question about Franz Kafka's short story "The Silence of the Sirens"

Please first read it.

Franz Kafka, “The Silence of the Sirens”

Proof that inadequate, even childish measures, may serve to rescue one from peril.
To protect himself from the Sirens Odysseus stopped his ears with wax and had himself bound to the mast of his ship. Naturally any and every traveller before him could have done the same, except those whom the Sirens allured even from a great distance; but it was known to all the world that such things were of no help whatever. The song of the Sirens could pierce through everything, and the longing of those they seduced would have broken far stronger bonds than chains and masts. But Odysseus did not think of that, although he had probably heard of it. He trusted absolutely to his handful of wax and his fathom of chain, and in innocent elation over his little stratagem sailed out to meet the Sirens.
Now the Sirens have a still more fatal weapon than their song, namely their silence.
And though admittedly such a thing has never happened, still it is conceivable that someone might possibly have escaped from their singing; but from their silence certainly never. Against the feeling of having triumphed over them by one's own strength, and the consequent exaltation that bears down everything before it, no earthly powers could have remained intact. And when Odysseus approached them the potent songstresses actually did not sing, whether because they thought that this enemy could be vanquished only by their silence, or because of the look of bliss on the face of Odysseus, who was thinking of nothing but his wax and his chains, made them forget their singing. But Odysseus, if one may so express it, did not hear their silence; he thought they were singing and that he alone did not hear them. For a fleeting moment he saw their throats rising and falling, their breasts lifting, their eyes filled with tears, their lips half-parted, but believed that these were accompaniments to the airs which died unheard around him. Soon, however, all this faded from his sight as he fixed his gaze on the distance, the Sirens literally vanished before his resolution, and at the very moment when they were nearest to him he knew of them no longer.But they--lovelier than ever--stretched their necks and turned, let their cold hair flutter free in the wind, and forgetting everything clung with their claws to the rocks. They no longer had any desire to allure; all that they wanted was to hold as long as they could the radiance that fell from Odysseus' great eyes. If the Sirens had possessed consciousness they would have been annihilated at that moment. But they remained as they had been; all that had happened was that Odysseus had escaped them.

My first question is not as to why the sirens didn't sing. The possible answers to that are given by Kafka himself as you can read. But what I really want to know is how could their "not singing" possibly be a more dangerous weapon than singing, in the first place? Knowing that, for a given fact, that all attempts blocking the human ear canal prove futile against their enchanting voices anyhow.
Are they, the sirens, not aware of that fact?

My second question: why in his version of the Odyssey did Kafka made Odysseus' put wax in his own ears instead of his crew's, who, the latter, shackled him to the ship's mast? Was he explicitly mistaken here, or did he implicitly alter the story?

The greatest weapon of Yaveh is not his floods and plagues, it is remaining in silence.
And does not matter if you ignore him or not, the fact is that he ignores you.

Jcamilo, thanks for your reply, but it is still too vague for me an answer. I am not sure exactly what you mean by this. With all due respect, I sincerely hope with "remaining in silence" of Yaveh, you are not alluding to the Holocaust and the jews that were ignored by God during their struggle in the death camps. This sort of false 'Miranda Rights' did indeed prove as a FATAL weapon, but in the hands of the nazi's.

I can see the analogical reasoning, the example you provided me with, but it really replaced one riddle for another. So my question remains....how could remaining silence have proven to be a more dangerous weapon in the hands of the Sirens? Their passiveness, their "not singing", in my opinion, could only have served like a spider in his web, which is remaining silent till a fly flew into it...or in this case, a ship that founders on the rocks for having no lighthouse for the ship's crew to see. And of course it probably is a more abstract meaning of silence, but that is what I am struggling with...what does Kafka mean with that "more fatal" weapon. I really do not get it.

No, the silence of Yaveh is something milenar on jewish traditions, sort linked with the destruction of the temple, a feeling of absence , albeit the presence. So you can say it is the silence.

A father who punishes, is a father who cares. A father that grimms and remains in silence, is a father that you cannot communicate it. The sirens are denying you their "miracle", all their wonder, they show you not, they do not scare you, they have no magic, you may be not even good enough for them to try. Not even to scorn you. So, lets supppose Yaveh is silent. How fatal is this if you wanted to hear him? Fatal enough as he is the explanation for all creation. Now, nothing makes sense. Nothing is explained. You are lost and meaningless. You are not draw to it because you feel too insignificant to be like Ulysses (he is draw to their mistery, as he hear the syrens) and is impotent.

Of course, it is Kafka, maybe is silent to me.

yes, I understand what you mean with at least a part of what you are saying. Though, further down the story Kafka states that the Sirens have "No Consciousness". This is where the parallel between Jaweh and the Sirines stops. The sirens "see" odysseus and his ship coming closer and closer...yet they chose not to sing. But how can this choice of not singing be fatal to Odysseus? He will escape this way!! He will not suffer, will not be lured into their trap. No weapon was afflicted upon him. The sirens did not sing and have no conscience, and let Odysseus go, slide by. So how is this "weapon" more effective? Even when Ulysses/Odysseus wants to see the sirens up close, and had a confident happy smile on his face, that still does not explain why the sirens did not sing. It still does not answer my question as to why "not singing" could be more harmful to odysseus than singing. Realize that the original mythology, homerus, did not put wax in Odysseus' ears. The Sirens are not denying Odysseus...they are gasping sexually, inflicting sexual gazes at him, which he mistakes for vocal larynx movements, "playbacking", if you will. But his imagination is false, for they are really not singing. They let Odysseus go because they did not sing....how is that a fatal weapon? Sounds to me more like a "Get Out of Jail Free card" in the game Monopoly. In other words: the sirens DID CARE, as a FATHER...or in this case a partner who they really fell in love with, that set them off guard of their common duty, luring men and destroying them.
but they did not sing because they liked Odysseus or whatever...this is not sure in Kafka's story. He himself says so.
But let us say it was not Odysseus, but another ship....how would their silence (of the sirens) be more powerful than their singing?
It takes away the entire reason of why Sirens were placed on islands if they remain silent. Other than that a ship may by accident hit the rocks or island for having received no prior warning of its existence. How can is be and will it be possibly dangerous for any ship to remain silence? With their silence they are not luring ships in, they are acting counterproductively. Why, from the perspective of the Sirens, did they not sing to Odysseus? Because he "walked the invisible bridge" like Harrison Ford did in Indiana Jones with confidence? Somehow I believe that some people think that the essence of this story is that you can do things by just doing naively jump into unknown territory and just await the consequential outcome of your childly deed. But I do not see how and why Kafka, and with the solipsism and naivety of Odysseus convinced the sirens to not sing, not luring him in...grant him free passage..Laissez passer.

Odysseus will scape but he will not face the syrens wrath. It is an experience without merits, without vallue, sigificance. Who is Odysseus? Nobody. Now, not as a trick, because "anybody" can survive it. The experiences that gave Odysseus significance, individuality gone. It is fatal, because nobody sings the silent syrens.

Now, two questions, Why the syrens do it and why it is more fatal. Kafka never proposes a why they do it. He cannot - or do not intend- to show the reason beyond the syrens (or god, father, or the court), they just have power to use or not over you. Why is fatal? Because they deny him significance.

the title is eerily the same as
'the silence of the lambs'.
I just needed to say that.

Jcamila, I hope I understand you now. You mean the power of denial? Ignoring someone to gain her/his attention? Am I right? Playing hard to get, but more powerfull?

I thought of that scenario once or twice but I felt that was to easy an explanation. I will tell you why: "playing hard to get" does not really work in REAL love most of the time, it normally has the tendency to create more cold distance, it does not make you more attractive to the opposite sex, even when you are Brad Pitt. But since Odysseus was not after that (not thinking of sex), but the Sirens were, it all makes sense now.


Yes Cacian, the comparison with a title as "The Silence of The Lambs" is almost unavoidable to overlook. But, frankly, I think it is based on pure coincidence, for there is no story I know in the spirit of Kafka's Irony speaking of the "screaming of the lambs". I do not sense a substantial related pastiche in both stories. Perhaps you're right if you think that the writer of that movie was influenced by the title and or the story, but I do not see why if she/he did. Clarice Starling wants to silence the lamb she could hear screaming in her childhood, so she tries to save the lambs by silencing the killer in the presence. Also the "Silence" stands for the already killed victims or their not responding to their relatives. The lamb is anthropomorphically there. The serial killer, other than the farmer who killed the first lamb, is the one Clarice will stop. Her father's suicide is side issue movie filling I reckon.

not exactly the hard to get, which as you have pointed is sometimes related to the seduction game (or maybe, it can be it, Kafka I believe, does not offer us a closed system where we can organize all meanings in an answer. He is a mistery, so maybe, his texts like the syrens are in silence to us), but well, lets think of Kafka background.

He is a jew, even if not religious, I believe his texts work the jewish tradition to urban and modern fables . One of his themes is a great power (be the court, the father, etc), which does not communicate at all (K in The Castle never manages to reach however hired him, K in the Process never gets an explanation). So, the syrens are "divine" (or profane), part of a bigger power. Her silence is like a denial of communication. Maybe a reference to his relationship with his father, they cut down communication. What if the Silence is the silence of his father never seeking conciliation. Certainly it is a terrible punishment. Maybe it is Kafka himself, who also didnt send to his father that famous Letter. Kafka could imagine that his actions could be a punishment to his father.

Likewise, we can imagine one of the themes of jews after the destruction of Jerusalem. There was sense of Yaveh Silence, but the faith replaced it philosophically by other believes (the rebuilding of the temple, the individualism). But Kafka has no faith, to him there is a silence. Wondering who is God leads him to a terrible silence, because he was raised under jewish tradition and this make him excluded? Or it is the same Yaveh that showed momments of silence, Remember when Samson felt it after his hair was cut? Or Jesus in the garden asking why he was abandoned? God silence when Job was suffering? Of course, this is a silence of wrath, not for seduction, a punishment.

Also, kafka has heavy influence or Kierkergarden. Kierkergarden who said once:

"At times I have considered laying down my pen and, if anything should be done, to use my voice. Meanwhile I came by way of further reflection to the realization that it perhaps is more appropriate for me to make at least an attempt once again to use my pen but in a different way, as I would use my voice, consequently in direct address to my contemporaries, winning men, if possible. The first condition for winning men is that the communication reaches them. Therefore I must naturally want this little book to come to the knowledge of as many as possible. If anyone out of interest for the cause—I repeat, out of interest for the cause—wants to work for its dissemination, this is fine with me. It would be still better if he would contribute to its well-comprehended dissemination. I hardly need say that by wanting to win men it is not my intention to form a party, to create secular, sensate togetherness; no, my wish is only to win men, if possible all men (each individual), for Christianity. A request, an urgent request to the reader: I beg you to read aloud, if possible; I will thank everyone who does so; and I will thank again and again everyone who in addition to doing it himself influences others to do it."....

Maybe kafka considered not writting, considered his readers would not read aloud?

And maybe, since someone existence is defined by his acts and relations to others, the absence of answer from the Syren annihilates Ulysses - more than killing, which is act that leads to immortality - because he will not be the man who outsmarted the syrens, and just someone passing by. A nobody, without importance. So the silence, the syrens ignoring him, is that spiteful silence (not of seduction) that denies his existence.

All is possible, included the seduction option.