Before the lost documents of Kafka are released and absorbed (see the Independent‘s article), I want to take a minute and think about what that actually means, or more accurately, have my Borgesian moment of rereading and recreating the texts and the man, before I have actually come across the work. Does just the existence, even if I never see these papers, make his works different? Whereas Borges posited other works or played with the existence on a book through time (Pierre Menard, for example) , for myself, I only have the idea of the work. In a gluttonously optimistic way I find myself hoping these papers with reflect on his other works. No, I don’t think they will be the let down that the recent Raymond Carver stories were, but an insistence of his brilliance. My insistence, though, is the rereading that will now color all his works for me, even if the papers turn out to be uninteresting. The excitement is doing the rereading for me. Now when I turn to his works I will always have the idea that there is something else just off page, even though I am very text centric. The desire for more is always a problem, because who Kafka is and who he will be will change, but having more of his work may not matter. Completion is rewarding to a scholar, but not always a reader.