois lifestyle; Gregory literally becomes a bug after years of being treated like such by his boss and managers. This is a must-have for anyone reading/studying classical literature.

Twenty-five years ago Dr. M. Scott Peck (author of "The Road Less Traveled" series of books) threw down the gauntlet, challenging the psychological and scientific communities to subject human evil to the same rigorous study as other human behaviors. Only within the last very few years has anyone had sufficient courage to take up that challenge.

Ever been relentlessly lied to - or about - by someone? Ever been stunned to realize that someone in your life somehow behaves as though he's the center of the universe and everything and everyone else is somehow LESS? Ever come face to face with virulent narcissism? This book will help you understand. But beware: such knowledge comes at a cost. Gone forever will be any vestage of naivete.

This book is a must read for anyone experiencing grief or unsettling issues from any relationship whether it be professional, familial or other.
I had a boss from my previous corporate job at OfficeMax. This guy was hired as a Sales Manager after I had served two years. This man turned out to be the epitome of evil as characterised and described in this book. The guy exhibited all the ghastly personality traits of the definitive evil person described in Peck's book.

To recount the true essence of the personality; the man was pushy, bellicose, abusive and often belittling in the presence of coworkers. Unfortunately he was somehow able to elude scrutiny or corrective action due to a incompetent Personnel system misguided by indifference and poor management.

The reason why we need to make parallels of the evildoings described in this book is to draw our own personal experiences in order to understand the essence and manifestation of evil in our everyday lives. Peck also discusses the banality of evil in which ordinary and seemingly good people passively ignore the evil in front of them. Ultimately the true travesty of evil is allowing it to persist. Read this book, it will help you cope when faced with the adversity of evil people.

Psychiatrist, Dr. Scott Peck, defines human evil. After working with thousands of patients, Dr. Peck finds that there is a common thread between many of them; a life of lies along with complete & total self-absorption. To realize that there are people among us that are truly evil is unsettling, to say the least. However, the ability to recognize evil people is critical and crucial to human self-preservation. The reader must be careful, however, not to "diagnose" all liars and narcissistic people as evil. This is an eye-opening book, but "sheltered" readers may have trouble believing that their fellow humans can be capable of the evil that Dr. Peck identifies with such detail.

After reading, enjoying, and becoming inspired by The Road Less Travelled I had to take Dr. Peck's writing seriously. People of the Lie was a wrenching departure from his first book, a "nice book", as he says. Even tho I am no longer a Christian and in spite of the Christian overtones of POTL, I found it to be not just fascinating but helpful. It is a thought-provoking book, to say the least, and even "over the top" in parts. Still, to this day, perhaps 15 years after reading it, I think about evil in terms of Dr. Peck's principles. Whenever I encounter chronic confusion and pervasive lies I begin to think about the possibility of an evil personality. There are people I have known whose influences and actions struck me as evil, but their destructiveness was not evident at the time, when they seemed completely normal in every way. And that's one of his main points: we tend to think of evil as "back then and over there", not in the mother of three next door or the church deacon across the street, but that's exactly where it can be. And so often that destruction is visited upon children, so that the results are only apparent after years of awfulness, of crushed and crippled spirits, of destroyed souls. And he cautions us: it's all too easy to hate the evil person, but all of us are capable of evil. I believe he's right. This book is indeed an excellent beginning of a more scientific examination of the nature of evil.

M. Scott Peck is a psychiatrist who's definitely a renegade among his peers because of his thesis behind People of the Lie. Peck argues that Evil is not only palpable, but also even something that can be scientifically measured, analyzed and even classified as a bona fide, legitimate illness alongside cancer, TB, etc.. So certain is he of Evil being an indisputable reality and an actual term for actual illness in men--not merely a concept as the moral-relativist crowd professes--that I will in fact designate "Evil" as a proper noun for the length of my review.

Most of Peck's observations will resoundingly strike a chord with many a reader because of the easy understandability of his explanation of Evil as it manifests among everyday, seemingly average people including you and I. In People of the Lie, peck unmistakably identifies certain, idiosyncratic behavioral traits which define a person as Evil. His arguments for what defines a person as Evil are very persuasive since he lays them out in a severely meticulous and well-reasoned manner, which includes much logical foundation.

The focal point of Peck's thesis (Evil is a measurable quantity in people) is based on the fact that Evil people are people who never, ever, ever accept blame for their own misdoing and simultaneously reject personal responsibility, making them remorseless. Just by that definition alone, Peck clicks with so many readers because so many readers, in turn, do know all too many people who precisely fit this incriminating classification!!!! This only gets worse because, Peck reasons, Evil people don't just stop there; they also hurt others in a manner of lashing out instead of facing their own shortcomings. As the last, main piece of this trio, Evil people are also harshly narcissistic, for the purposes of Peck's definition, insisting that everyone else submits to their will and their will alone in an ideology of utter selfishness. Again, this behavioral trait is so very, very easy to identify in far too many people today that it's just a loathsome sign of how conscienceless society's become.

Peck then somehow hijacks his own line of thinking by making a sharp, left turn by insisting that the aforementioned, Evil people are just clinically sick and need professional help. While this book is praiseworthy due to its incorporation of morals to understand the "science" of Evil, if you will, this is one of Peck's many, unpalatable conclusions which actually take his well-founded thesis and misdirect from it. Peck gravely veers off into the proverbial deep end of making an impossibly difficult assertion when he actually writes--presumably with a straight face!--that the best way to fight Evil is by loving it!!!! WTF?!?! Yes, you read that right and in fact should proceed to pick your jaw up off the floor now. This argument is one of Peck's most seriously faulty ones because it guiltily reads exactly like an ultra-idealistic, emotional liberals' methods for tackling anything: just love it! Whether you're an Al-Q*eda terrorist, or merely a ped*phile who preys on kids, or how about just a regular, old serial killer who hunts for fun...Peck's radically liberal "solution" is to just "love" the Evil out of you, bad boy!!!!

Inarguably, Peck's credibility suffers irreparable harm with this totally imperfect assertion because in reality--something liberals have a terminal problem with--it's unworkable and impractical. No amount of idealistic "love" will cure the Islamofascist who's hellbent on killing infidels; the ped*phile who relishes in misusing kids for his own perversions; or the serial killer who has a predilection to kill. Owing to the fact that Peck himself knows how disgustingly idiotic his own conclusion is, he even admits that the only way to fight Evil is essentially by being just as, if not more so, evil as it. In other words, fighting fire with fire, which is 100% true! However, then, rottenly, Peck's liberal idealism seizes hold of his delusional mind again, and he argues that it's better not to take this "risk" as one supposedly becomes the Evil he's fighting if he adopts its tactics to fight it. Good God...here, Peck sounds just like every other Democrat out there who opposes America's right to self-defense through Bush's War on Terror. You know, the widely discredited argument that the US should just be "nice" and change its foreign policy and maybe, just M-A-Y-B-E, the misunderstood terrorists (I mean, "freedom fighters) will leave the US alone.

Peck's thesis also endures harm with the examples of patients of his through the years whom he's diagnosed as Evil. The examples are, quite frankly, asinine bordering on the ludicrous. Judge for yourself: in one case, a fifteen-year-old called "Bobby" had an older brother who committed suicide by shooting himself with his shotgun. His parents--apparently not in merely a sadistic and tasteless joke--then seriously went and saved the suicide weapon and "regifted" it to the younger, remaining son, "Bobby," as a Christmas present! While this can be more reasonably termed "unsympathetic" or "cruel," Peck crosses the line by branding the parents as "Evil." Now, the parents argued that "regifting" was merely practical, and in a sense it is!

Another case involves another teen boy, "Roger," and his parents. "Roger's" dilemma was that he was underperforming in school and getting into trouble. As Peck investigated, he suspected the parents were really the culprits behind the son's outbursts--as Peck apparently finds from time to time--and the "Evil" ones. Peck based this unwarrantable denunciation on the fact that the parents rejected his suggestion to encourage one of "Roger's" only interests--helping disabled or underprivileged kids, or something--because "Roger" hadn't cleaned his room properly. At most, this is an overreaction by the parents and quite vindictive and possibly selfish, too, but for Peck to brand the parents as "Evil" over this is stretching even asininity. If these are who qualify as "Evil" people for Peck's purposes, then what in the hell does he call Islamofascists, child rapists, murderers, etc.?

Another example involves a couple, "Hartley and Sarah." Their relationship to each other was so twisted that it--among all of Peck's' examples--was really the only one that plausibly could be termed a case of human Evil. Their relationship involved a corrosive co-dependence, a symbiotic relationship. The man, "Hartley," was basically such a whipped, liberal girlie-man that he was the submissive one in the relationship while "Sarah" was the overbearing boss. This involved "Sarah" berating "Hartley" constantly to the point where he basically needed to "grow a pair" in the worst way, and it manifested itself through repeated suicide attempts on "Hartley's" part. The absolutely sick part was that "Sarah" would continually get help for "Hartley" merely so she could continue her purpose in life: have him exist as her whipping boy!!!!

One of the final cases involves a completely out-of-control and promiscuous young woman, "Billie." This girl was such a case of damaged goods that her mother actually ENCOURAGED her to sleep around with older men!!!! Further, the mother completely deteriorated the girl's remaining morals by shamelessly discussing with her her own infidelity to her husband, "Billie's" dad!!!! "Billie" was in her early 20s and despite having her own apartment, had a hard time sleeping there for the night; in fact, she'd go back to her parents' home to sleep. In fact, every time the daughter would insist it was time for her to leave, the mother would make excuses to keep her daughter at her home longer. Through therapy, Peck concluded that the mother was "Evil" for this action and also for encouraging her daughter to have trysts, as the net effect of her promiscuity would be to feel cheated by men and come running home to her mother. Now, this is manipulation by the mother and selfishness, but, again...real Evil?

Peck's already badly injured believability takes a further downturn when he impudently strays into the territory of, I kid you not, exorcisms!!!! Reading People of the Lie, I perceptively suspected that Peck was the oxymoron called a liberal Christian, and this comical chapter on exorcism confirmed it!!!! I take as my all-purpose guide to exorcism Malachi Martin's seminal Hostage to the Devil; conversely, the kind of foul BS Peck writes regarding exorcism is so asinine that it's factually wrong. For instance, he claims to have encountered two patients of his whom he believed to be genuinely possessed, yet their behavior and the ritual of exorcism they underwent completely violate what Hostage to the Devil describes in bona fide possession cases. Moreover, what he asininely conjectures in a theological context about God and Satan is pure fantasy/wishful thinking. In example, Peck theorizes--in keeping with his overall liberal motif of loving the heck out of Evil to cure it/beat it--that one way Satan could be decisively beaten is by reaching out to it and trying to "love" it. Seriously. He goes on that Satan--being a creature of absolute impurity--would then reject the offer of love and simply retreat, or something completely ludicrous like that.

Despite the overwhelmingly many trends-of-thought that make Peck guilty of some serious misjudgments, his absolute, most unpardonable chapter is the second-last one entitled: Mylai: an Examination of Group Evil. Shrewd readers will perceive that Peck's plot here is to arrogantly condemn the entire US military in Vietnam of massive, institutionalized Evil. This chapter is beyond the pale, anti-American, vicious and should earn Peck a complete boycott just for the audacity alone of dragging the institution of the US military through the mud as he does! This chapter was so difficult to get through because it's about 40 pages of Peck lobbying bitter broadsides at the US military and soldiers! Here's his censurable "reasoning": what occurred with the Mylai massacre wasn't merely the isolated incident sane Americans all know it to be, but, rather, was only one of many, other, undocumented massacres in Vietnam. Peck further exposes how liberal and anti-American he is by misusing the same old liberal accusations against the military: he alleges that the way the military is established with its specialized training among different soldiers means it's predisposed to breeding a culture of Evil. Peck alleges that soldiers are dehumanized in war zones to the point where the vast majority of them forget their training and/or conscience and are more likely to commit atrocities. Peck alleges that the US involvement in Vietnam was one of the WHOLE COUNTRY being in bed with the concept of Evil, and accuses the US of being the aggressor there! Doesn't this sound familiar to Democrat/lib thinking in this post-911 world, where libs charge the US with being the killer, the aggressor and the instigator of violence against the Arabs?!?! Of course it does! Predictably like the good, little, typical lib Peck is, he then insanely and idiotically offers retarded, liberal "solutions" to the "problem" of Evil caused by having a national military. Are you ready for what the hell he proposes? He proposes disbanding the whole US military and creating something like a Peace Corps which wouldn't fight wars, but just help out in trouble spots around the world. MY F***ING GOODNESS! When I read this, I basically blacked out from the understandable outrage. Again, also note how scarily close Peck's vile thinking is back when this was published (early 80s) to the Democrats/libs of current times.

The conclusion is that People of the Lie starts out with a very interesting and demonstrably true thesis: that Evil is real and exists and manifest in people. However, as I've incontrovertibly outlined by the use of nothing but hard facts and airtight examples from this book, Peck irreconcilably destroys his credibility with asinine examples, totally false, theological conjectures, and the worst of all: absolutely liberal, elitist scorn and hatred of the US military as an institution which breeds the very epitome of Evil itself. For that chapter alone, his book deserves a widespread boycott and nothing but condemnation because he's ruined any and all semblance of respectability.

This book looks at the idea of zero, and its opposite, infinity, in the history of human thought from multiple civilizations, such as the Mayans, Indians, Arabs, ancient Greeks, Renaissance Europe, and China. The book is fast-paced and the author adds in some humor here and there. For a book about math, the subject material was made quite accessible, and the author added in the occasional drawings, proofs and derivations to explain concepts better. Quite an enjoyable read.

I am a math teacher and read this book on recommendation from a fellow math teacher. The book is well-suited for high schoolers (as far as concepts go), but can also be used in middle school. I start by saying that I find history, even the history of math, fascinating; my emphasis in teaching is on the "why" and often times, that answer is found in history or in the field of ethnomathematics. Not only is the book educational, it is extremely well written. Often times it is even funny. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in history or math.

This is an interesting book that has some flaws. The most fascinating were the earlier parts of the book that addressed the various cultures around the globe and how their practical needs and philosophical points of view affected their mathematical development, and how the number zero fit into that big picture. As the book progresses the author tries to address cosmology on larger and larger scales, and he stretches things quite a bit. There also seemed to be a good bit of filler. I think if the author had stuck to the more mathematical side of the story this could have made for a really great extended magazine article, such as you might read in The Atlantic.

Who new zero could be so feared by Western Civilization? We musn't let new ideas scare us away from exploration. No one...not government...not church...not education has that right. With zero forbidden by these three bastions of civilization, we lost 1000 years of knowledge.
"Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea" by Charles Seife is a wonderful trip through the development and evolution of zero and infinity; sometimes quirky, sometimes humorous, but always a little sad that knowledge was forbidden.
You don't have to be a math genius to read it...only curious.

This book was splendid. Seife was one of those rare (but, thankfully, increasingly less rare as time progresses) writer-scientists who write about conventionally dry and largely unaccessible topics in a lucid, beautiful, elegant, and often entertaining way. Reading this book not only made me laugh out loud (a curious enough phenomenon for a book that has math as its premise) but increased my appreciation not only for the concepts but for literature. Seife belongs to the welcome order of writers of Alan Lightman (of Einstein's Dreams). This book is a lovely little gem.

As with all her writing, she's very aggressive in trying to get her point across. Though this was a good read, I would not say that it was profound, as some of the other reviewers have so asserted.

It would serve as a good stepping stone into the field of more contemporary ethics, but in order to really assess her claims and axioms, one must be well learned and read in the enormous literature of classical and contemporary ethical theory--something I am not.

I didn't give this a 5 star review because quite frankly I disagreed with her on various points, points where it seems that her reasonings had committed some form of fallacy or other.

I have an emotional connection to this book, and by consequence to Rand, because it is Rand's work that motivated me into becoming a full-fledged libertarian. Rand, in it, offers a wonderful collection of essays, and in particular a theory of individual rights rooted in Aristotlean ethics. Were more people to read this chef d'oeuvre by Ms Rand, they would rid themselves of any ignorance on what she actually advocated (too many "critics" of Objectivism haven't the faintest idea.) Ms Rand was, in my opinion, too averse to reading and understanding her intellectual opponents and did not succeed in fully developing her system of philosophy, but she nonetheless provided the groundworks for future Objectivists (e.g. David Kelley) to build on. For anyone seriously interested in Ayn Rand and Objectivism, this is where to start.

This book contains an excellent collection of essays on Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and is appropriate for anyone seeking to obtain a deeper understanding of her philosophy beyond reading her novels. A few of the best essays contained within include:

* The Objectivist Ethics -- this is Ayn Rand's presentation of her ethics of rational egoism (i.e., rational self-interest).

* The Ethics of Emergencies -- this is where Ayn Rand discusses how her philosophy applies to many "lifeboat" situations.

* Man's Rights -- in this essay, Ayn Rand discusses what individual rights are and where they come from. Specifically, she argues that rights come from the nature of man (not from divine origin, society or law) and what they mean in practice.

* The Nature of Government -- this essay contains Ayn Rand's view on government's as an agency of force, how the only proper purpose for a government is to safeguard the rights of men, how the only legitimate functions of government are those necessary to preserve individual rights (i.e., police force, army and a court system) and the necessity for a strong, central government to serve as a final arbiter on the use of retaliatory force. This last point is in stark contrast to various anarcho-capitalists such as David Friedman and Murray Rothbard.

* Government Financing in a Free Society -- this essay discusses Ayn Rand's view that in a truly free society, all government financing should be voluntary. However, she does indicate that embracing a system based entirely on voluntary financing would be one of the last steps on transitioning to a truly free (i.e., laissez-faire capitalist) society.

* Racism -- in this essay, Ayn Rand eloquently argues how not only is racism immoral and stupid, but holding racist views is also bad for the holder.

Objectism appeals to an adolescent mind. An individual who has thought about self, non-self, life, meaning, spirituality, materialism ... in any meaningful way cannot but come to the realization that Rand's philosophy is woefully superficial and juvenile. Or so one might hope...

People who are ardent devotees of Rand always seem to impress me as a bit odd. Their personalities and characters seem shallow, robotic, cold, underdeveloped but at the same time they appear smug and self-satisfied.

It is ironic that most Rand followers are intelligent, but not really. It truly does take an intelligent mind to convulute what is intuitive truth and combined with the ruse of so-called logic and rational thinking, build an artifice only a clever but misguided child might.

Rand's raison detre is the concept of "self". But what is the "self"? Rand superficially believes the self begins with one's personal mind or consciousness. And from there, all her "selfish" ethics follow. In her world, everything begins and ends with "self". In other words, the small little world encased in her tiny head.

To be sure, the "self" is the individual. This is not false. And therefore, it is logical that ethics should stem from this source and fountain.

But it's also not all true, either.

This is why Rand appeals to the adolescent. An adolescent is one who is yet maturing from childhood, growing into an adult individual. And this growing into his own is exciting. He is enthralled with his growing independence. His growing awareness of his individuality is exhilerating. To him, his little self is the beginning and end to all things.

But as adolescents grows older, most realize at some level that the "self" is not binary. As the ancient philosophers, mystics and sages before us have realized, the "self" is really a continuum. There are no clear lines. There is no beginning or end. No real boundaries; just those you create.

True wisdom comes when one is able to transcend the conventional, narrow definition of "self" that Rand defines and limits one's self to being.

Does a wider conception of self entail a politics and society empty of individual rights, liberties and freedoms? Of course not. Only a child would come to such a conclusion.

Contrary to Rand, a society that respects individual rights and liberties is possible concomitantly with a culture/philosophy that realizes that the "self" can be and is larger than the individual flesh and bones that encases our egos. It can be a society that respects not only individuals but peoples, nature and everything in the world... to fulfill and seek out their happiness in their own unique way while at the same time, helping each other without the need or expectation of "self interested benefit" in the narrowest sense.

Indeed, unlike Rand, whose ethics are driven by "self-interest"; the ethics of a "larger self" are driven by love and charity. But unlike Rand, the latter would realize that the two are really the same thing inasmuch as love is the enlargement of the self to include others in that idea of self, until ultimately, the binary notion of self disappears altogether.

Logically, then, loving others is really loving one's self inasmuch as one comes to realize that "I" am "you" and "you" are "me".

This realization however comes not by logic alone but intuitively. But it should not be dismissed because of that. All knowledge is first intuitive, until it is rationalized, categorized and logically made sense of by the conscious mind. However, what is intuitively obvious is sometimes mashed up into something else entirely by clever but juvenile minds.

Should self-interest in the Randian sense then play no part in our ethics? No. But in moderation.

If self is a continuum, then our ethics should reflect this. What I do, I do for myself, my family, my friends, my neighbor, for mankind and for the world in general. The mature individual realizes that ethics cannot be constructed based on the narowest definition of self alone. But neither can it be defined based solely on any one particular definition of self as well -- whether that be family, friends, tribe or nation. The mature, rational individual should keep all things in balance; and in this balance, his ethics follow.

I am "self" in the narrowest sense; but my "self" also exists in the widest sense that includes "you" and "everything" else. And when this is realized, "self-interest" = "your-interest" = "our interest" = "all interests" = love = transcendence.

I find myself again reviewing a book by Ayn Rand that I quite liked. I am not a philosophy major so I won't be arguing about the soundness of her metaphysics or epistemology. I will simply say that while I don't agree with everything she has to say (few would) she makes very interesting observations. Her essay on the concept of human rights as a way to subjugate rulers to moral law is spot on. Her definition of sacrifice is also more logical than another one proposed in another review. Her idea that capitalism is the only free economic system borders on tautological and her support of property rights is a rarity amongst modern "thinkers". Again, while I don't support everything she said (I am still debating the idea of absolute morality, as if morality was something we can discover like the laws of physics) I think she makes strong arguments for personal freedom and the proper relation between a government and its governed.

Nausea is absolutely amazing. This is the book that started everything for me. Education and the pursuit of knowledge became priorities in my life after reading this book, thanks to Sartre. Existentialism may be "dead" to some people, but to the high school or early college student who is disenchanted with the world around them, this is the perfect book to get those intellectual juices flowing. The "self-learned man" who sits at the library reading in alphabetical order everything that he can inspired me greatly. Though not as pretty as Albert Camus, Jean as a certain dramatic and intellectual radiance that Albert had yet to perfect. Do not get me wrong Camus is my hero, but Nausea is the beginning of everything for someone on that lonely path to Truth.

This is the one, only, and very likely last text from Sartre that I will ever read, but it is also one of the very few works of fiction that I'd consider worth reading more than once. It is great. The anti-Vonnegut. I can only imagine how much better it is in the original French. Highly recommended. (Albert Camus' review is useful & more critical; see that for a balanced but more heavy handed substantial commentary.)

Sartre's "Nausea" is a gripping, twitchy little novella confirming the ways one person of unpleasant station can make them self sick , nervous, an odious presence by lingering long on the ambivalent shrug .No one else could write a better tale of an intensely self-aware intellectual whose physical discomforts translate into a changed worldview. Not a lot of laughs, but Sartre does insert his descriptions of bad faith of an intellect aware of his stagnation but whose dread saps strength, and will from him, makes him powerless to do even the simplest exchange. There is, of course, transcendence of a sort, but none are comfortable with its results. The peculiar interest here is the lingering on the problem and an inspection of the illness that infects the spirit as a cumulative consequence of an individual denying their potential and getting by with a bare minimum of engagement. Sartre's fiction and his plays are for those who have an avid interest in those who live in just one room of the many in life's vast mansion.

Even though I'm intrigued by existentialism, I am still struggling to understand what Sartre is trying to tell us in Nausea. The main character, because he finds other humans boring, petty, phony...., he makes a choice to stand away from the rest of humanity. He is a critical observer, the constant cynic. So much easier to stand at a distance and criticize to feel the Nausea that is humanity. The nausea is only one side of the coin, because not all in life is despicable, crass and disgusting, He has chosen to focus on those parts of humanity that are. In doing so he imagines that he has found a sort of freedom and that he has risen above the fray, the ramble of humanity. The reality is that he has focused so much on the bad, the nausea, that he has built a new prison, an incomplete humanity composed of only the bad and none of the good. He comprehends only half of what we are. There is none of the joy, the spontaneity, the passion, only the ache of the nausea.

You have to be in a certain state of mind to read this- anyone who says it's stupid or not a great work or is put off by how he speaks of himself and the city he's in, needs to not read it, but immerse themselves in it, however if one would do that then chances are he'd lose everything else in life, because he cannot control it.

This is one of the best books i've ever read, it's simply brilliant, but only if you understand the feelings he's having.

This is a more difficult read than most of Yalom's other books. His books are lucid and often inspirational. Death is not an easy subject. I kept putting it down. But something he does in most books is include very personal and meaningful anecdotes. One of the best parts is his inclusion of encounters close to death with 3 of his mentors. Those stories and his impressions of them are revealing and unforgettable. He tells his own early encounters with the deaths of his parents and friends in a way that any person can relate to. Although I don't like the subject, he is a great writer. I am glad that he has written so much.

Maybe the best book about our reaction to the 'terror of death' since the classic 'On Death And Dying' by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. A psychology lecturer told me Elisabeth, a world expert on the topic of facing the end of life, ended up alone in a hospice in Arizona. I think no such fate faces Irvin Yalom. He will be surrounded by friends, and will know his powerful spirit will live through his writing. His bracing book is perfect for folks looking at the final stage of life without set fixed relgious mindsets.

Famous psychologist Erik Erikson's 8th stage of life is Ego Integrity vs. Despair, and this book gives great pointers on how we can realise our life was worthwhile, and how to avoid the despair that some find shadows what should be a life ending in the bright sunlight.

Since all of us face death, it is natural to view this passage with a near-irrational panic. Dr. Yalom is a most readable writer. If there is one message that one can take away from "Staring at the Sun," it is that living in the moment, savoring it, is an infinitely more life-affirming path than fearing what we may have no power to control. And following this message will help us help our loved ones and friends as well--no small thing.

I've read Irvin Yalom for years. I've read his text books while at college (I'm a group psychotherapist, which is his speciality) and loved his book Love's Executioner. I was less happy with Momma and the Meaning of Life. This book falls between the two. It has more of the poetry of Love's Executioner but is a little existential for me (which is not his fault at all, he's very up front about being an existential psychotherapist.)

I loved the philosophical background/analysis, and found a lot of it to be very valuable. But his dismissal of any fundamental religious beliefs to be 'death denial' (an echo of Freud) is something I just can't agree with and certainly nothing I would subtly pitch to a patient. I find the exact opposite - knowing that humans are not the top of the chain, but simply beings in it, and that there is a higher intelligence present can be just as calming and centering as facing death sternly knowing that there is nothing after it.

So I liked his writing and certainly learnt a lot, and that's always appreciated (I read plenty of books where I learn little!) I always admire Yalom and was pleased to him more 'back on track'. But if you have a deeply religious viewpoint or are (as I am) a bit new age in your thinking, then some of this book won't speak to you.

A direct and courageous look at the fear of death, a fear that lurks in all of us; a fear whose very name so often gives rise to anxiety. Yalom has turned his penetrating gaze at death anxiety - how we experience or deny it, how it affects our internal and external life, how we may identify it, how we may ameliorate it and, most important of all, how staring down death may lead to a better way of life. As always, Yalom's prose is sparkling and lucid. This is a truly important, inspiring, and uplifting book.

Kafka is one of my all time favorite writers, but try as I might, I can't get through the Mark Harman translation of The Castle ... it comes across like a laundry list of details, at least compared to the other versions I've read.
A tour de force of literal accuracy, perhaps, but it just isn't funny.

Hearing about Kafka's work is not enough: you really need to read it and experience it yourself. It's hilarious, and unfortunately all too true.

In this book, a surveyor, named K., arrives in a village and tries to get in to the castle in order to get permission to stay there and do his work, but falls into a quagmire of disfunctional bureaucracy. This may sound like a dreary read, but the book is really very funny, and reminded me too much of the real world. K spends most of the book on a fruitless quest to meet an official named Klamm who might be able to help him get into the castle. I laughed out loud at some of the ridiculous conversations he has with some of the villagers, and later I gasped in amusement and dismay as I learned more about this twisted world.

Kafka never finished writing this book, and the restored text, of which this is a translation, ends in the middle of a sentence. However this doesn't really make it any less satisfying to read. While it is not clear where the last couple of pages are going, just before that there is a long paranoid rant by one of the villagers which is great.

This translation seems to be more accurate than the older, Muir translation. There are some things that sound kind of weird here, but they sound weird in the original too.

I offer the startling proposal that Franz Kafka's The Castle is, after all, about life as it is lived by all of us.

The novel is difficult for us "post post moderns" for several reasons.

The first is that the action is set in a time and place which no longer exist: Prague in the Austro-Hungarian Empire before and possibly during World War I.

Kafka's readers were familiar with the social structure and physical description of the village and Castle of his story. But it is not easy for us to understand the relative rank and relationships between the Count Westwest, the Count's authorities, the villagers, peasants, officials, stewards, substewards, lawyers, domestics, gentlemen, chairmen, chamber maids, coachmen, school teachers, innkeepers, land surveyors, gentleman's servants, fire chiefs, shoe makers, and so forth. But we have to form an imaginative relationship with and between all of them so that we can enter into the complex of social and psychological relationships presented in the book.

The geography of the village and especially of the Inn, with its corridors, tap room, etc. is presented in vivid detail but is unlike anything we are likely to encounter in modern life, and therefore it seems almost dreamlike even though it was obviously part of Kafka's daily experience and is in no way "Kafkaesque."

A third difficulty is the extraordinarily dense nature of the story. The plot of The Castle has been described as simple, and in fact it is simple. But the story has layers and layers of detailed information that interweave, are clarified and sometimes contradicted by the skein of events, and detailed reactions to the events, that run through 25 chapters. We need a map of characters and their relationships with each other to separate the planned ambiguities from the unplanned. Otherwise we quickly become lost in maze of detail, which was not Kafka's intention.

A fourth difficulty is the humor. Humor does not usually travel well, either in time or space. But whether we get all the jokes or not, it is obvious that The Castle is full of humor, from slapstick and pranks all the way to paradox, the absurd, high irony and self-mockery. We need to be on the lookout for humor, everywhere.

Kafka loved Charlie Chaplin and we should not forget that fact while reading The Castle. Chaplin's film, The Tramp, opens with tramp walking down a dusty road with a walking stick and a small -- do we dare say "rucksack?" I would bet that Kafka was inspired to open The Castle with the same image. Chaplin's film, A Dog's life, opens with a tramp gazing up at what looks like a castle with a flag flowing over its crest, and I would wager that Kafka's The Castle was influenced by that film and its opening image as well. To get into the right mood for reading The Castle, I recommend watching both of these silent movies.

Ludwig Wittgenstein once said that "a serious philosophical work could be written that would consist entirely of jokes." The Mathematician John Allen Paulos points out a relationship between the humor of Groucho Marx and the philosophical work of Bertrand Russell and George Pitcher in "Wittgenstein, Nonsense, and Lewis Carroll" shows the same relationship between the humor of Carroll and the philosophy of Wittgenstein. I propose, for someone else to show with quotations, that Kafka does the same with the thought of the Danish thinker Soren Kierkegaard. In fact, the entire novel, The Castle, seems to me to be an absurd and often humorous meditation on the famous saying of Kierkegaard "Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."

As an example of high irony and self-mockery, one of the characters, Amalia asks K, in response to his professed interest in the Castle,

"The influence of the castle? ... do you really care about such stories? ... there are people who feed on such stories ... but you do not strike me as one of them." "Yes I am," said K, "I am indeed one of them, whereas I am not greatly taken by those who do not concern themselves with such stories and simply make others concern themselves with them." "Well yes," said Amalia, "but people are interested in different ways, I once heard of a young man whose mind was taken up day and night with thoughts of the Castle, he neglected everything else, people feared for his ordinary faculty of reason since all his faculties were always up at the Castle, but in the end it turned out that it wasn't actually the Castle he was thinking of but only the daughter of a scullery maid at the offices, he got her, and then all was fine again." "I would like that man, I think," said K, "As for your liking that man," said Amalia, "I'm not so sure about that, but you might like his wife. Now don't let me disturb you, but I am going to bed ..." p. 205 (All quotes are from the Harman translation published by Shocken Books.)

There are many examples of prankish, almost slapstick humor such as the following,

"Erlanger .. he's known for his memory and for his ability to judge people, he simply knits his brow, that's all it takes for him to recognize anyone, often even people whom he's never seen before, whom he has only heard or read about, and in my case, for instance, he could hardly have seen me before. But though he recognizes everyone right away, he asks first (who you are) as though he were unsure."
p. 238

"[Brunswick] is actually quite quick. It's one form his stupidity takes." p.68

"So you are merely acquainted with the office furnishings at the Castle?" K asked [the chairman] rudely. "Yes," said the chairman, with an ironic and yet grateful smile, "they're the most important things about it." p.67

"... and since the chair stood by the bed they stumbled over it and fell down ... She sought something and he sought something, in a fury, grimacing, they sought with their heads boring into each other's [...]; their embraces and arched bodies, far from making them forget, reminded them of their duty to keep searching, like dogs desperately pawing at the earth they pawed at each other's bodies, and then, helpless and disappointed, in an effort to catch one last bit of happiness, their tongues occasionally ran all over each other's faces. Only weariness made them lie still, and be grateful to each other. Then the maids came up, "Look at the way they're lying there," one of them said, and out of pity she threw a sheet over them. p. 46

Another difficulty that must be overcome is that there are many long speeches where it isn't certain which character is talking. Sometimes it seems as if an omnipotent narrator is telling the story but then it becomes clear, or we recall, that it is one of the characters presenting his unique point of view of events and people. Also, it is important never to forget that K (the main character) and the narrator are not the same person (and, of course, that neither is Kafka!)

Then there is the planned ambiguity. For example K has been called to the village by the Castle to be a land surveyor. But in the first chapter, this is cast into doubt by a telephone call from the Bridge Inn to the Castle, which fails to corroborate this important "fact." A few minutes later, a call comes from the Castle to the Bridge Inn to report that an error has been made and that K was, in fact, called by the Castle to be a land surveyor.

It is crucial for understanding the story that we separate the planned confusion from our own confusion that results from not understanding what we are reading. A typical reader simply concludes that his own confusion and Kafka's planned confusions are the same.

The Castle is very complex. The complexity is impossible to clarify here, obviously, but most of the complexity is not in actions and events, such as Amalia tearing up a piece of paper and throwing it at a messenger, but in the emotions and reactions produced in a family, in the entire village and even the officials of the Castle by seemingly trivial actions. Unraveling these complex emotions and relationships is the most challenging task presented to us by The Castle.

The last difficulty that I would like to point out, and perhaps the hardest one for many readers, is the problem of thinking that Kafka is not describing the world as it is but only a surrealistic, crazy world where nothing makes sense. But, in fact, Kafka is describing the world as it still exists today. He is describing the psychology of real people who are still alive and functioning in corporations, schools, churches, universities and governments in America and the rest of the world.

We must enter into the world of The Castle expecting to find ourselves and the people we've encountered in our own lives if we want to make sense of it, to appreciate it for the great work of art that it is and to appropriate it for our own needs which are immense.

The item called "The Castle (Paperback) by Franz Kafka (Author), David Fishelson (Editor), Aaron Leichter (Editor), Max Brod (Editor)" for $7.50 is NOT the novel The Castle by Franz Kafka. It is a play by Aaron Leichter and David Fishelson based on a dramatization of the novel by Max Brod. If you think you are buying the book by Kafka, you will find you are mistaken. I am not commenting on the play itself; I'm just letting you know that this is NOT the novel. It is misrepresented. Its actual title is "Franz Kafka's The Castle," which was obviously not written by Franz Kafka in this form.

Review of "The Castle" by Franz Kafka

This book made me into a Kafka admirer. He brings life to characters in otherwise drab situations and makes them seem very real. The reader feels the frustration, absurdity, the pettiness and the powerlessness in a personal way. You feel the haughtiness and aloofness of the Castle staff as if they were a part of your own community. You feel the pettiness and delusional gossip of the townspeople as if you were seeing it first hand. The story is riveting and the pace seems fast even when there is little action.

The story starts with the protagonist (identified only by his initial, K.) walking to what sounds like a routine surveying job. Soon he is frustrated by a very confusing series of obstacles. As the story develops the obstacles become more chaotic. K.'s original purpose in going to the castle is never fully elaborated and his motives seem lost or stolen. The forces acting upon K. are shrouded. It seems as if some invisible force has plotted to test K. to the limit of human endurance of tolerance of ambiguity.

Kafka combines the themes of:
social class commentary,
alienation from a heartless social system,
absence of any protective power,
salvation,
redemption,
fear of strangers,
fear of change,
search for the meaning of life,
inscrutability of authorities,
indifference of forces ruling human fate,
persistence in the face lost purpose,
abuse of power
and
acceptance of pointlessness goals.

As the plot progresses it takes on a surreal nightmare quality. Is the protagonist having a nightmare, going insane or confronting the reality of his situation?

There is no end to the frustration. We are never told if K. is having a nightmare or going insane. We never discover why K. is so determined to enter the castle that he would tolerate and even join in to the absurdity. His original purpose of doing a surveying job could never justify his struggle to gain admittance. We are left seeing K. as a perpetual outsider. Perhaps Kafka is telling us that there is no end or limit to frustration, alienation and absurdity. Those seeking an answer to the ageless enigma of existence will never find a simple resolution.

This is a disturbing work that challenges conventional notions of plot and character development while testing the readers conception of his/her purpose in life. The Castle will confront the reader in unexpected ways and raise emotional personal issues that would otherwise be repressed.

See:

The Metamorphosis

The Trial

Amerika

Collections:

The Diaries of Franz Kafka (Schocken Classics Series)

Collected Stories (Everyman's Library)

The Zürau Aphorisms of Franz Kafka

Blue Octavo Notebooks

Kafka's Selected Stories (Norton Critical Edition)

Give It Up: And Other Short Stories

Great German Short Stories (Dover Thrift Editions)

I highly recommend this book.