 |
Introduction |
 |
Kafka’s (1993) “A Country Doctor,” published in 1917, and Hedayat’s (2008) “Three Drops of Blood,” published in 1932, are among those narratives that lead the reader into a convoluted maze of symbols and significations which require an in-depth background of knowledge in a variety of fields. However, the two stories have numerous elements in common that force one to ponder if they follow the same pattern of thought and to try to resolve all the abstruseness through a specific theoretical/ideological design. Thus, the aim of this paper is to provide the readers with a psychoanalytic reading of these two stories so as to shed light on their hidden corners, such dark spots that disclose the hidden aspects of the human mentality.
The scope of the paper extends to world literature since it analyzes and then compares and contrasts one Austrian and one Iranian story. As Burt (2001, 224) states, it was in 1883 that Kafka was born and then raised in a Jewish middle-class household in Prague, and later he studied law. According to Katouzian (1991, 17), Hedayat was born in Tehran into a prosperous family in 1903. In 1926, he was sent to Europe to continue his academic studies; nevertheless, it is not clear what he studied there. Based on one account, he started studying dentistry, then turned to engineering, and finally gave up his studies before returning home (Katouzian 1991, 32).
Recent trends in literature have led to a proliferation of studies that focus on comparative literature and tend to analyze works of literature put forth by writers of divergent nationalities. Nonetheless, there seems to be a gap in this respect concerning Iranian literature, particularly those that have been under the influence of towering figures of world literature. Hence, this paper tries to fill the academic gap regarding the work of the prominent Iranian author, Hedayat, who has been influenced by the Austrian writer, Kafka. As Rahimieh (2008, 129) claims, Hedayat’s (Kafka 1977) “The Message of Kafka” [Payâm-e Kâfkâ] reveals that he practically had read Kafka’s correspondence, works of fiction, and fragments. Consequently, this paper addresses Kafka’s influence on Hedayat, focuses on this gap in comparative literature, and attempts to bring home to the readers the complexity of the authors’ maze-like narratives.
On rigorous scrutiny, however, it becomes apparent that the complexity of the two stories can be solved in the light of Freudian psychology, concepts of psychoanalytic approach, and precepts of surrealism in literature. Considering the aforementioned conceptions, the two narratives follow the framework of dreams instead of the reality, since they both occur in the unconscious world and focus specifically on the desires and urges of the major characters. As Friedländer (2013, 119) claims, Kafka in his personal correspondence has compared writing to “a sleep deeper than that of death.” He also talks of powers that are “almost inaccessible under normal conditions,” powers that “shape themselves into literature” (Friedländer 2013, 118). Therefore, the significance of the unconscious and the realm of dreams are embedded in his works.
Freud’s theory concerning the construction of the individual’s psyche and its division into the conscious and the unconscious, and, in particular, the incorporation of the workings of the unconscious in the school of surrealism is the basic theoretical ground.
Hall (1979, 54) maintains that Freud has further divided the psyche into the threefold id, ego, and superego, which sheds light on the deep layers of meaning in both narratives. Thus, first, the doubling of the storylines is discussed and then the triple construction of major characters is analyzed. Finally, the significance of dream-like quality of the stories is taken into account.
this paper, the framework of analysis of the two short stories would be based on a psychoanalytic approach, specifically Freudian psychoanalysis, that is, its emphasis on the dual construction of conscious and unconscious and the tripartite division of psyche into id, ego, and superego. Surrealistic concerns would be of secondary importance, yet pivotal to a comprehensive understanding of the narratives. The importance of this study is based on the fact that these two narratives have never been compared and/or contrasted with each other, notwithstanding their uncanny resemblance to each other. The similarity between the two works and the fact that both of them are heavily under the influence of Freudian psychology is a slight indication of a chain of influence which is at work. This apparent chain of influence is yet another reason for the purpose of analysis in this paper. The series of influences might be as follows: Freud has had a major impact on Kafka and in turn Kafka has had a great influence on Hedayat.
The research question that this study endeavors to address is as follows: How far has the realm of the unconscious mind been instrumental in the composition of these two narratives and what does the above-mentioned chain of influence reveal about the nature of these stories and the psychological disposition of their authors? Generally, as Wake and Malpas (2006) propose, literature and art can be regarded as spheres that allow the expression of repressed desires, those of the author in particular, in a specific form which is socially agreeable. Moreover, what psychoanalytic critics have tried to discover has been a content of prohibited sensual desires which are latent and concealed artistically beneath the surface of the work of art (Wake and Malpas 2006, 70). Both Kafka and Hedayat led internally conflicted lives, and these contradictions have gracefully found expression in their fiction. As Friedländer (2013, 149) suggests, Kafka plainly refers to his bewilderment in life when he describes his efforts to delineate truth as “beating your head against the wall of a windowless and doorless cell.”
These two specific stories have been chosen for a variety of reasons. First, the two narratives mirror each other’s elements—storyline, characterization, themes, and symbols—as though they had been written for the same literary and ideological purpose. In both stories, firstly, the doubling of the storyline occurs, so as to reflect the conscious and the unconscious mind, and then the triple construction of main characters comes to the fore, to stress id, ego, and superego. Secondly, they are both structurally similar. Both were written during the heyday of psychoanalysis in their respective societal contexts of composition. The two narratives equally follow the guidelines of psychoanalysis and surrealism in terms of employing the norms of the unconscious mind as delineated by Freud. They are both incomprehensible without considering the workings and the precepts of psychoanalysis. Finally, these two stories seem to offer the same pessimistic viewpoint toward the world, that is, death is the final yet imminent stop in the journey of life.
The revealing findings of this study solidify the assumption that both writers have been deeply influenced by Freud’s psychoanalytic precepts and that their narrative strands would reach nowhere without considering the workings of the unconscious mind. Moreover, it appears to be reasonable to claim that both stories function as the two supplementary episodes of one larger than life narrative, one that applies to the reality of every human’s life story, the one that held true for both Kafka and Hedayat. |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
