Explanatory essays - The Power of Knowle: Essays That Explain the Important Things in Life - Sykalo Eugene 2025

A Comparative Study of Modernist Literature from Different Cultures
Comparative literature and cross-cultural analysis

The Shatter of Modernism: Why It Still Feels Like Us

Modernism, right? It’s this moment when writers looked at the world—war-torn, industrialized, spiritually adrift—and said, “Nah, linear stories don’t cut it anymore.” They broke the rules: time got scrambled, narrators got unreliable, and plots? Pfft, optional. I’m thinking of Virginia Woolf’s Mrs. Dalloway, with its day-in-the-life sprawl through London, or Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis, where a dude wakes up as a bug and just… deals with it. But then you swing over to, say, Japan, and you’ve got Natsume Sōseki’s Kokoro, which is quieter, more restrained, but still wrestling with the same existential dread. These books don’t sound alike, but they’re all screaming about the same thing: the world’s gone weird, and so have we.

What gets me is how these writers, from totally different corners—England, Prague, Tokyo—landed on the same vibe. It’s like they were all at the same terrible party, watching the world fall apart, and each came home with a different way to describe the hangover. Woolf’s got this lush, introspective flow, like she’s weaving a tapestry of thoughts. Kafka’s all sharp edges and absurdity, like a nightmare you can’t quite shake. Sōseki? He’s subtler, more like a slow bleed of loneliness. I read Kokoro last month, and it wrecked me—not because it’s loud, but because it’s so damn quiet. The way Sensei carries his guilt, it’s like he’s drowning in it, but politely. Who does that? I mean, it’s so Japanese, but also so universal. I’m getting ahead of myself, but you get it—these books aren’t just “literature.” They’re mirrors.

Woolf’s London vs. Kafka’s Prague: A Clash of Moods

Let’s start with Woolf. Mrs. Dalloway is like walking through a city where every stranger’s thoughts are shouting at you. Clarissa’s planning her party, but her mind’s everywhere—her past, her loves, her regrets. And then there’s Septimus, the war veteran, whose trauma is so vivid it feels like a blade. Woolf’s genius is how she makes you feel the weight of a single day. It’s not about plot; it’s about being. I read it in college and hated it—too much navel-gazing, I thought. But now? I get it. Life is that overwhelming, that fleeting. You’re just trying to buy flowers or whatever, and suddenly you’re spiraling about your entire existence.

Now, Kafka. Oh man, Kafka. The Metamorphosis is so weirdly funny and so deeply sad at the same time. Gregor Samsa wakes up as a giant insect, and his first thought is, “Ugh, I’m gonna be late for work.” I laughed out loud the first time I read that, then immediately felt bad. It’s absurd, but it’s also this brutal metaphor for alienation. Kafka’s Prague feels like a maze—claustrophobic, gray, like the city itself is conspiring against you. Compare that to Woolf’s London, which is chaotic but vibrant, full of flowers and chatter. Kafka’s world is colder, more bureaucratic. You can feel the Austro-Hungarian Empire’s weight in every sentence, that oppressive machine grinding people down.

But here’s the thing: both Woolf and Kafka are obsessed with the individual trapped in their own head. Clarissa’s trapped by her social role, her memories. Gregor’s literally trapped in his bug-body, rejected by his family. It’s like they’re both saying, “You’re alone, and the world doesn’t care.” I don’t know if that’s depressing or freeing, but it’s real. I was on a bus the other day, staring out the window, and I thought about Gregor. Not the bug part, but that feeling of being… invisible. Modernism gets that.

Sōseki’s Japan: The Quiet Cut

Now, let’s talk Sōseki. Kokoro isn’t as flashy as Woolf or as surreal as Kafka, but it’s just as modernist. It’s about this young student and his mentor, Sensei, who’s haunted by something he won’t fully spill until the end. The book’s set in early 20th-century Japan, right when the country’s modernizing, caught between tradition and this new, Westernized world. It’s not loud about it—no big dramatic scenes—but you feel the tension. Sensei’s this loner, carrying some secret shame, and the way Sōseki writes it, it’s like the whole culture’s holding its breath.

What hits me hardest is how Sōseki captures guilt. Not the loud, soap-opera kind, but the kind that sits in your gut like a stone. Sensei betrayed a friend years ago, and it’s not some grand tragedy—it’s small, human, messy. I read this and thought about all the times I’ve said something careless, hurt someone without meaning to, and then carried it around for years. Sōseki gets that. It’s so different from Woolf’s stream-of-consciousness or Kafka’s absurdity, but it’s still modernist because it’s about the self, fractured and alone. Japan’s version of modernism feels… inward. Like, while Woolf’s characters are spilling their thoughts, Sōseki’s are swallowing them.

Cross-Cultural Threads: What’s the Same, What’s Not

So, what’s the deal? Why do these books, from such different places, feel like they’re in conversation? Modernism’s born from crisis—World War I for Woolf, the Austro-Hungarian grind for Kafka, Japan’s rapid modernization for Sōseki. Each culture’s got its own flavor of chaos, but the result’s the same: people don’t trust the old stories anymore. Religion, family, tradition—they’re all wobbling. Woolf’s characters cling to parties and social niceties. Kafka’s are crushed by systems. Sōseki’s just… drift, quietly estranged.

But the differences matter too. Woolf’s modernism is lush, almost sensual. She’s in love with language, with the way thoughts tangle. Kafka’s leaner, more paranoid—like he’s writing to survive. Sōseki’s sparse, restrained, but every word’s a knife. It’s like Woolf’s painting with a full palette, Kafka’s sketching in charcoal, and Sōseki’s doing calligraphy. And yet, they’re all modernist because they’re asking: How do you make sense of a world that doesn’t make sense?

I keep thinking about how these books feel now. In 2025, we’re not post-World War I, but we’re post-something—pandemics, culture wars, whatever’s next. I read Mrs. Dalloway and think about how we’re all still performing normalcy, throwing parties (or posting about them) while the world burns. Kafka’s bugs and bureaucrats? That’s our gig economy, our faceless algorithms. Sōseki’s quiet guilt? That’s us, doomscrolling and wondering if we’re the bad guy. These books aren’t relics; they’re us.

Why This Matters (Or Does It?)

Okay, I’ll be real: sometimes I wonder why I’m even writing this. Who cares about modernist literature when the world’s on fire? But then I remember how these books make me feel less alone. Woolf’s chaos, Kafka’s absurdity, Sōseki’s restraint—they’re all ways of saying, “Yeah, life’s a mess, but here’s what it’s like to live through it.” They don’t solve anything, but they see you. And in 2025, when we’re all drowning in noise—notifications, headlines, opinions—that’s no small thing.

I’m not gonna wrap this up neatly. Modernist literature, whether it’s from London, Prague, or Tokyo, is about the mess of being human. It’s not clean, it’s not easy, and it’s definitely not a five-paragraph essay. It’s a scream, a whisper, a shrug. And honestly? That’s why I keep coming back to it. It’s the only thing that feels as messy as I do.