I don’t agree here. Classical literature is often less refined as current literature, simply because there is progress over the centuries. And because classical literature is “classical” and therefor important, many people who consider themselves knowledgeable read things into those texts that were never there to make them sound more relevant. Which is fundamentally wrong.

In the end, one has to accept that humanity progresses, and that things from a hundred years ago really are more primitive than things today. A hundred years ago, people did calculations on a slide rule, now they have computers. And while a slide rule was technically top of the pops back then, nobody would call them bleeding edge today. In a similar way, one has to accept that a story that old simply is a story that old, and simply does not appease the modern mind, because it lacks the technique and finesses that has been developed in storytelling over the last hundred years.

Yes, there have been authors that have been far ahead their peers, like Shakespeare in English or Goethe in German. But they are old literature now, and one still has to read them with the correct timeframe and matching expectations in mind to value their genius. Kafka, on the other hand, never was anything special, at least in none of the works I was forced to read, even if generousely put in the time matching frame and a ton of benefit of doubt. I simply don’t understand why anyone puts this nutcase on a pedestal.