Hunger Mind Map

Susceptible Souls

It is a common saying that philosophy is the study of leftovers, therefore requiring the most inquisitive and intelligent minds to properly master the art of philosophy. I feel that this aspect of philosophy is what makes the novel Hunger so unique. If the protagonist of the novel lacked this pure absurd intelligence, readers would find no need to continue reading. Personally, the protagonist’s thoughts were what captivated me. His way of thinking, his logic, and everything else was so unique and different from the ‘normal’ human way of thinking. What is interesting about his character is his strength in logical intelligence, but his lacking in other intelligence, or street smarts. Hunger is the journey of a purely intellectual being, who just cannot seem to comprehend the ideals of his own society.

The similarities between Hamsun and his character are not surprising, and many people feel that Hunger was an autobiography. The depiction of raw human emotion is tough to capture, therefore it is only expected that the author must have felt some of these emotions firsthand. First of all, there are similarities in the sense of their living standards. As Wood describes, in ‘Knut Hamsun’s Christian Perversions’, both Hamsun and his protagonist lived in extremely poor conditions, and both contained an obsession with being a great writer, despite many failed attempts. This in itself can explain for a lot of the personality traits that Hamsun and his protagonist share.

What I found interesting was Hamsun’s awareness of his ‘susceptibility of his soul’. Personally, I would assume that a character such as the protagonist in Hunger would not have the maturity to write about his personality in such a manner as Hamsun. In order to do so, the character would have to acknowledge the fact that he was ‘plotting his own demise’, and letting pride and childish behavior get in the way of his own success. For an author so similar to the protagonist, I find it hard to believe that he was able to convey such a character in the manner he did, for I would think that his own personal pride would get in the way of this portrayal.

I also find these ties to Christianity quite peculiar. Especially when discussing existentialism, religion does not play a very significant role. In fact existentialism does not support the belief in a God. Given that, I was a bit confused at Hamsun’s decisions to incorporate aspects of the bible into his novel. Perhaps it was because of societal influences during childhood that gave him these religious concepts, but I still do not understand why he would chose to incorporate that into his novel, especially when depicting similarities between Jesus and the protagonist (who is supposedly based after himself). The only connection I can think of is that the protagonist of Hunger as well as Hamsun are depicted as hubris, and therefore this connection with Jesus just further portrays their own arrogance and pride. 

Ylayali!

I sat down on the bench at the park, my bones sinking into the wooden planks. The weather was nice for once. The sun was at midlevel. My spot in the park seemed to dodge the glare of the setting sun; I was optimistic. I took out my pencil and some paper from my waistcoat pocket. Desperately searching for inspiration I looked around the park. A young woman walking her dog spotted the empty spot next to me, and began to move toward my bench. Her dog was skinny and shaven, with puffs of fur around his shoulders, head, and ankles.

The woman sat down with a huff.

“Lovely weather isn’t it?” she said, trying to make conversation.

“Indeed” I replied, desperately trying to concentrate on my writing.

I felt a tugging at my heel and automatically my eyes shifted to the dog. The scrawny mutt had started to gnaw at the hem of my trousers. My angst grew.

“Oh I’m so sorry!” she said startled, noticing my pained expression. “I don’t know how to control him just as yet. You see he’s not mine, my sister brought him up to my house at St.Olaf’s Place to stay for a while.”

“Ylayali!” I cried.

“I beg your pardon?” she said, dazed at my outburst.

“Oh nothing, I tend to resort to my native language at times. You see, I don’t live around here”. What if she knew I was the one that followed them home? Should I apologize to her now? Or should I pretend like the event never occurred? What if she knew who I was all along and was just trying to get me talking so she could have me arrested..

“I’ve never kept pets” I exclaimed. “This domestication of what should be a wild animal, it just doesn’t interest me.”

She sat quietly pursing her lips.

“I mean really, mustn’t the animal feel idiotic all shaven up like that? Looked down upon by everyone walking past? Having to conform to whatever plastic image humans deem it to possess? Its all rather inhuman of us don’t you think?”

“I suppose so..” she muttered nervously.

Does she think I’m insane? Do I appear to her a poor beggar on a bench, equivalent to the dog on her leash?

“Don’t get me wrong it must be nice to have an animal of the sorts, to groom and show off. Its not that I can’t accept the concepts of pets, I would get one in fact, if I had some sort of liking to them. I just feel it’s a bit demeaning that’s all”

“Yes of course…” she said quietly, “well I think I should be on my way now, Marshmallow here needs to be home before dark”.

And with that she got up, the scrawny mutt trailing behind her. 

Hungry Kya?

‘A Hunger Artist’ by Franz Kafka is a story about, big surprise, a hunger artist. This short story contains many parallels to the novel Hunger, both dealing with the issues of raw human hunger, society, and pride. The two protagonists have very similar ideals, not only in the way that they starve themselves, but also in their pride and stupidity. At first I found trouble finding these parallels between the two stories, for the two protagonists seemed to be in opposite situations. In Hunger, the main character is fighting against hunger. He is dying to find food wherever he can, and is scraping himself for money in order to attain food. Kafka’s character seems to do the opposite. He takes pride in starvation and refuses to eat, accepting the fame that comes with his inhuman manifestations. The protagonist in Hunger never, not once, denied food when given the opportunity, therefore leading to my confusion about the ties between these two characters.

After reading Monique’s blog, (http://hlenglishmonique.blogspot.com/) I gained more insight. She described how the two protagonists shared this sense of pride and honor, even if leading them to unfortunate situations. The hunger artist starved himself for his honor, even though by doing so he was basically killing himself. Towards the end of the story, he was so close to death, yet did not inform anyone merely to defend his honor. Both protagonists seem to share a disinterest for human life, for even the protagonist in Hunger, as Monique mentioned, had too much pride to beg for food or money, even on the brink of death. I found it interesting that Monique compared these characters to wild animals, especially because that is exactly what the hunger artist was treated as. He was kept in a cage under supervision, an inhuman monster meant for human entertainment. Likewise, the society in Hunger seemed to share similar feelings toward the protagonist. He was treated like a wild animal, a drunkard, a lunatic. I feel that this aspect of the novel was demonstrated immensely when the protagonist starts chewing on a bone to satisfy his hunger, demonstrating the extent of hunger’s effects on human nature.

I also found Nina’s ideas on these two pieces on hunger to be quite thought provoking (http://3nina.wordpress.com/). She discusses the two protagonists from an existentialist point of view. She had said, “I believe the Hunger Artist symbolizes dissatisfaction and the panther symbolizes fulfillment”. Her views on dissatisfaction pertain to both protagonists very well, for they both face this constant unhappiness, and a constant longing that is never satisfied. Both protagonists also share the fact that they are purposely putting themselves in these situations of dissatisfaction, for they refuse to let go of their stupidity and pride. This idea of dissatisfaction, as Nina talked about, portrays the existentialist ideals. For from an existentialist’s point of view, these two protagonists are merely an exaggeration of all human beings, and it is not until we accept this dissatisfaction and work toward it that we will attain happiness.

Do you have BBM?

When I was in 5^th grade, our school held an event that entitled every student to stay away from electronic devices for one whole week. Negating obvious electronic necessities (lamps etc.), students were supposed to stay away from anything containing a screen. This meant no iPods, no computers, no laptops, no televisions, and no phones. As expected, less than 25% of students were able to complete this task.  The reliance on electronic communication devices has indeed become extremely prevalent in society today. Over this recent winter break, my mother had to hide my father’s and my blackberries, just so that we could spent some time in solitude. A vacation meant to be spent on the beach was spent typing away at BBM, Whatsapp, and MSN messenger, despite the fact that I had not brought along my laptop .

I found the article ‘The distraction society’, to elaborate on this new technology obsession in a very interesting way. I had never before connected the recent technology boom to the concepts of existentialism. The notion that humans are restless creatures, all to avoid realization of their current situation, holds a certain truth. It seems almost as if over time, the human civilization has become more accustomed to the ideals of existentialism, and therefore have become more restless. Stress is caused because humans feel there is a lack of time, for we feel like we have to do everything all at once, as soon as possible. However, Nietzsche’s ideas seem to imply that we are imposing this stress upon ourselves, to escape from true “human issues: pain, boredom, anxiety”. The irony in this is that it is this pain and anxiety that causes stress, and vice versa.

When reading this article, I thought of this ideals in a more extreme light. Why is it that meditation is such a difficult process? Many existentialist ideals seem to correspond with Buddhism, so I decided to research some common difficulties that most people have with sitting still and thoughtless for hours, in order to meditate. The most common difficulties are sitting still, restricting ones thoughts, and dealing with their true emotions.  (http://www.meditationoasis.com/how-to-meditate/difficulty-meditating/). It is interesting to see that the major difficulty humans have with sitting still, is avoiding these distractions that are caused by our own thoughts and surroundings. Perhaps the existentialist theory is true, we shall only attain happiness once we attain realization, and come to peace with the terms of life. 

I yam what I yam

Very recently I went to a palmist in Goa, who told me the supposed path of my future. There was the usual, married at 26, two to three kids, overall happy life. However, he said that I would be a doctor. He said I contained the mark of a healer, and that I will, with no doubt become a doctor. But, what if I don’t want to be a doctor? This here is the existentialist dilemma. Sartre explains the existentialist point of view in his essay Existentialism is a Humanism, being that man makes himself. Everything that man is or does should be without influence of society, and therefore his ultimate situation is solely his responsibility. Personally I have difficulty grabbing the existentialist concepts, being a somewhat religious and spiritual person. The notion that the cycle of human life is eternally pointless, and only with realization of this will we reach bliss, seems to be rather abstract.

Sartre talks about how it is not the pessimism of existentialism that annoys people, but the optimism. It does not make sense for one to find bliss in the realization of life being pointless. In certain aspects one can argue that it forces one to focus more on the present, more on the individual, for every new day merely brings us closer to death. From here comes the famous statement ‘Live every day like its your last”.  The optimism of existentialism is evident, for it promotes one to work harder for it elaborates on how there are no designated ‘roles’ in society. Man is whatever he intends to be, existence precedes essence. The ideas that man holds the power of his destiny is definitely optimistic, for it removes all oppression deemed by society and religion.

I disagree however, with Sartre’s statement that man is eternally responsible for his ultimate essence. There are definite optimistic characteristics of the notion that existence precedes essence; however, I feel that each human has a certain programming which they are unable to control. For example, one cannot blame a man for being what he is if he has a mental disorder. Likewise, I feel that other such disorders are engrained into one’s essence, therefore in some situations I feel that essence does precede existence. There are also such situations where the individual is incapable of determining their own fate , given the situation they are in. It is a comforting thought to believe that anyone can achieve anything, but I feel that this is not being realistic, and there will always be restrictions on every man’s freedom.

Another idealism of existentialism that I disagree with is the concept, as Sartre states, that each man is an example of the universal concept of man. As he states ‘In fashioning myself, I fashion man’.  I feel that this is a bit self-involved, for I do not see how the actions of one can affect mankind as a whole. In all honesty, I feel that existentialists should stop focusing so much on themselves and realize there is a lot more to humanity than selfish desires and aspirations. All in all, I appreciate the optimism and motivation provided by existentialist views; however, I feel that there is a certain nature present in all humans, which one cannot deny, and therefore the concept of existence preceding essence seems a bit self-involved.