Judd Apatow has a penchant for portraying male-schlemiel bachelors and their struggle with dating and marriage. We see this in films like The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up. The schlemiel aspect of these characters can be found in the fact that they have a hard time leaving their adolescence for adulthood. They are, as Adam Kotsko says in his book Awkwardness….“awkward.” For Kotsko, this awkwardness discloses the social-fact that male norms are faltering. In the wake of this faltering, Apatow’s characters appear “awkward” since, quite simply, they don’t know what role they should play with the opposite sex. What they are good at, however, is hanging out with their friends or acting like teens (when they are, in fact, adults). Kotsko’s reading of Apatow’s characters is a social reading of the awkwardness that comes with post 9/11 bachelorhood. However, schlemiel bachelorhood can be read in other ways.
In Franz Kafka: Parable and Paradox, Heinz Politzer argues that Kafka saw a deep link between being a bachelor and being an artist: “The paradoxicality of Kafka’s narrative work can be traced to these basic contradictions in the nature of their central figure, the bachelor”(46). For Politzer, the “vortex” of the Kafka narrative is the bachelor: “to become a writer he had to remain a bachelor. Eventually bachelorhood was identical for him with a life spent in continuous contemplation of life’s paradoxical nature”(46). Kafka’s characters are “comic” and “tragic” in their attempts to “solve” the paradox of life. And this task, says Politzer, is where they “derive their unjustified claims and their innate dignity.” In effect, Politzer argues that only a bachelor, for Kafka, can “testify” to the “enigma” of life.
Politzer ends his chapter, entitled “Juvenilia: The Artist as Bachelor” with a diary entry from Kafka on January 19, 1922. In this entry, Kafka contrasts the happiness of a family to his own “feeling”:
The infinite, deep, warm, saving happiness of sitting beside the cradle of one’s child opposite its mother.
There is in it something of this feeling: matters no longer rest with you unless you wish it so. In contrast, the feeling of those who have no children: it perpetually rests with you, whether you will or not, every moment to the end, every nerve-racking moment, it perpetually rests with you, and without result. Sisyphus was a bachelor.
The artist, in Politzer’s view, is a bachelor. Unlike a married person, Kafka is able to “testify” to the enigma of life. But, more importantly for us, Politzer sees the comic and tragic aspect of Kafka’s work in his attempt to “solve” this paradox. For Politzer, this is impossible. But what exactly is this paradox?
What I would like to suggest is that the paradox Kafka is addressing has to do with his relationship with the other. This other can be God, the sexual other, tradition, and himself. In addressing the paradox of the other, Kafka measures the movement from adolescence to adulthood. And this movement, which is never completed, is the movement of the schlemiel bachelor. To be sure, this movement has mystical resonance for Kafka because, in everything he writes about (in his notebooks, diaries, and fiction) there is a always the question of how it relates to the truth. And he often ponders whether the mystical state requires a movement from the child to the adult or from humility to assertiveness.
For Kafka, the problem with such meditations was not to get caught up in psychology. He wanted, for this reason, to make a distinction between what he called “mirror-writing” and reading/interpretation. He associated psychology with reading/interpreting “mirror-writing.”
In his Fourth Octavio Notebook, Kafka states it explicitly:
Psychology is the reading of mirror-writing, which means that it is laborious, and as regards the always concrete result, it is richly informative; but nothing has happened.
As we can see, Kafka enjoys such reading/interpretation; but he is more interested in mirror-writing. However, one informs the other. Writing is connected more to feeling, experience, and the event while reading is connected to “information.”
Through writing, he records his struggle with the truth, God, and the world. He records his movement from and back to bachelorhood.
In an entry dated February 23rd, in his Fourth Octavio Notebook, Kafka realizes that the world “seduces” him into thinking that marriage is a “representative of life” with which “you are meant to come to terms.” He is not certain if he should do so since it may distract him from God, tradition, and truth. However, he realizes that there is some truth in this seduction:
For only in this way can this world seduce us, and it is in keeping with this truth. The worst thing, however, is that after the seduction has been successful we forget the guarantee and thus actually the Good has lured us into Evil, the woman’s glance into her bed.
This glance would take him out of his gaze, which we discussed in the last blog. As I noted there, the gaze is the “third thing” which notes otherness. Kafka wonders what will happen if he exchanges the gaze for the glance. Will it remove him from his relationship to God? Will it take him from his adolescence? Will marriage make him lose his schlemieldom?
Kafka’s short story, “The First Sorrow,” opens up these questions by way of posing a figure.
In the story, the main character is a trapeze artist whose home is the circus. Through the story, we learn that the artist is a bachelor and does his own act. He lives and breathes the circus and has mastered the game of being a trapeze artist. And “nothing disturbed his seclusion.”
However, there is a problem. The trapeze artist could have lived his entire life alone and practicing his art “had it not been for the inevitable journeys from place to place, which he found extremely trying.”
Within the space of the circus, the artist is fine. It is only when the artist must travel from one place to another in the world that he becomes unsettled. While traveling the artist becomes “unhappy.” And his manager does all he can to make life easier for him. But “despite so many journeys having been successfully arranged by the manager, each new one embarrassed him again, for the journeys, apart from everything else, got on the nerves of the artist a great deal.”
But on one of the journeys, the trapeze artist, “biting his lip,” asked the manager for a second trapeze artist. And his feelings shift: “At that the trapeze artist suddenly burst into tears.” In response, the manager goes to him and comforts him as if the trapeze artist were a child. He climbed up into his seat “and caressed him, cheek to cheek, so that his own face was bedabbled by the trapeze artist’s tears.”
The manager assures the trapeze artist that he will find another trapeze artist immediately and “succeeded in reassuring the trapeze artist, little by little, and was able to go back to his corner. But he himself was far form assured, with deep uneasiness he kept glancing secretly at the trapeze artist over the top of his book.”
Politzer gives a cursory reading of this story and states, simply, that the irony is that the “first sorrow” is that of the manager and not the acrobat. This insight makes sense insofar as the manager worries that the trapeze artist’s existence may be threatened by these changes.
But, in the end, it is the face of the trapeze artist that changes. With the manager, we gaze at the change that has taken place with the trapeze artist: “And indeed the manager believed he could see, during the apparently peaceful sleep which had succeeded the fit of tears, the first furrows of care engraving themselves upon the trapeze artist’s smooth childlike forehead.”
It is this last detail which is most important. The furrows of care on the “trapeze artist’s smooth childlike forehead” indicate that the artist may still be a child but, at the very least, now he cares. His face changes. And this is the truth that interests Kafka. It is the risk of marriage, the risk of a relationship that interests him.
However, what makes this story so interesting is that he wants another trapeze artist to join him. In Kafka’s real life, the seduction marks the possibility of losing his art. Here, we can see that Kafka envisions a relationship within the context of art.
He wants the trapeze artist to retain his childlike face. He wants to be a schlemiel in a relationship. But this is not without its misgivings; after all, it is the “first sorrow.” This oddly resonates with Apatow’s characters who also take their chances and enter relationships. The question, however, is whether, in taking these risks, they remain childlike and what this implies.
In Knocked Up, for instance, Seth Rogen becomes a responsible individual who leaves his adolescence behind for being a father. Adam Kotsko, in his reading of this film, thinks that this rejoinder compromises the awkwardness which discloses a historical-social rupture of the roles of men and women. In contrast to Apatow, Kotsko would like to retain the awkwardness of Rogen’s man-child character for the purposes of putting social norms into question. To be sure, Kotsko thinks that this is a “fairy tale” solution. For this reason, we can imagine Kotsko would prefer that Rogen remain a schlemiel.
We seem to have something else going on with Kafka. Although Kafka clearly feels unprepared by his tradition to confront marriage, what seems to be at stake, for Kafka, is not a social otherness so much as an otherness that is wrapped up with Kafka’s art. And that otherness includes God, himself, and tradition. For Kafka, these overshadowed the social which he sees, as we saw above, as “seductive.”
Perhaps we can say that Apatow’s schlemiels are social schlemiels while Kafka’s are religious. The difference is telling and shows us how the schlemiel’s childishness can be read in such differing ways. Regardless, for Kafka as for Apatow, every schlemiel must dwell in the space between childhood and maturity. Once they leave one for the other, they are no longer schlemiels and, as Politzer might say, they will no longer be artists (let alone bachelors).
Given this claim, Politzer, Kafka, and Kotsko seem to be saying that ruptures and paradoxes are best fit for people or characters who are caught in this or that extenuating circumstance or social position. What does this imply? Must we learn from bachelor schlemiels what we, who live “normal” lives, cannot? Are bachelor schlemiels in a better position to understand otherness than we are? And instead of going back to school, should we go back to the circus?