Session 3: Imaginations Twisted and Twisting

3rd Global Conference

Thursday 15th March – Saturday 17th March 2012
Prague, Czech Republic

Writing as Evil
Nuno Amando
University of Lisbon, Portugal

In July 1922, Franz Kafka writes a letter to Max Brod. After saying that writing sustains his life, he claims that it is also a “sweet and wonderful reward for serving the devil”. This means Kafka considered himself a Faust-like figure, and that he somehow traded his life for the ability of writing. It follows from this comparison that he must have been damned in some manner. Kafka’s damnation, I will argue, consisted in what he called his “irrevocable vocation”, the inescapable necessity of writing. In that sense, Kafka’s writing was thus simultaneously an intrinsic evil and the most gratifying of rewards. This Faustian nature of Kafka’s relationship with writing, which criticism usually neglects, is present throughout his work. Evidence for this may be found in Kafka’s diaries and letters, but this peculiar nature is also manifest in short stories such as “The Burrow”, which this presentation will comment. This narrative portrays the project of an indestructible burrow where the story’s main character could live indefinitely (a representation of that which we cannot escape and, at the same time, a reward for itself). Thus interpreted as an allegory for Kafka’s dilemma about writing, “The Burrow” displays, I will finally claim, the damnation of a creature whose only pleasure was also the source of his inborn wickedness.

Dostoevsky on Will to Evil and Sadistic Sexuality
Dina Babushkina
University of Tampere, Finland

The paper analyses the idea and image of the wicked personality in Dostoevsky. Two cases are discussed: a man famous for his wicked behaviour such as murder, robbery, psychological torture and humiliation (Stavrogin), and a fatal and cruel woman (Grushenka) whose passions cause suffering, reckless behaviour and death. The research stands on the crossroads of philosophy, psychology and literature studies.

Dostoevsky offers an insight into the motives and psychology of the wicked personality. The novels of Dostoevsky portray the world of disgust and violence: consumption, blood, dirt, stink, starvation and misery are the circumstances in which the heroes find themselves; murder, suicide, prostitution, raping and child abuse are parts of their life. Dostoevsky’s world is a reality of the most repelling human desires and deeds. The heroes are such that even if they live in a world of wealth and social stability, they create their own hell, and will persist in destroying themselves. Dostoevsky is dark and sadistic. His characters suffer, they want to suffer and they get pleasure from their suffering.

Dostoevsky connects wickedness to voluptuary. The strongest line of the development of the theme of sexuality in Dostoevsky is the explication of sadistic sexuality. What a voluptuary seeks for is a highest degree of the tension of feelings, the source of which they find in pain, suffering and torture.

Sadist sexuality in Dostoevsky is connected to the discussion of ethical ad existential problems. On one hand, it reveals the deepest insight of Dostoevsky, who suggests that human is not only capable of desiring evil, but even finding in it a source of pleasure. On the other hand, Dostoevsky shows the fatalism of the will to evil. The voluptuaries in Dostoevsky are perfectly aware of their wicked will, but they do not accept it. This rejection of oneself, the rejection to be what one is creates an existential situation. The way out of existential crises is either a suicide, or spiritual catastrophe of the hero.

The Pact with Satan in Eurpean Literature: Bulgakov’s Woland and Goethe’s Mephistopheles
Natalia Kaloh Vid
Faculty of Arts, University of Maribor, Slovenia

In the paper I will compare and analyze a classical deal between human and Satan as depicted in Mikhail Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita and in Goethe’s Faust. Similar to doctor Faust, Bulgakov’s main female protagonist Margarita makes a pact with Satan, Woland, selling her soul in exchange for satanic favors. Many critics, among them Marietta Chudakova, state that Bulgakov was conscious of writing within the Faustian tradition, using numerous references to Faust in his narrative, including the most important motif, satanic pact. However, Bulgakov is composing his own Faust, developing and adding to the legend, in fact, using it in the same way he uses the New Testament or the Book of Revelation elsewhere, reinterpreting and recombining in accordance with his creative thought.

Goethe’s Mephistopheles and Bulgakov’s Woland are similar as they both are, “parts of that power which eternally/wills evil and eternally works good.” However, Woland reveals himself to be more than just a literal heir of Mephistopheles. The differences are that Mephistopheles is not apprised of God’s purposes to the extent that Woland is and in contrast to Goethe’s story, the evil that Woland is responsible for does not result in the death of innocent people. In fact, Bulgakov goes further than Goethe by making Woland a direct agent of God and a Minister of Divine law. Comparing pact with Satan in both narratives, I wish to answer the question how and to which extent Bulgakov interprets Goethe’s narrative. Can we say that Bulgakov’s Satan is more evil than Goethe’s? What are the differences between Margarita and Faust? Are there any at all? Or both Bulgakov and Goethe showed that man could step outside the embrace of God and face the world on his/her own to become free?