[joaorico]

Kafka [1] on which types of book to read:

"I believe one should only read those books which bite and sting. If the book we are reading does not wake us up with a blow to the head, then why read the book? To make us happy, as you write? My God, we would be just as happy if we had no books, and those books that make us happy, we could write ourselves if necessary. But we need the books that affect us like a disaster, that hurts us deeply, like the death of someone we loved more than ourselves, like if we were being driven into forests, away from all people, like a suicide, a book must be the axe for the frozen sea inside us." [2]

[1] Brief an Oskar Pollak, 27. Januar 1904. , https://homepage.univie.ac.at/werner.haas/1904/br04-003.htm

[2] Literal translation by ChatGPT. Original:

"Ich glaube, man sollte überhaupt nur solche Bücher lesen, die einen beißen und stechen. Wenn das Buch, das wir lesen, uns nicht mit einem Faustschlag auf den Schädel weckt, wozu lesen wir dann das Buch? Damit es uns glücklich macht, wie Du schreibst? Mein Gott, glücklich wären wir eben auch, wenn wir keine Bücher hätten, und solche Bücher, die uns glücklich machen, könnten wir zur Not selber schreiben. Wir brauchen aber die Bücher, die auf uns wirken wie ein Unglück, das uns sehr schmerzt, wie der Tod eines, den wir lieber hatten als uns, wie wenn wir in Wälder vorstoßen würden, von allen Menschen weg, wie ein Selbstmord, ein Buch muß die Axt sein für das gefrorene Meer in uns."

[techostritch]

I don’t know if I’m taking Kafka too literally here, but the books that I read that bite and sting probably fall into two categories. Things that are cynically written in bad faith and things that are hopeless and callous. Torture porn bites and stings, reading hacky partisan politics bites and stings. Anything that makes me feel stupider after reading it bites and stings.

The things that I think that he wants to say, the inconvenient truths, the things that make me see the world in a whole new way, that challenge everything I believe in. Those things fill me with joy and wonder they are just so few and far between.

Maybe the thing he’s getting at is the existential dread? The truth that nothing you do is meaningful? The staring into the abyss? In which case maybe in moderation, but I fundamentally disagree.

in a sense I wonder, if this is what he means, what a weird way to view life, that those things that challenge you are negative.

[sweeter]

I think he is ultimately saying that you should be emotionally vulnerable, and you should read things that break through that inner barrier that we all put up. Reading a good book is like making a connection, and becoming emotionally invested in that world and the ideas within it. Turning that last page and knowing that its all over can be a heart-wrenching experience as well. I know I've experienced this indescribable feeling of loss or even grief almost after reading a good book.

That could also mean reading biographies of others lives, love stories, things that challenge your world view and things that are a little above our skill level. There is value in being willing to challenge your own beliefs (if they can't be challenged with a new understanding or new knowledge, then they aren't so much beliefs as they are a doctrine to be followed) and being willing to be emotionally vulnerable.

[TrapLord_Rhodo]

For as long as i can remember ideas have "Struck Me", and the more i read the more "Intellectually Uneasy" i become. I realise faulty assumptions about "What a thing represents" can lead me down a dead "Branch"; Whether in formal systems like math, tech architecture or social matters.

Sometimes as you say, "cynically written" books like 1984 can be have that bite, and thats true, but some books that have "Bite" because makes me go "Whoa!" or a slight panic when my world-view gets changed.

Godel, escher, bach was one of the first books that did that for me. It struck me on the head and i could not put the book down. Concepts of infinity and strange loops dominated my underlying intellectual uneasyness for some time afterwards.

Blood Meridian was also a book that shook my understanding of pre-1800 life. How close to savagery humanity still was only 200 years ago fundamentally shook my understanding of where i stand in relation to my ancestors.

"The Quants" showed me how shaky our financial infrastructure really is.

The Rose Of Paracelsus: On Secrets & Sacraments blew my mind. Spending 20 years to create a masterpeice that would certainly fall into both of your categories at once... a brilliant, cynical book, hopeless and callous in the eyes of a population with the attention span of a tik tok.

[dudinax]

Kafka'd want you to get tougher so some hack can't hurt you.

"Those things fill me with joy and wonder they are just so few and far between."

Yes, but that's what you should be looking for.

[willturman]

“Yes, but that’s what you should be looking for.”

… and you aren’t going to find them in Silicon Valley.

[suoduandao3]

The one book I recall that 'bit and stung' as I think Kafka meant to say was 1984. How would you categorize that work? Torture porn?

[techostritch]

Oh god no, that’s definitely in the cynically written in bad faith hacky partisan politics category. Maybe it just hasn’t aged well, but I couldn’t get through it.

[0xBDB]

This is (to me) a strange comment. I assume it refers to the fact that some right-wingers have latched onto Orwell. But that happened long after his death.

Orwell was a British Socialist, and the people he's attacking in the books are totalitarians, whether fascist or Stalinist. So it's neither bad faith nor partisan unless you count anti-totalitarian as a party, though I guess hacky is in the eye of the beholder.

[ErigmolCt]

"1984" is a quintessential example of literature that challenges and provokes, embodying Kafka’s idea of a book that serves as "the axe for the frozen sea inside us."

[DaoVeles]

A lot of positive change can from works of philosophy.

Thats things that just knock your world view around for a brief moment in a almost confused-joyous-understanding. Make question your intuitions for a little bit.

[ErigmolCt]

I think he's referring to works that provoke profound thought and emotional engagement

[borroka]

"If the book we are reading does not wake us up with a blow to the head, then why read the book?" --

That's the authorial feeling of self-importance making itself visible. Why read the book? Because it might be enjoyable, a pastime, something that makes us dream, reflect, cry, or connect some dots in our lives through a parallel representation of feelings or ideas. There are many reasons, and the "blow to the head" will not and should not be the main reason, especially for older people who have seen some water flowing under the bridge and see the shock factor as artfully constructed and therefore much less provocative than the author intended it to be.

[throwaway290]

Made me check and Google translated it about the same. No unexpected comma or awkward driven into the woods (by whom?), punch is a punch (blow is more generic), but awkward duplication of "one".

> I believe that one should only read books that bite and sting one. If the book we are reading does not wake us up with a punch to the head, why do we read the book? So that it makes us happy, as you write? My God, we would be happy even if we had no books, and if necessary we could write the kind of books that make us happy ourselves. But we need books that affect us like a misfortune that hurts us greatly, like the death of someone we loved more than ourselves, like if we were to venture into the woods, away from everyone, like a suicide; a book must be the axe for the frozen sea within us.

[dmurray]

I liked the ChatGPT version better. The repeated "one" is paticularly jarring and not a stylistic feature of the original (which has man...einen, two different words reasonably translated as "one"). "Misfortune" is a more literal translation than "disaster", but in the context that it greatly hurts us, I prefer the latter. And I'm pretty sure "wir in Wälder vorstoßen würden" is closer to being cast out or driven away than just going for a nice sylvan walk. The passive voice there is faithful to the original. The comma after "disaster" is the only part I don't like in modern English.

[throwaway290]

Cast out vs going out into the woods can tip it over I suppose. Don't know German well enough myself to say but checking word by word it didn't have the being driven out vibe. But it's interesting that the difference is almost nonexistent.

[ThePowerOfFuet]

DeepL:

I think you should only read books that bite and sting you. If the book we're reading doesn't wake us up with a punch to the skull, why are we reading it? So that it makes us happy, as you write? My God, we would be happy even if we didn't have books, and we could write the books that make us happy ourselves if need be. But we need books that have an effect on us like a misfortune that hurts us very much, like the death of someone we preferred to us, like pushing us into the woods, away from all people, like a suicide, a book must be the axe for the frozen sea within us.

[ErigmolCt]

Truly impactful books should provoke deep emotional and intellectual responses

[kaiwen1]

Terrible advice. I can’t imagine anyone following it. Not even Kafka.

[lupusreal]

I don't know anything about the man; what kind of life did Kafka have that happiness was easily had IRL and he needed books to experience misery?

[djeastm]

Kafka's life abounded with misery. Great writer, though

[staunton]

> Kafka's life abounded with misery

Which is to say that his life was objectively mostly very comfortable (for the time) but still miserable in his personal experience.

[ErigmolCt]

I think it's important to understand Franz Kafka's life in context when discussing his experiences