“Jackals and Arabs” is perhaps the epitome of “Kafkaesque” literature. Though this piece is a short, and at first glance, basic story, it may be read as an allegory for a much deeper message of the state of Jews in the modern world.

The story begins with a man from the north who is with a group of Arabs. The story takes a sharp turn toward surreal and bizarre when a pack of jackals surround him and explain their hatred of the Arabs and that they have been waiting for him to end their long standing dispute by killing the Arabs with their scissors, as is part of their prophecy. We see already a Kafkaesque journey for a solution to their problem. In a manner similar to other Kafka stories, an animal is used to represent the Jews as primitive and barbaric “brutes” (410). Through this conflict,  Kafka seems to be commenting on the condition of Jews throughout the world. When the Arab enters and sees the narrator talking to the jackals, we see his perspective.

“So, you too, sir, have seen and heard this spectacle,” said the Arab, laughing as cheerfully as the reticence of his race permitted. “So you know what the animals want,” I asked. “Of course, sir,” he said. “That’s common knowledge—as long as there are Arabs, these scissors will wander with us through the deserts until the end of days. Every European is offered them for the great work; every European is exactly the one they think qualified to do it. These animals have an absurd hope. They’re idiots, real idiots. That’s why we’re fond of them. They are our dogs, finer than the ones you have. Now, watch this. In the night a camel died. I have had it brought here.”

Four bearers came and threw the heavy carcass right in front of us. No sooner was it lying there than the jackals raised their voices. Every one of them crept forward, its body scraping the ground, as if drawn by an irresistible rope. They had forgotten the Arabs, forgotten their hatred.” (410).

From this passage, we can see the cruelty of the Arabs to the jackals, and the extent of their power over them. To the Arabs, the jackals are mere entertainment and can be exploited and manipulated. The Arabs, representing the west, are clearly less favorable to the jackals than the European, who represents the east. Kafka’s preferences toward eastern Judaism as more authentic than western Judaism are very clear here. However, more generally, I believe Kafka is commenting on the prevalent “Jewish problem” throughout Europe during the modern period. Jews were viewed as distinct and harmful, and antisemitism was rampant. Kafka makes it clear that the jackals merely want freedom from the Arabs, but once the Arab brings them a camel carcass, they forget their hatred for the Arabs and cling to the carcass. I think this is representative of Jews being granted some freedoms or some level of acceptance. When this happens, they forget all of their oppression. Earlier in the story, the eldest jackal noted that they must do everything with their teeth, whether good or bad, but they instead choose to rely on the narrator, the man from the North. They have high hopes for the narrator to save them from the Arabs, almost as a messianic figure. However, the story ends on a note that this will never happen, and that this hope is futile.

With this interpretation, it is not surprising that this story was first published in a Zionist magazine. It seems to suggest that the Jews need a place of their own, and they must take their fate into their own hands. However, it ends with a very pessimistic, Existentialist ending, implying that the Jews will not do so.

Works Cited:

Kafka, Franz. “Jackals and Arabs.” The Sons. N.p.: Schoken, 1989. 407-11. Print.

Kafka explores the idea of modernism through his short story, “The Judgment.” In one particular passage Kafka writes of a “friend” of Georg Bendemann who migrates to Russia in order to escape the mundane life at home, seeking freedom to pursue a lifestyle that he finds satisfying. Kafka includes some modern commonalities in this passage:

“He was thinking about his friend, who had actually run away
to Russia some years before, being dissatisfied with his prospects
at home. Now he was carrying on a business in St. Petersburg, which had flourished to begin with but had long been going downhill, as he always complained on his increasingly rare visits. So he was wearing himself out to no purpose in a foreign country, the unfamiliar full beard he wore did not quite conceal the face Georg had known so well since childhood, and his skin was gro6ing so yellow as to indicate some latent disease. By his own account he had no regular connection with the colony of his fellow countrymen out there and almost no social intercourse with Russian families, so that he was resigning himself to becoming a permanent bachelor” (77).

The modern idea of traveling, of running away to a foreign land filled with unknown possibilities, and pursuing something that was unattainable in a former life is seen here with Georg’s “friend” running away to Russia because he found his prospects at home to be “dissatisfying.” This idea of traveling away is a modern idea of changing one’s lifestyle through the technological advancements of different apparatus of travel. Not only is the concept of running away found in this passage, but also the concept of life being disparaging and despairing is found here as well. He found good prospects in this foreign land; he was able to get a company off the ground and succeeded initially at this venture, however, things took a turn for the worse for his business and began to nosedive. To make matters worse, he was stricken with an illness as well, and seems unable to make social connections or relationships, condemning himself to a life alone. Though initially reading about running away from his problems seems somewhat romantic, life catches up with him regardless of his location. His “friend” has run into the reality that life’s hardships are found anywhere, and this seems to be a modern theory.

The idea of escaping is much like that of traveling and running away. It can be seen throughout the short story. Georg, like his friend, wishes to escape, however, Georg’s desired escape looks nothing like that of his friend. While his friend tries to evade the displeasures of his life at home by escaping to another country, Georg hopes to escape his father’s judgment and abuse. He feels inconsequential compared to his father’s presence, as it’s written, “’My father is still a giant of a man’” (81). This feeling of inadequacy strikes a chord with Georg, and when his father continues on a rant later on, Georg reacts in a physical disconnect with his father. Georg does not want to be present with the emotional torment his father is imposing on him, as his father stands upon his bed ranting about Georg’s shortcomings as a man. Georg reacts very negatively to this, “Georg shrank into a corner, asfar away from his father as possible” (85). Here we see that Georg physically wants to be separate from his father, he wants to, it seems, run away from all of this. By the end of the short story Georg is successful at escaping the emotional distress imposed upon him by his father through suicide. The question arises of who is truly successful at escape: Georg or his friend? It seems that though Georg’s friend’s escape is thrust into a downward spiral, at least there is no end to his escape, meaning there is hope. This could be seen as a positive thing, especially if he is able to turn his life around, however, this can also be viewed in the negative as well because if he is unable to turn his failures into successes then an end seems merciful and preferable. If that is the case then it seems Georg’s escape, his death, is the more successful one, though it is much more morbid and depressing. This attests to the modern trend of incorporating death and despair into the literature.

Work Cited:

Kafka, Franz. The Sons. “The Judgment.” N.P.: Schoken, 1989. 77. Print.

In his short story “In the Mail Coach,” I.L. Peretz remarks on the gender disparities of marriage in modernizing Jewish communities. During one portion of the journey, Peretz’s neighbor begins to discuss his home life and it’s intricacies, citing instances of marital discord. The neighbor sets the scene, stating it all took place “five or six years ago, six years, a year after the wedding- we were still being supported by my family while I studied in thebeysmedresh” (107). With little information given, already one can identify the clear distinction between the roles of a man and a wife. The husband need not work for income or maintain the house. He spends all day studying the Talmud and thus leaves homely tasks for, presumably, his wife or parents to accomplish. Yet he also makes no mention of his wife’s daily activities. Later, the neighbor finds his wife aimless and wandering. She explains she is bored, but this feeling is all too foreign for her husband to understand.

“What is it to be bored? Something for women only, no doubt. These women are an unknown tribe. A man is not bored, a man has no time to be bored. A man is either hungry or full, he is involved in business affairs, or he is in the study house, or he sleeps. If he has an extra minute, he smokes a pipe- but bored?” (108) The neighbor is content with his life of learning and cannot understand how his wife is able to feel bored. He has set tasks to do and when they have been accomplished, he sleeps. This presents a vast disconnect between the husband and wife. Not only does he fail to mention her everyday affairs, but he also does not mention any interaction whatsoever with her throughout the day. Never does the neighbor discuss returning home to his wife or spending time with his family. In his spare minutes, he even passes over spending time with his wife in favor of a tobacco pipe and a light. The spotlight rests selfishly on the husband while the wife fades into the background. His statement of women as an “unknown tribe” only further indicates his lack of involvement with his wife. She only appears a mystery because the husband makes no clear effort to understand her situation.

Works Cited

Perec, Icchok Lejb. “In the Mail Coach.” The I. L. Peretz Reader. New Haven: Yale UP, 2002. 107-            08. Print.

In Peretz’s short story, “In the Mail Coach,” he tells the story of a Jewish man from Konskivola, Chaim, who seems to be struggling with the idea of modernization. Peretz deals with both the oppression of women in tradition Jewish society and the effects of anti-semitism on both Jews and Gentiles in Poland.

Chaim tells his story in first person and describes his encounters with different individuals in a mail coach. He has a very difficult time understanding the views and ideologies of these people. Peretz explores these two separate worlds: one of the man and one of the woman.

As the story reads, it seems as if Chaim speaks of his wife as if he did not know her very well for he doesn’t even know how educated she is. However, he is aware of the fact that she has a burning desire to read Talmud because that is how he was occupying his time.  “She begged me, she cried, she swooned, she carried on for so long that I finally gave in. I used to translate a page of Gemara for her each evening, but I knew from the beginning how it would end” (109). Most men at the time, were intolerant of women being educated. Chaim, on the other hand, gives into her request and begins reading a page of the Gemara to her each night, even though he could already foresee the outcome. Peretz notes that every time Chaim reads to his wife, she falls asleep. The way Peretz presents that piece is extremely interesting to me. At first he leads you to believe that change is possible, that women can read Gemara just as men can. However, he then refutes that point by saying that Chaim’s wife found these texts boring. Therefore, we see that both Chaim and his wife were not yet ready for movement because they didn’t quite understand how to live in this world together.

Through the introduction of the book, we understand that Peretz is a Modernist and assumes that Jews will have to change with the times and integrate into a humanistic culture. He focuses on the issues that people face having been brought up in one way of life and then having to invent another.

In this short story, Peretz highlights the struggles of a young married couple who live in the same house, but think in two completely distinct and different spaces.

Works Cited:

Peretz, I.L. “In the Mail Coach.” The I.L. Peretz Reader. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Print.

Kafka-esque literature has exemplified themes of modernism by focusing on incomplete quests and impersonal collective structures. Franz Kafka’s short story, “The Judgement,” utilizes these themes and others to represent certain points that characterize the modern condition. Most of this work focuses on the main character, Georg Bendemann, and his need to send letters to his friend that moved to Russia. He shares the minute details of his life, but voluntarily chooses not to write about his engagement to a woman. He feels that the information would be a burden to his Russian friend since he would have to make the long trek back to attend the wedding. Therefore, I believe that Georg does not want to accept the change in his own life. Readers understand this fear through examining its opposite: the way in which Georg mocks his friend’s new lifestyle in Saint Petersburg. Georg’s inability to accept change and what happens as one ages represents Kafka’s classic theme of an incomplete journey:

“What could one write to such a man, who had obviously run off the rails, a man one could be sorry for but could not help. Should one advise him to come home, to transplant himself and take up his old friendships again- there was nothing to hinder him- and in general to rely on the help of friends? But that was as good as telling him, and the more kindly the more offensively, that all his efforts hitherto had miscarried, that he should finally give up, come back home, and be gaped at by everyone as a returned prodigal, that only his friends knew what was what and that he himself was just a big child who should do what his successful and home-keeping friends prescribed” (Kafka 77-78).

Bendemann believes that his friend is struggling in Russia, solely because he has started a new life far away from his original home. Perhaps, he believes that this man has no friends there because of his stubborn advice to rekindle his friendship from his true home. Additionally, George states that if his friend returns, he will be “gaped at by everyone as a returned prodigal,” suggesting that it would not be a positive experience for his friend upon his return. Unfortunately, readers realize that these are only excuses for Bendemann’s lack of change in his life. He does not have the maturity that is necessary to separate himself from his childhood home or from his father. He refuses to accept the happiness that his friend mostly likely achieved by removing himself from the childish ways of home. Bendemann’s incomplete journey, or lack thereof, highlights the usage of the modern condition found in Franz Kafka’s work.

Works Cited:

Kafka, Franz. “The Judgement.” The Sons. N.p.: Schoken, 1989. 77-88. Print.

In his short story “In the Mail Coach,” I.L. Peretz portrays to the reader how men and women, more specifically how husbands and wives, interact on a daily basis. By riding on the mail coach, a type of informal travel, Peretz discusses with the other riders on the coach about themselves and their daily lives.

Upon talking with Chaim, one of his neighbors on the mail coach, Peretz listens to Chaim’s stories about his married life. Chaim comments on his wife’s desire to become knowledgeable by saying, “She wants, she says, to read. Read what? Polish, German, even the Yiddish translation of the Bible, so long as it is something to read…I would pick up some books for her…I used to translate a page of Gemara for her each evening…Now the situation became reverse. She read to me…” (109). Peretz is able to comment on the modern idea that women are interested in becoming more learned. By entering the market place, women are able to partake in learning new languages and therefore are starting to take a larger role in modern society.

Chaim is confused as to why his wife would want to take part in education, since it is considered to be in the man’s domain. Although, he is puzzled at his wife’s request, Chaim gives in and buys her books. For Chaim’s wife, it is not enough that her husband bought her novels; she also wants to be a part of the formal learning that takes place in the Beit Midrash. Chaim’s wife is an example of 19th century women becoming more aware of what is occurring in the world.

Peretz focuses on the dynamics between a husband and his wife in the family life setting. In the modern world, novels are becoming a symbol for being more productive and more academic. Women, in general, are becoming restless, while their husbands study in the Beit Midrash all day. Chaim’s wife is carrying on that she wants to be a part of her husband’s academic world, even though the Gemurah says that as a woman, she is not permitted to study it. Not only does she want to read a novel, but she also wants to partake in the studying that occurs in the Beit Midrash. She wants to become more knowledgeable and scholarly, similar to Chaim, rather than taking care of the household all the time. Chaim’s wife is able to overcome the language barrier by learning the new languages when entering the market in order to collect all the items she needs for the household. It is a very forward-thinking idea, according to Peretz, that a woman is interested in entering the world of her husband. The role of the woman is understood to be in the home, taking care of the children and the house; now, Peretz is demonstrating to show that women are going to push through the barrier of inequality between men and women.

Works Cited

Peretz, I.L. “In the Mail Coach” The I.L. Peretz Reader. New Heaven: Yale University Press, 2002. Print.

In his short story, “In the Mail Coach,” Peretz reveals his experience, as a Jewish writer living in 19th century Poland, undergoing the shift of modernism.  Just from the title of the story, Peretz already expresses his fascination with Modernist thought.  The symbol of the “Mail Coach” represents the theme of travel: the idea that all people can be connected via advancements in industry and technology.  However, Peretz specifically themetizes travel for his purposes by way of the mail coach.  Rather than a train, a more luxurious and modern form of travel, Peretz moves by mail coach to symbolize the life of the common people, the life of his people.  Via the mail coach, Peretz encounters a variety of people.  Through this contact he explores the implicit differences between human beings.

Although Peretz distinguishes the differences between all the stories of the people he meets, he is still able to identify with all of them.  He finds that each individual has something significant to offer that he wants to share with his readers because both he and his readers will relate to them.  In true modernist fashion, Peretz introspectively reflects on these distinctions between people:

“Two separate worlds, a man’s world and a woman’s world—a world of the Talmudic ‘Four Categories of Damages,’ and a world of storybooks, bought by the carton.

When he reads, she falls asleep; when she reads, he falls asleep.  It’s not enough that we have different sects, not enough that we classify people according to French noses, English canes, German hunters, Lithuanian pigs, Polish beggars, Eretz Yisrael wanderers, not enough that every part of the body lies in a separate stall and has a different-sounding name, not enough that every one of these parts is further separated into different sections—Hasidim, misnagdim, ‘Germans’—but we are also divided into males and females, so that in each and every narrow, damp, squalid Jewish home there are two distinct worlds.

When he reads, she falls asleep; when she reads, he falls asleep.  At the least, I think, we ought to unite the two worlds.  It is the debt of every Yiddish writer—but Yiddish writers have too many debts of their own.  If only we had some supplement to our income!” (110-111).

This passage directly expresses Peretz’ theme of distinction between people, but in a more progressive manner.  Not only does he distinguish between people in a cultural and national light, which creates divisions between all, but he is most concerned with the separation between men and women.  In Peretz’ world women were not seen as equal to men: they could not study, barely read for that matter, and were essentially seen as mothers and housewives.  For his time, it was very progressive for him to outright state that this separation of worlds is not just.  In the modern world that Peretz experiences, he questions why these primitive distinctions are still so socially significant.  Even further expressing qualities of Modern thought, Peretz notes that it is the duty of Yiddish writers to diminish this distinction of worlds.  He implies that secular writing of the Yiddish culture can transcend these divisions.  Although cultural identity persists (which he satirizes with colloquial stereotypes of each nationality), he opines that basic humans, man and woman, should experience one world.  In addition to this progressive theme of gender roles creating further distinction between the variety of people on the mail coach, a vehicle of travel, Peretz’ writing style also embodies his Modernist approach.  His words in this passage flow with repeated lines that drive home his point.  The fluid comparison of nationalities is reminiscent of a painting with opposing strokes hashing a canvas, which finally creates one product.  Therefore, Peretz’ Modern style ultimately exemplifies his theme: these distinctions exist, as separate lines and stories show their social importance, yet in the end they comprise one painting.  The divisions that peoples’ identities create still exist in one world; a world that Peretz’ sees as a place where progression is possible, and where modern thought can erase lines of distinction.

Works Cited:
Peretz, I.L. “In the Mail Coach.” The I.L. Peretz Reader. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Print.

In Peretz’s short story, “In the Mail Coach,” he illustrates the process of becoming modern through the shift from separate gender roles to the desire of both the male and female to be apart of each other’s lives. He concludes that this shift ought to occur. He illustrates the need for the shift by sharing an anecdote of a man he met on the mail coach: “‘I translated a page of from ‘The Four Categories of Damages’ – the ox, the pit, the grazing animal, and the incendiary – together with the commentaries of Rashi, the Tosashop, and the Maharsha. I recited the lesson in the traditional singsong, and she fell asleep as I read to her, night after night – it is not for women! But that winter I had a stroke of luck when a peddler strayed into Konskivola during the great blizzard and sold me a whole crate of storybooks. Now the situation became reverse. She read to me and I fell asleep. To this very day,’ he continued ‘I can’t understand what there is in these stories. Men surely won’t find anything in them! Tell me, do you only write for women?’” (109)

The woman’s desire to read Talmud and Gemara is modern; yet, it is ironic that she falls asleep. While she wants to be a part of the man’s world, she does not understand it; nor, does he understand hers. This illustrates the world before the modern shift – the men and women lived separate worlds.

The story continues: “Two separate worlds, a man’s world and a woman’s world – a world of the Talmudic ‘Four Categories of Damages,’ and a world of story books, bought by the carton.”

When he reads, she falls asleep; when she reads, he falls asleep. It’s not enough that we have different sects, not enough that we classify people according to French noses, English canes, German hunters, Lithuanian pigs, Polish beggars, Eretz Yisrael wanderers, not enough that every part of the body lies in a separate stall and has a different-sounding name, not enough that every one of these parts is further separated into different sections – Hasidism, misnagdim, “Germans” – but we are also divided into males and females, so that each and every narrow, damp, squalid Jewish home there are two distinct worlds.

When he reads, she falls asleep; when she reads, he falls asleep. At the least, I think, we ought to unite the two worlds. It is the debt of every Yiddish writer – but Yiddish writers have too many debts of their own. If only we had some supplement to our income!” (110-111)

This interaction between the man and women wonderfully depicts the shift from separate to united worlds, while addressing the difficulties associated with the changing times. Both the man and the women want to be apart of each other’s lives; yet, this is not quite possible. The women are immersed in their responsibilities as mothers and wives, while also in the broader culture, speaking Polish, German, and Yiddish. The men are immersed in Judaic studies. While the concept of distinct gender roles is clear to us today, it was not openly discussed in Peretz’s time. Furthermore, it was almost unheard of to explicitly condone this custom. Thus, Peretz’s writing is extremely advanced and forward thinking. Through illustrating that people were slowly attempting to live in a single, united world, rather than one separated by numerous sects, Peretz conveys the modern shift.

Works Cited:
Peretz, I.L. “In the Mail Coach.” The I.L. Peretz Reader. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Print.

The I.L. Peretz Reader- “In the Mail Coach”

Peretz has talks about modernity subtly throughout his works. In “In the Mail Coach,” Peretz is talking to his neighbor Chaim for the short ride there. He is talkative and tells him about his wife from Warsaw. There is a lot of references to the old world, such as the “grimy Jewish boys kheyder” versus “the bright emancipated gymnasium,” and the concept of women not traditionally studying. However, there are many signs where his modernism shows through.

We also see the concept of Jews having to work all day for a living as a new idea, as opposed to studying all day in the cheyder. It’s shown in a passage on p. 106:

“Tell me, I beg you, what good are these stories? I don’t mean yours, of course,” he quickly corrects himself. “God forbid! A Jew must earn a living. Even if he has to squeeze it out of the bare walls – there’s no question – what doesn’t a Jew do for a living? Take my case, for example. I had no other choice but to go by mail coach, and only God knows if I am not, at this very moment, sitting on a ritually forbidden mixture of cloth. But I mean the readers. What do they get out of these stories? Is there anything of value in hem? What do you write in your books? (p. 107)”

We see the concept of men working as a new idea, and a legitimate idea, with there being no other option. On the other hand, we see women working hard for their money too. On the complete opposite end, we also see women wanting to study and read, because they are bored of housework. The author and Chaim have a discussion about this: “a woman doesn’t study Talmud, she takes no part in public affairs, she isn’t even responsible for carrying out the six hundred and thirteen precepts… being bored meant having nothing to do.” The wife begged and cried to please teach her something or let her read.

Modernism is seen in many ways throughout the story, but like a good writer, Peretz only hints to it and doesn’t explain it flat out, leaving it a puzzle for the reader.