Kundera – A modern existentialist or
Why The Joke is not an existential novel

by: Rebecca Steltner

Canterbury, 19th of April 2002

Milan Kundera’s Novel The Joke abounds in existentialist vocabulary and themes. His main character’s narrative is loaded with such expressions as choice and existence, self-deception or freedom, which are sometimes even set in Italics¹. These are not just words, that Ludvik uses in his narrative, they are also made themes in themselves as well as reoccurring motifs – for example that of the ‘destruction of façades’. These themes are important, from the very beginning as we have the basic condition of someone ‘crossing the border’², which is not altogether dissimilar to Roquentin’s predicament in Sartre’s La Nausée.
All situations, that Kundera’s characters find themselves in are existential, too, in such a way, that they require choices and a wholly new perspective on the past after the destruction of old value systems. It is therefore obvious that existentialist ideas must have influenced and inspired Kundera, and as Existentialism is in itself a philosophy that focuses greatly on perception and the possibility of self-knowledge, one could even propose to say, that its ideas are always also central to modern novel writing/ especially when we look at psychological novels and first-person narratives.
However, (I would argue that) The Joke is by no means an existentialist novel, as its approach to ideas is by no means direct, but playful as well as critical. This is why it is impossible, to say, that for example, the novel reflects on the nature of self-deception, and its main character is in ‘bad faith’. Such an approach, does not do the novel justice, and at this point it may well be worth remembering, that its author, too, resists such an attempt:
“My disgust for those who reduce a work to its ideas: my revulsion at being dragged into what they call ‘discussions of ideas.’ My despair at this era befogged with ideas and indifferent to works.” (Art of the Novel, p. 131). Now, let me first quickly define, what I understand by ‘existentialist novel’ before we can then look at a few actual passages and maybe reach the above verdict. Existentialists, like Sartre, have always used fiction to convey their ideas. According to Edith Kern, Simone de Beauvoir even thought of the novel as the most appropriate means of presenting existentialist thought: “The novel seemed to her [Simone de Beauvoir] particularly suited to the expression of existential insights which would seem contradictory if they were to be presented categorically and systematically.” (Kern, p. 11). Kundera’s comment on the difference between novelists and writer’s can be read as a response to this issue:

“Novelist (and writer). I reread Sartre′s short essay "What is writing?" Not
once does he use the words "novel" or "novelist". He only speaks of the
"prose writer", a proper distinction. The writer has original ideas and an
inimitable voice, he may use any form (including the novel), and whatever he
writes - being marked by his thought, borne by his voice - is part of his work.
Rousseau, Goethe, Chateaubriand, Gide, Malraux, Camus, Montherlant.
The novelist makes no great issue of his ideas. He is an explorer feeling his
way in an effort to reveal some unknown aspect of existence. He is
fascinated not by his voice but by a form he is seeking, and only those forms
that meet the demands of his dream become part of his work. Fielding,
Sterne, Flaubert, Proust, Faulkner, Céline, Calvino.
The writer inscribes himself on the spiritual map of his time, of his country, on
the map of the history of ideas. The only context for grasping a novel′s worth
is the history of the European novel. The novelist need answer to no one but
Cervantes.” (The Art of the Novel, p. 144)

After his first comment on a ‘discussion of ideas’, we can safely count Kundera among the novelists. This would then mean, that there is nothing in particular that he has to say, he has not signed any contract, which requires him to explain the existentialist dogma (if this exists at all) to his readers, but that the fiction is more important than the ideas..
Therefore, Kundera’s fiction cannot be a simple vehicle for existentialist ideas.³ The Joke is certainly no attempt at making existentialist ideals appear plausible or to even out their contradictions⁴. One could even say that the novel is a celebration of contradictions on many levels, especially as the structure and the different narrators which are juxtaposed, at first hint at a trial situation, where a final solution might well be possible.
Kundera does not just take on some philosopher’s ideas in order to quote them in his novel⁵ but only picks out certain aspects, which he then contrasts with other perspectives – to present them in an alternative context.

[...]

1 E.g. on page 46 “not a matter of choice but of essence”

2 "BORDER. It takes so little, so infinitely little, for a person to cross the border beyond which everything loses meaning: love, convictions, faith, history. Human life - and herein lies its secret - takes place in the immediate proximity of that border, even in direct contact with it/ it is not miles away but a fraction of an inch." (Milan Kundera in ‘Art of the Novel’, p 124.)

3 Although maybe the very idea of the modern novel owes so much to the existentialist perspective that at least in this sense every writer must be an existentialist in that sense.

4 Here, Pierre Mertens proposes has that (p. 303): “parce que la littérature (et le roman en particulier) est le lieu des questions, et non celui des réponses. On ne répond jamais aux questions d’hier que par les questions d’aujourd’hui.”

5 Although ironically, his use of Italics in Ludvik’s narrative may sometimes suggest this.