Orwellian vs. Kafkaesque

Not a comparison of two books, or even two writers, but a comparison of two adjectives that come from writers of literature.

What do you see as the difference between Kafkaesque and Orwellian? If someone tells you "Great book--it was so Orwellian," or "creepy movie--very Kafkaesque," what do you think?

Merriam Webster 11th ed. describes Kafkaesque as: having a nightmarishly complex, bizarre, or illogical quality. The Oxford English Dictionary describes Orwellian as: Characteristic or suggestive of the writings of George Orwell, esp. of the totalitarian state depicted in his dystopian account of the future, Nineteen Eighty-four. Can you describe Nineteen Eighty-four, or other Orwell books, as Kafkaesque? Can Franz Kafka's writing be described as Orwellian?

Are the terms somewhat interchangeable, or distinct?

What an intriguing question you have posed!

I think Kafkaesque and Orwellian are quite different. In Kafka's stories, the nightmarish quality often comes from the bureaucracy. People wait for days in lines, only to be told they're in the wrong line. They struggle to fulfill all the instructions they're given, only to be told they've done everything all wrong and have to start over from the beginning. There's a sort of Waiting-For-Godot hellishness about things. You may not be threatened with physical pain or injury, but you are trapped in a servitude to the state that essentially makes your life meaningless.

In Orwell's 1984, the characters live in a dictatorship where the penalties for free thought and disobedience are physically tortuous and frightening.

But there's a similarity - in both, the government uses words in a way that makes them meaningless. That's both Kafkaesque and Orwellian, I guess!

Just to add my own 2 cents into the discussion, I tend to think of Kafka's bureaucracies as having a certain expressionistic component, "The DMV of Dr. Caligari" if you will. There's something inherently cancerous about systems of government, and his fiction seems to reveal almost an apocalyptic vision of the potential future--a system grown distorted by its own power--its cruelties and inconsistencies having proliferated to the point where they are no longer byproducts but intended consequences of bureaucracy. Perhaps its only true goal, the system so abstracted that it loses touch with human aims.

Orwell's totalitarian governments are no less evil than Kafka's, but they always operate with the principal of holding and exercising power. Big Brother's police force can be just as cruel as anything in Kafka, but they never act out unless someone is a threat (even if only distantly) to the regime, whose continued dominance is the only goal. Its aims are sinister but comprehensible.

I imaging real totalitarian systems share elements of both. Regimes will act cruelly to maintain their own power, but they'll also just act cruelly because that's what the people in the system have become accustomed to. (Of course, even democracies will show Kafkaesque and Orwellian tendencies.)

Oddly enough, this reminds me a bit of the difference between Lovecraft's and Chandler's hostile environments. (It was on my mind recently.) Lovecraft's are cosmic and nightmarish, whereas Chandler's are human.

Great answers, both of you. I'm glad I asked.

I just found this definition in a book titled "The Language of 1984" by W. F. Bolton. This is what he (she?) says about "Orwellian": usually an adjective modifying "nightmare" . . . has become shorthand for ruthless oppression.

Yes, definitely different from Kafkaesque, though I can see cases where the two terms could overlap, or both apply to a situation.

Very interesting reflections, Carlos. I had been thinking that Orwellian was definitely worse, because of the deliberately cruel exercise of power in 1984. But you start from the other perspective, and I can see your point in doing so. As in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it was generally possible for an ordinary person to stay out of trouble by following the rules and never, ever criticizing the government (despite the arbitrary and sometimes incoherent basis of the rules). It was more difficult, of course, for people close to or involved in the government. But in a Kafkaesque system, the rules are vague and constantly shifting, so that it's impossible to follow them, even though you must. Bringing in Animal Farm, "everything not forbidden is mandatory," except in Kafka, some things are both forbidden and mandatory.

I've just finished an extensive browse (i.e. not an end to end reading) through Kafka's Short Stories, and I don't get any sense of a Kafkaesque "system" there, although the whole world seems baffling and unreliable (in an unsystematic way).

I'm just wondering if that sense of a nightmarish bureaucracy, from which there is no escape and to which there is no recourse, is stronger in the novels (which I haven't read)? (Should I?)

And isn't it a dreadful irony that we should use "Orwellian", a word referring to one of the clearest thinkers and (better) clearest writers of the 20th century, to refer to the opposite of what he thought desirable?

Just random thoughts there. Sorry I can't join them up better.

If memory serves, Kafka's novel The Castle is the one that most vividly captures the sense of an out-of-control bureaucracy with vague and shifting rules, which gave rise to the term Kafkaesque. Another example of the Kafkaesque (not, however, written by Kafka) is the scene in the movie "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" in which one of the progatonists has been unjustly sentenced to death, and her fellow travelers must get various papers attesting to her innocence stamped by a series of excruciatingly slow bureaucrats while she is being hustled to the place of execution.

This is a timely topic, as a federal judge recently ruled against what he called an "Orwellian" scheme to make Amazon.com turn over customer purchase records. See http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071127/D8T68B4O1.html for the news story.

To me Kafka and Orwell are heading towards the same place but the means are different. Kafka's prose tends more to an obsessed dreamlike quality--recurring motifs, doubles or twins, endless shrinking hallways and doors. His main characters always in some state of confusion, always out of step with their surroundings and the other people in his novels--these characters are always like the ultimate stranger--rational but in an irrational world they become the ones who are irrational. I think with Orwell here we're being asked to comment more on less on two of his works--in the one he attempts to structure his work as a kind of parable (Animal farm) and in the other as kind of a sci-fi visionary frame (1984) as an attempt to see where totalitarianism might lead but juggling in real human emotion. He's really commenting on a specific (Soviet) kind of communism and with his own particular political agenda in mind.

The ultimate stranger - yes, good point. And there's a convergence, I think. In the totalitarian worlds of Orwell, no true intimacy is allowed, because to be intimate one must express one's true thoughts.

There is also an distinct element of the 'political' and the 'personal' that divides the two writers. Much of Orwell's work, even beyond the obvious Animal Farm and 1984, deals with the socio-political climate of his time - he is writing to make a specific point about a political viewpoint/ideology. Kafka, on the other hand, is more personal - his work deals with (a) man's existential crisis.

You know Jargoneer I think I meant to say something along those lines in my long winded way--you just said it so much more clearly and succintly. Great post.

I just want to say thanks to everyone who replied to my question. Your answers were way beyond what I expected, and I found them helpful and informative. You guys are the best!

Thanks for asking! You sparked a great discussion.

I opened my newspaper yesterday morning, and out came an example of "Kafkaesque," again from a legal case. This one is from the arguments before the Supreme Court about the Guantanamo prisoners. The attorney for the prisoners used the word to describe the procedures currently in use to provide hearings for the prisoners. Here's the link: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20071206&Category=N...

My understanding of the difference is that Kafkaesque means depressingly far-fetched, and Orwellian is depressingly not-far-fetched-enough.

Hmmm. Interesting insight, weener. Except I think I encounter the Kafkaesque fairly often in my own personal experience. How about rebates on product purchases? That generally has a Kafkaesque quality. Or those folks who stood in line for hours and hours to vote in Ohio, and then the polls closed before they could get to the front of the line, or else they had to go to work in order to keep their jobs. Perhaps that qualifies as both Kafkaesque and Orwellian. And now that I think of it, listening to a speech by GWB might qualify as Orwellian. This topic is political by nature, and I'm revealing my political orientation - do any conservatives want to weigh in?

I've always found listening to GWB was a waste of time. I don't even listen to his State of the Union speeches. For all the information one gets from a George Bush speech he might as well spend twenty minutes burbling his lips with his fingers.

Speaking about GWB less than favorably does not reflect one's political biases as much as it shows you've been paying attention.

Actually, I've noticed there are a few major screeds against GWB in the Political Conservatives group, and by genuine conservatives, not just visitors. Though not everyone feels that way.

On GWB--he is just incompetent and there is general agreement across the board on it. That doesn't mean the partisans on either side don't continue to hope for this or that candidate. I think most people can't wait--will feel relieved when he is gone. He has done a lot of damage. People around the world and not just in Middle Eastern countries look at us as the world's ogres now. Personal opinion--I don't like the Clinton's either. Bill lost me forever after the Nafta debacle. It's almost as hard to find a democrat as it is a republican who isn't lining up corporate sponsors. I can very easily see myself voting third party again.

I so agree on the corporate sponsors business. On the other hand, with our current system, voting third party just means one's third choice is more likely to win the election than one's second choice. I would like to see instant run-off ballots, which would solve this problem and make third-party candidates more viable.

The internet is facilitating an amazing breakthrough on candidate funding. Suddenly, there are candidates who are raising large amounts of money in small donations by regular folks. Barack Obama on the Democratic side and Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee on the Republican side seem to be doing quite well without a lot of corporate sponsors.

I absolutely agree with instant run off balloting margad. Problem is I don't see either of the two parties ever giving an inch on it. It would not be in their interest. It's been interesting to see Huckabee coming out of nowhere recently--also interesting to see Paul raising the kind of money he is--unfortunately for him it doesn't look as if he's got enough popular support. He could possibly run third party if he chose and do fairly well--I'm not crazy about some of the libertarian message he brings. I absolutely agree with him though on Iraq and foreign interventions in general. We have no business playing world policeman. We have enough problems at home being neglected and ignored. Obama is possibly someone I could hold my nose and vote for. In any case if the democrats don't carry New York State easily they're dead in the water. I have no fear that whoever the democratic nominee is he or she is going to win the state. Even against Giuliani--even if it's a candidate not named Hilary. Everything has been trending against the republicans in the last two-three years. Someone like Huckabee could turn it around some--but their problem is arrogance--(not necessarily those who vote republican). Huckabee seems to be very free of that. They have a lot of senate seats to protect this year and a lot of retirements in both houses. However the presidential part of the election turns out--they're set up to take a real whipping in '08--especially if they can't turn the mood of the country around and GWB is apt to make things a lot harder for them in the meantime.

Unfortunately, lriley, I agree with you about the dim prospects for getting instant run-off balloting. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, but I found myself quite drawn to Huckabee until he started running those "Christian leader" ads in Iowa. I hear he supports the teaching of creationism in schools; if so, I could never vote for him. Ron Paul sounds saner than all the other Republican candidates as long as he stays on the subject of Iraq - when he strays from that subject, he sometimes sounds a bit wild-eyed to me.

I'm a little jealous that your vote will count in the primary election. Out here in Oregon, our primary comes so late that everything is over but the shouting by the time we vote. We have a choice of reinforcing the party's chosen candidate by increasing that candidate's margin of victory, or voting in protest for someone who has already lost.

I refuse to vote 'lesser evil' candidates. Losing can be disastrous--but winning isn't everything. I will find someone to vote for though. I would mention one other thing about third party candidacies--if a party's nominee gets I believe it is something like 3% of the vote--they are eligible for federal campaign monies in the next federal election. This could be a great help to the Greens, the Libertarians (who I'm not crazy about), the Socialists or whoever. Building a viable third party from the ground up is extremely difficult but not necessarily impossible. Looking around the world most other countries have more choices or party's than we do and many other countries have coalition style-power sharing governments. A faction drops away or a vote of no confidence and a new election may be called before the term is over. Nothing necessarily wrong with this. I think even a lot of Republican voters in 2004 wouldn't mind calling a stop to this administration right now.

I like the Greens, but not at the expense of electing a "greater evil." My sister voted for Nader in 2000, and may be one of the drops in the bucket that got GWB into the White House. I think the reason why most other countries have more parties (more viable ones, at any rate) than we do is that they have governmental structures and election systems that make coalition-style governing an option - we don't.

I sure wish we could put a stop to this administration - starting yesterday, or as long as I'm wishing for the impossible, starting 7 years ago!

Iriley- regarding voting for "lesser evils" i beg to disagree- think back to 2000 - if those who had voted for Nader had more naturally ,held their noses, and voted for Gore we and the rest of the world would certainly be better off.

Regarding kafka and Orwell for me Kafka is definitely more on the personal level and less political - his take on reality is filled with anxiety and the bizarre twists life can take while Orwell's commentary is more on a political and societal level. Kafka is more Freudian and Orwell is more Marxist.

FWIW--I feel the need to like the person I vote for. To not only agree with him/her at least on some of what they say but I need to feel they speak with some kind of conviction. I didn't get this from Gore and I do not regret not voting for him--he won NYS and its electoral votes anyway--like you would figure. To go a little further I have a problem with the amount of money that's now involved--has been involved for quite a while--and the corporate sponsorship and the need to be 'vetted'. Even in the democratic party there is this elitism thing going on. There's almost no way to be fair to Bush--he has done a lot of damage but one also wonders how different things might be if he hadn't ignored the 9-11 warning signals. That day set the stage for everything that has happened since. In any case we need more diverse opinion--a more open political system--maybe more than two political parties dividing everything between them. If not now--then when?

i appreciate your optimism/idealism- I have become more of a realist (and jaded) as i grow older- your viewpoint would be better suited for a Parliammentary System...do i hear you looking North- Canada harkening...hockey, diverse opinions, etc.

Actually Bert I wouldn't mind a parliamentary system here-and coalition governments and no confidence votes making for new elections if need be before the term is up. And not meaning to critique the democrats too hard as I do like them a lot better but they seem to knuckle under too easily. Reid and Pelosi have had an underwhelming year or so in the supposed catbird seat. And now Lieberman is endorsing McCain for president. I got to think that it is just about time to cut ties with him.

A brief scenario and then two questions --

A person finds him/her self in a dark tunnel. (S)he does not know how (s)he got into the tunnel, but is palpably yet indistinctly aware that some menace is behind him/her and coming closer. (S)he starts to walk more and more quickly. Soon (s)he is running -- heart pounding. Hands emerge from the wall to clutch at him/her with long-taloned fingers, and a hoarsely whispering voice keeps repeating the single word "choose!" Suddenly, (s)he reaches the end of the tunnel only to be confronted by two doors; one marked "Kafkaesque", the other "Orwellian."

1. Which door does (s)he open?
2. If the door (s)he chooses leads to Bill Clinton's bedroom, what one word would best describe this entire fantasy?

Ha ha! I love it!

1. I open Kafkaesque, in the hopes that it's all a nightmare and I wake up. Orwellian is guaranteed to be certain doom.

2. Bill Clinton's bedroom would definitely be Kafkaesque, again, hoping it's all a dream. In this scenario, I'd have a nice chat with him and ask him if he wants to do crossword puzzles together. Fully clothed, sitting on chairs around a table, drinking tea (not all cozy-like on the bear-skin run in front of the fireplace, drinking cosmopolitans).

LOL, jburlinson. I'm recuperating from a bad case of the flu, and a good laugh is always welcome at such times!

jburlinson- a creative metamorphosis and joining of the 2 threads above...i would say that the political times we are living through with Bush feel Orwellian in their authoritarian approach and, if Hiliary makes it, we will surely be moving into a more Kafkaesque moment with Bill lurking around the White House. Could Bill turn into a giant bug?

Kafkaesque vs Orwellian?

Kafka tell us that our lives are beyond our contol. We're like marionettes attached to strings. He does this by describing commonplace scenarios with reassuring props such as mother, job, house, lawyer. Then, almost imperceptibly, it becomes more like a nightmare. The things we would like to think might help - friends, advice, processes, letters, rationality, don't. This disillusionment also proves that we don't understand our lives. We can't see the strings. By the way, maybe we shouldn't knock religion to hard. We all rely on it in one form or another.

With Orwell, the focus is on a nation rather than the individual, and the problems he poses therefore seem to be political ones. I therefore regard the terms as distinct in most contexts, although there is some ovelap. For example, should you vote? Both terms might be applied to that dilemma.

Raggedprince, you've put your finger on an important distinction: the personal vs. the political. The political, of course, has personal implications and vice-versa, as you point out.

What an interesting thread this was.

Upon first glance at thread title I thought the two'd nothing in common. 'Kafkaesque' has become meaningless to me because it seems that every 2nd non-Anglophone novel lacking a conventional plot gets blurb comparing it to Kafka, though I agree that it was first used to imply bureaucracy as nightmare. 'Orwellian' took me aback until I remembered that Orwell wrote fiction and that it refers to 1984. And upon reflection & reading the thread the two writers still seem to me apples & oranges. Well perhaps not quite: Neither looked on the bright side, fair do's, & both are probably best read when one is young.