Mind Map: Hunger

This is my mind map connecting the novel Hunger by Knut Hamsun to Existentialism, various literary elements, and Christianity.

Enjoy.

Hamsun and his characters are truly unknowable

James Wood's Knut Hamsun's Christian Perversions clearly defined some of the central ideas of Hamsun's Hunger. One thing Wood describes is how Hamsun criticizes society: on page 94, Wood states "the outrageous and mendacious hero strops his dangerous individuality against the leathery norms of the community". I think this applies quite well to Hunger, as the protagonist is clearly different from the "norm". In another novel, Mysteries, society is described as gullible, mechanical, habitual, and meaningless: this is similar to Hunger as the protagonist sometimes tries to do what he thinks is right (like giving away money, being respectable, and showing his intelligence and gentleman-ness) yet never gains any respect or benefit from doing what society deems as 'good'. I think Ylayali could perhaps represent this idea as well, as she flirts with the protagonist and seems to truly like him- yet when he tells her she has no money and is probably crazy, he finds her on the arm of another man. Later on, Wood states how the protagonists "cast themselves out... on the enormous centrifuge of their own pride". Pride plays a great deal in the actions of the protagonist. This stresses the idea that the protagonist himself causes what is happening to him, and not anyone else who he feels compelled to blame. These things could emphasize in fact how much of society live their lives. Although the protagonist seems so much like an outcast, instead he might in reality represent the people who merely follow society's rules: how people try so hard to do what they are told and yet are pushed down and scorned by the very thing they are trying so hard to be. Because we view the protagonist as somewhat of a lunatic, we could as well look at society as being crazy and pointless as well.

All of these ideas, however, could also fall under the category of criticism of Christianity. Looking at christian ideals, it does seem as if the protagonist follows the rules and again is always worse off than before. Wood points out how the Christian system of "reward and punishment, confession and absolution, pride and humility" crop up in the protagonist's actions. There are two ways of looking at "Hamsun's Christian Perversions". The first way, the protagonist tries to do what Christian rules tell him to do, like giving away his money, and yet it is shown to the reader how ridiculous that is, despite the fact that they seem to follow under Christianity's ideals. Nothing good seems to come of a good act, and if anything does occur it is almost always something negative: thus, Christianity is wrong. The second, that Christianity is limited and incorrect to put things into "good" and "evil" boxes without having any gray areas. This is revealed as the protagonist always reaches in his pocket to give something those who need it, only to remember that he has nothing either, and his pride diminishes. Wood says that the protagonist "is trapped in his restless tilting between pride and humility". Although the protagonist does Christian things, and tries to give charity, he does so because of his pride, and wanting to look good in others' eyes. Charity cannot be either 'good' or 'bad': it can be both. Charity can be because one truly feels for those worse off and a desire to help, but it is also done to make oneself feel better only- to seem what society says is nice, or to show that one has money.

Wood continues on to parallel Hamsun's novels with his ideas on Christianity. What I found really interesting is how similar Hamsun is to the characters in his books. As I read about the connections to Christianity, I realized that these criticisms could be applied just about to any religion- or even, any moral judgments. This is why Hamsun's own story is key to understanding his idea of Christianity. Although Hamsun does not believe in any god, his own personal history contains Christianity. Wood states how "Hamsun's formative experience of Christianity was a system of punishment and reward", and continues on to describe the beatings and enforcement of the bible. This explains his hatred of Christianity. It is not only religion and the ideas of god that both the protagonist and author share: it is the entire personality. Of course a bit of the author always appears in the characters in their novels- but here it seems the similarities are more than most. On page 95 it is said "He was ... hysterical, skittish, often rudely eccentric. A friend said that he 'repelled many because of his eccentricities. He could of course conduct himself in an extremely refined and considerate fashion when he wished to; but his behavior could also on occasion arouse contempt'". If one looks at just about any passage from Hunger, one will find that this description could very well apply to the protagonist. We as readers have seen the main character act proper and intelligently, yet rapidly deteriorate into a madman following women telling them that "they are losing their books" when it is clear they have none. Whatever these central ideas may mean or try and criticize, I am not sure how either criticizing society or religion apply to the ending of the novel: where the protagonist gets on the ship to leave Kristiania.

One thing is definitely true that Wood states: they are not knowable and the fact that they resist this knowability makes them that much harder to comprehend. "Monsters of self-consciousness, they are also damaged heroes of selfhood, painfully assembling and disassembling an individuality so extreme that it is uncontainable".

Pastiche for Hunger

I was sitting on the park bench working on an article on “Connections of the Mind” when two pigeons landed next to me. This irritated me; they kept making cooing sounds as they pecked at one another. I turned back to my article and ignored them, but I could not tear my thoughts away from those birds. Why did they have to be there now? I tensed up and growled at them, but they wouldn’t budge. Their little heads bouncing up and down, they continued to preen each other. I shook my fist at them and glared as their talons tapped at the wood underneath. I even tried shouting and grabbed at their tiny necks, but they only scooted out of reach. How was I supposed to concentrate on my article with them so near? As I gloomily watched them, suddenly a new thought burst into my head: I wouldn’t work on such a worthless piece about "Connections of the Mind"!  I could take on a real masterpiece- something that would appeal to my common reader. That would please the Chief. What was it that he said? Something that people feel more at home with. That was it. Renewed with energy, I picked up my pencil to tackle something like “Pigeon and Man”. I had heard that pigeons were similar to humans: they made milk and such, and kept only one mate in their life. If I took that and made it into a statement about life in general- yes, the Chief would appreciate that. A true ten-kroner. Any audience would be able to understand something like that- even better, connect to something so close to home. I smiled at the birds still sitting and laughed at the world: what a beautiful day it was.

Hunger Artistry

In A Hunger Artist, by Franz Kafka, the story of a hunger artist is told, from being famous to long forgotten. This short story has many parallels to the novel Hunger- not only because of the hunger aspect, but because of the thoughts and attitude of the artist.

Although the hunger artist and the protagonist in the novel are different in the fact that the protagonist wants nothing to do with being poor and starving, and is more ashamed of it than anything else, both characters have pride in what they do. The hunger artist loves to show "that he had nothing to eat in his cage and that he was fasting as none of them could": the protagonist also believes he is superior to others- that he can give money or food to those who are "worse off" than he is.

Both of them also have doubts about their life- the hunger artist believes that he is not truly fasting, believing that forty days is nothing, and how easy it is to fast. The protagonist is disappointed with himself also as he writes small, 5 kroner articles to survive. Neither one of them can do something else- and they both blame people and society for their lack of advancement. While the protagonist blames society for distracting him, the hunger artist feels as if he is being forced to eat in some elaborately false ceremony. He thinks one time: "It was impossible to fight against this lack of understanding, against this world of misunderstanding." The interesting thing is that both of them think they are capable of going on forever- the hunger artist believes "he could have kept going for even longer, for an unlimited length of time" and the protagonist keeps trying to right ten kroner pieces, from plays to articles. Neither of them seem to realize the fact that the hunger artist would surely eventually die, or that the protagonist in Hunger does not work hard and concentrate enough to write those wonderful pieces. They seem to think that they can still survive on things that are already failing. Is this concept something that either author is trying to point out that most of society does?

The author describes the hunger artist one time from his cage in the carnival that the artist tries to be stubborn, with almost deliberate self-deception: and this is what the protagonist does also. With the hunger artist, this ends up with starvation and death, and I would say an unhappy death. The protagonist, however, seems to break from this self-deception and is able to travel somewhere else out of his death cycle. This is much like existentialism, and how, I think it was Camus, describes how people will continue to do the same thing, not entirely happy with their existence, unless they reach a conscious awareness, in which they can help themselves, suicide, or go back into the cycle. For the hunger artist, I am not sure if he reaches that state of awareness. When he says at the end "Because I had to fast. I can't do anything else": is he realizing how his pride was all for naught and perhaps even understanding the lack of interest others had? Is it because he found no foot which tasted good that he did not enjoy himself and "eaten to his heart's content"- instead starving himself and blocking out his unhappiness? I am not sure... Moreover, I am not sure I understand the last paragraph, with the tiger: it is so vibrantly opposite to the hunger artist's story. What is the author trying to say here? In the novel, the protagonist moves on with his life- is this what is happening here? The tiger is so full of life, "equipped with everything necessary", is content to live its life in a cage. Perhaps the tiger has accepted its fate and found the good parts in its life, and therefore has chosen to be happy? Or is it just ignorance that is keeping the tiger content? Although the tiger's life seems much more enjoyable- fed, alive, and long remembered- I am not sure I would want to be this tiger.

Humans need to advance themselves too!

Reading "The distraction society" article, by Damon Young, made me realize that despite human's progression in technology and all of its advancements, we still have far to go. As Young describes his life, filled with the many distractions of email, internet, and phones, there are many similarities of the novel Hunger by Hamsun. In fact, this article seems to support the story of Hunger: how the protagonist goes around in circles of trying to write an article to survive yet being distracted by his surroundings.

Although technology does not distract the protagonist of Hunger from his work, he still cannot get his work done. Various people, sounds, creatures, and objects are to blame for the protagonist's inability to write. However, the readers all know what Young states in his article: It is not the distractions to blame, but yourself- the habit of trying to avoid work. Of course, in the case of Hunger, it is on a greater scale. Perhaps because of the fact that he is hungry and homeless (yet cannot seem to accept the idea) makes his mind to be able to be distracted more easily, as he is distracted by a wide range of things- from gnats to the pulse in his feet. Of course, we have to remember that this inability to write probably predated his extreme hunger.

However, there is one thing I noticed did not correspond between the novel and the article. Young brings up something that Nietzsche once said: "One thinks with a watch in one's hand"- which makes me think that we are always looking for, as Young says, "the next big 'hit'". We can never sit still: whereas in Hunger, while the starved man's mind cannot sit still, he very often just notices random things and focuses on them, not exactly looking for a 'hit', but unable to keep himself in control. Whether this is because of his starvation and situation, or whether it is just him, I am not sure. Nietzsche continues to say "haste is universal", and that we never stop to think: is this true with the man in Hunger? His mind is always moving, and I do think he stops to think- in fact, perhaps he always stops to think: perhaps not about reflecting on his life and all that, but he continuously thinks about articles, people, and food. He also tries to get back on track, and does not enjoy his distractions as much as the people today might.

Despite this, the article still uncannily follows the ideas in Hunger. The distractions we today have and those in Hunger are a result of "an unwillingness to confront very human issues: pain, boredom, anxiety. Or in the case of the novel, pride. What's interesting is that in Hunger he suffers these distractions- and they lead him to worse and unhealthy situations. Yet, the man still suffers- perhaps all the more because of it- the distractions that prevent him from getting back on his feet. It is weird to know that if you continue to ignore your problems, whether your situation is good or bad, distractions will haunt you. With technology or without, you will find distractions for yourself.

The only question I have here is, while Young was able to limit himself from distractions and gain some notion of control over his life, how can the protagonist in Hunger help himself (other than start to realize his distractions and problems)?

Although this problem seems to have prevailed through the centuries, it is hard to realize because of all of the advancement we have made. We sometimes think of ourselves as a 'new and better' human, without any of the faults and mistakes that humans had before, because of our technology and progress. However, I think we shouldn't always congratulate ourselves, but work not only on improving our science, but ourselves: not many people try to do that.

Making my Way Through Existentialism

After discussing Existentialism and several articles regarding the subject in English class, I'm not sure what I think about existentialism. From the basic ideas I've learned, I can somewhat agree with the ideas of the philosophy- but only vaguely. I appreciate the idea that one should not solely conform to society's rules and regulations, but find out what you want to do for yourself, and what you believe: not because someone told you to, but because you have truly considered and understood your beliefs. We are all responsible for our own choices, and whatever happens is our responsibility. I sort of like the idea that we should all define who we are ourselves- although this seems like common sense, I find that not many do this.

What I am confused about is the concept that a person should struggle against their nature, and that in struggling one can come upon a realization and break apart from the rules of society. In Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus, the author attempts to explain the vicious mechanical cycle most humans go through: striving to achieve 'perfection' and better their situation, always focusing on "tomorrow", yet always coming around to where they started. He seems to create the question: what is the point of having a better job, life, or circumstance? It always ends with the same thing: death. Comparing Sisyphus' story of pushing a boulder up the mountain and then watching it roll down, always going round and round, to everyday life in our world, I am not sure what he is saying. I am still not sure how Camus feels that Sisyphus is happy watching the boulder- all of his life's work and purpose- roll down and undo what Sisyphus had probably worked on for quite some time. Pooja mentioned how Camus describes Sisyphus' joy: "His fate belongs to him" and "the master of his days" seem to point at the idea that knowing and owning his life and its future, with no surprises, makes Sisyphus happy. I can follow the idea that once someone gains some kind of victory, it will most likely seem to go downhill from there (since once one feels so high up, even having a normal life again can seem disappointing) I do not understand why Sisyphus would feel joy. Doing the same thing, with never an end, does not seem enjoyable, I have to say.

The last paragraph in this article ends with this:

"I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile... The struggle itself toward heights is enough to fill a man's heart."

What Camus could be trying to say in his own explanation of Sisyphus' story is that in life, one always goes up and down, in a never-ending circle, and that once one recognizes this, as Sisyphus does as the boulder rolls down, one can be happy, because defining this for himself (as Akash said) makes him his own master- not the Gods forcing him to push up that rock. What I don't understand is why there is a struggle- can we not enjoy life, not in the way Sisyphus does, by struggling and being his own master, but by
living each day as a day we are proud of and a day where we are truly ourselves: not ones defined by others. We do not have to look for tomorrow (although we can- there is no harm in imagination and hope), and we do not have to fear death. The idea in existentialism that what we have in the end (if I understand this correctly) does not matter, since we will all be dead is hard to wrap my head around. I think that what we have in the end matters: not because of death, but because it represents all that we have done in life. I think the journey is much more important than the finish line- the life that we all have defines who we are. It does not matter if it all ends up in death- even if there is no final purpose: just living contains so much stuff.

I am still not sure what existentialism really is. Reading Hamsun's Hunger helped describe existentialist theories, as well as his article The Fact of Absurdity, and Fred Van Lente's Friedrich Nietzche Comic exaggerated the key points to clearly explain some of the concepts. It seems, however, that I keep finding some things that I disagree with, some that I agree with, and many more questions. This is a good thing, though: questions and thoughts are quite a bit of what I am made of.