#critical context

[mushiimune]

So many Pierce The Veil songs make me think of Silco & Vander or maybe those are just the brainworms whispering revolutionary ideas in my ears

[kafka499-blog]

Kafka’s Metamorphosis: On Banishing the Lodgers

           Kimberly Sparks’ response to The Metamorphosis focuses on banishment. Sparks shows the reader how Kafka depicts banishment in multiple ways. While not all of them are horrible they do tend to leave the protagonist, who himself may not even be the one banished, in a disadvantaged or uncomfortable state, be it looking after their father who is no longer capable of doing so themselves, or kicked out by their family either to a small room or to an entirely different country, regardless of whether the “crime” they committed was their own fault or not.

She takes a rather odd approach. A good deal of the focus is on banishment as a recurring element in Kafka’s stories-- Sparks constantly references the scene in Kafka’s Dearest Father where a child is banished for the night to the balcony for bothering the others – but Sparks spends more time in her opening statements talking about Kafka’s other works involving the theme, while barely mentioning the story she placed within the title of her article. This works though, as it gives her the opportunity to build up her argument about how regularly the topic of banishment is used as a plot in Kafka’s works, how many different kinds there are and if those various kinds appear within The Metamorphosis as well, and how when more than one person is being banished, the reader is less involved and doesn’t feel as strong a connection with the banished characters as they would if the evicted persons were just one.

Sparks argues that some banishments may not initially be identified as one to the untrained eye. One such example would be in Kafka’s The Judgement, in which the Georg Bendemann has to take care of his invalid father. The type of banishment shown here is that of reducing a grown person to the state of an infant, where they have to be cared for and looked after, therefore not being treated as an equal and essentiality banished from the adult world and from their own impedance, and they are now reliant solely on another person. Sparks refers to this as one of the most savage forms of banishment possible. This relates to The Metamorphosis, as there Grete takes care of Gregor after his change like a mother would, and as the story goes on becomes more controlling both to him and to other members of the family in regards to how to deal with Gregor. Gregor’s banishment isn’t simply to his room, it’s his agency and desires that are taken away as well by someone with power over him.

           In one of his lighter tales, Amerika, Kafka has its protagonist, Karl, banished to America by his family for an affair with the family’s maid. Karl takes this in stride, however, seeing it as a chance to get away from his family. However, Sparks notes that Karl ends up projecting himself onto others as the ship he’s own starts to dock into New York, creating almost a surrogate family of people he’s comparing to himself. Karl witnesses a huge man being evicted from the ship, who has no power to stop it from happening. Obviously Karl sympathies with this man, as he himself is on the ship after being cast out by his family, and similarly not being able to object or counter his family’s wish in the matter. Sparks then goes on and states that by the end of the book Karl has project his family’s likeness onto a group of complete strangers, and only then does his true feeling towards his family, his obsession with them get revealed. So even in what others consider to be Kafka’s happier tale, banishment has power within the tale and still causes problems for the protagonist, despite his optimistic feelings at first.

           The lodgers in Metamorphosis are seen in many roles, one of which as the human representatives of what Gregor’s current status with the family is: an unwanted task they have to fulfill. Gregor is still taken care of by his family because of their love for him, or at least the memory of him, as Grete is at the point where she no longer believes that the bug before them is even Gregor anymore. The lodgers meanwhile are allowed to rent space in the apartment because the Samsas’ need a source of income, so they give up their comfort to ensure that they have money.

           Another role the lodgers are assigned by Sparks is that of leopards. Sparks uses Kafka’s parable of the leopards to explain the duality of Kafka’s attitude. In the parable, leopards are stated to have regularly barged into a temple and drink to the bottom what’s left in the sacrificial pitchers, to the point that their appearance and actions have been calculated by the residents and rendered predictable, therefore no longer scary or considered a threat by the temple goers and now considered part of the ceremony. Sparks feels much of Kafka’s use of banishment is in itself a ceremony, one that is practiced frequently in his works, as well as the fact that the parable mentions leopards, not leopard, showing the multiplying aspect Sparks mentioned earlier. The lodgers, like the leopards, are seen as invading the Samsa’s home in Act 3, and while they do make themselves part of the ceremony, their attitude towards Grete as she plays and their role in Gregor’s mind as this alien presence that gets to interact with his family while he’s secluded makes it clear they are still a threat. Sparks quotes Maynard Mack on the subject of expected things still being frightening:  the only reason people would laugh at the sudden appearance of a rabbit would be because of a magician and his hat being part of the act, acting as a safety cushion for our perception of reality that explains away this sudden invader. As lodgers, the three men are an expected appearance in the home of the Samsas, but they are still three men coming into a family’s home, and they are indeed taking a place Gregor used to enjoy when he was still human.

           By the time the lodgers have been evicted, Gregor had already died, and was unable to witness his father reclaim the paternal chair, as the father and the rest of the family had been cow-towing to the lodgers prior to their eviction. What Sparks makes clear throughout her essay is that banishment is all about roles, such as who has the power to banish and who is the one in risk of being evicted. The lodgers seemed to be in a safe position, coming in after Gregor had effectively been banished to his room by his family and serving as a source of income for the family as they were renting out a room. Even if they tried the family’s patience, they were necessary to for the Samsa’s to have stable living conditions, and they were in a way usurping Gregor’s role in the family. One would think that they in fact had the power over the family, with them being the one to threaten to leave the apartment and take their money with them, rather than being kicked out by the father. They are shown enclosing on Grete when she plays music for everyone present, showing a lack of concern for their manners and attitude around their hosts, and yet in the end it’s the father and the family by extension who still hold the power to evict, one that seemed almost awakened by Gregor’s death.

           As for the lodgers, their role is both fearsome in the brief terror and discomfort they bring upon the Samsas, and dismissible, as for all their complaints at the end of the day they were sent back without ceremony right after Gregor had died, and the family doesn’t pay them any more mind than the last person they banished. They serve both as a human reflection of exactly what the Samsas did to Gregor, and a contrast on how different burdens (one out of family obligation, one out of necessity) can weigh on a person before they finally just give up and drop whatever is displeasing them. The lodgers are both a shadow of Gregor, and what remains of his human self.

Bibliography

·         Sparks, K. "Kafka's Metamorphosis: On Banishing the Lodgers." Journal of European Studies 3.3 (1973): 230-40. Web.

[kafka499-blog]

Nina Pelikan Straus’s “Transforming Franz Kafka’s ‘Metamorphosis’”

Is Gregor Samsa’s transformation into a bug the main focus behind Kafka’s The Metamorphosis? If not, is there a more probing and significant transformation at the heart of the novel? Nina Pelikan Straus’s article “Transforming Franz Kafka’s ‘Metamorphosis,’” asks readers and fans of The Metamorphosis to place traditional readings of the work aside. She questions Kafka’s motives for not only creating a character similar to himself, but for masking substantial feminist themes behind a superficial patriarchal agenda. Straus argues that Kafka does this not to force-feed his readers the same society endorsed drivel on gender norms they are accustomed to, but to “put the traditional attitudes regarding gender on trial and deconstruct the readers’ expectations” (Straus 652). Her main argument is that most critics and readers alike have misunderstood Kafka. The story is not just about Gregor and his family’s transformations and the subsequent shift in power dynamics and gender roles within the family. Straus also asserts her belief that Grete’s transformation from a young, dependent girl into a slightly liberated yet marketable tool for society, is a mirror reflection of Gregor’s new found dependency in the wake of his deterioration as a man and transformation into a bug. 

Straus surmises that Kafka based the story of Gregor and his family on his own experiences with self-worth, self- exposure, and “self-dehumanization” (Straus 653). Kafka toys with the traditional ideas associated with his time period as well as his own personal experiences. Straus writes, “Kakfa’s articulation of self-exposure is ironically concomitant with self-dehumanization. For him exposure is both liberating, because writing releases the repressed, and dehumanizing, because language can describe the human as nonhuman” (Straus 653). Kafka values the process of self-exposure, like peeling the layers of an onion, but also places it into the same category of dehumanization because revealing one’s self can be an arduous task in front of others, especially the people that matter most. Gregor is Kafka’s innermost fears unleashed and exposed, his metamorphosis on display to the world. 

But Kafka is able to control a fictionalized version of his own story on his own terms. The liberation he finds in writing becomes more than just a form of expression, and gives humanity to the nonhuman. Gregor Samsa was once human. He was young, capable, and unhappy with his circumstances, but he was human. His family valued him. His family’s dependence on him and society’s placement of value on the male gender provided him with his self-worth. His metamorphosis took away his self-worth, exposing him to some of the worst cruelties in life, and dehumanized him in the most degrading way: he was turned into the most inconsequential creature to the world and to his family; stripping him of the one thing he prided himself on (his ability to provide for his family) and liberating Grete at the expense of his downfall, and ultimately subjecting her to an identical fate of being a victim of their family/ society’s expectations.

For years traditional critics have maintained the idea that Kafka’s The Metamorphosis is strictly about Gregor’s transformation, the metaphorical transition between his mental and physical health, and his struggles with his family. While their opinions and observations are valid, according to Straus, they “underplayed the fact that the story is about not only Gregor’s but also his family’s and, especially, Grete’s metamorphosis; [they have for the most part ignored her roles as] a woman, daughter, and sister, whom the social and psychoanalytic resonances of the text depend” (Straus 652). Kakfa uses Gregor as a shield to articulate feminist themes. The Samsa family, and more importantly Grete, She writes:are able to transform their lives at Gregor’s expense. His circumstances afford Grete more freedom while Gregor’s shrinks in comparison. “If Grete is a symbol of anything, it is the indeterminacy of gender roles, the irony of self-liberation. Grete’s role as a woman unfolds as Gregor’s life as a man collapses into itself” (Straus 653). Kafka is making a significant point in his work by reversing the roles of Gregor and Grete. Not only has their worth in their parents’ eyes switched, their worth in society has as well. She writes:

Kafka holds in suspension European, urban, and early twentieth-century masculine attitudes toward women and transforms these attitudes by presenting Grete and mother Samsa in the roles of Gregor’s caretakers and feeders then revealing their rebellion against them. By reserving judgment on his characters, Kafka puts traditional attitudes on trial and deconstructs the readers’ expectations as well. His story thus provides correctives to feminist as well as traditional readings that exacerbate through ideological fixations what they seek to remedy. (Straus 652)

Who then is the victim of the novel? Gregor because his transformation into a bug invalidates his existence to his family and society, and at his expense making it possible for them to strive? Or is Grete the victim because of the limitations placed on her by her gender, and her certain but unsuspecting fate that will result in something resembling Gregor’s? 

Viewing Grete’s transformation as a significant element of the novel casts Kafka’s work in a new light. Women can be ambitious, un-nurturing, messy, and complicated. This becomes obvious as Grete shirks her responsibilities as Gregor’s caregiver her growing disgust of him appears permanent. Grete’s metamorphosis is a mirror reflection of the shift in the patriarchal influence. And because Kafka went to great lengths to make Gregor a part of the discussion of transformations and forced gender roles, as well as a proxy to highlight the gender-based struggles of women, it can be deduced that his contribution to the liberation of women was the exposure of the issue through written expression.

Straus’s argument called for a re-evaluation of Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. While she acknowledges the difficulty of dissecting Kafka’s text and finding hidden themes and meaning behind his words, she challenges readers and critics alike to consider alternative interpretations to his works. Straus implores readers to view Grete’s metamorphosis, as well as women’s as a whole, as equally significant to Gregor’s. I wholeheartedly agree with Straus’s claims and assertions. She believes “we should acknowledge Kakfa’s discomfort with the male role and with a language symbolically “owned” by a male literary establishment” (Straus 667). The switch in focus from a male protagonist to a female protagonist doesn’t take away from the literary value of the text. Raising the issues of women and elevating the importance of their narrative can be just as universal as the tragic downfall of Gregor’s masculinity, and even more relatable, his humanity. Transforming Kafka’s The Metamorphosis can and has proven to be, thanks to Straus’s argument, a text that can be inclusive of other groups given a closer look and a receptive audience.

Works Cited

Straus, Nina Pelikan. "Transforming Franz Kafka's "Metamorphosis"" Signs14.3 (1989): 651-67. JSTOR. Web. 23 May 2015.

[kafka499-blog]

Ciaran O’Connor,“A Consideration of Kafka's Metamorphosis as a Metaphor for Existential Anxiety about Ageing.”

Franz Kafka's most renowned and most often criticized works is the short story, "The Metamorphosis." Ciaran O’Connor writes, in , “A Consideration of Kafka's Metamorphosis as a Metaphor for Existential Anxiety about Ageing,” "The Metamorphosis" is most unusual in that the first sentence is the climax; the rest of the story is mainly falling action (4). In the article, the reader learns that Gregor Samsa, the story's main character, has been turned into an enormous insect. Despite this fact, Gregor continues to act and think like any normal human would, which makes the beginning of the story both tragic and comical at the same time. However, one cannot help but wonder why Gregor has undergone this hideous transformation, and what purpose it could possibly serve in the story. For O’Connor, Gregor's metamorphosis represents both freedom from maintaining his financial stability and his family's freedom from their dependence upon Gregor.

Long before the story takes place, Gregor Samsa's father had a business failure that left him deep in debt. His son, Gregor, works as a traveling salesman for the company to whom he owes money; Gregor is slowly working off his father's debt. Gregor is not happy with his job, which O’ Connor calls "degrading" and "soul-destroying," but Gregor believes that his family's existence depends upon him "sacrificing himself by working at this meaningless... job," and so he continues (pg. 2 ). She states that Gregor is a slave to his boss, which would imply that there is no escape for Gregor.

However, Gregor does escape from his life of indentured servitude by becoming a giant insect. O’ Connor explains the effect of the metamorphosis on his working position. The metamorphosis has intervened and made work impossible. It accomplishes, as we can see, in part at least, the goal of Gregor's longed-for rebellion. It sets him free of his odious job. At the same time, it relieves him of having to make a choice between his responsibility to his parents and his yearning to be free. The metamorphosis enables Gregor to become free and stay "innocent," a mere victim of uncontrollably calamity. (6)

The article suggests that in taking on this current bug form is the only real way to completely free himself from his job. As a result, Gregor is released from his servitude and family responsibility without any guilt, but must live out the rest of his life as a giant insect. O’ Connor believes that “there were no accidents, but simply acts springing from unconscious motives” (9). If this is true, then Gregor's metamorphosis could be considered his self-punishment and responsibility for wanting to quit his job. This metamorphosis also represents Gregor's freedom as an individual. Throughout his entire life, he has let other people make his decisions for him; this is the first occurrence in his life over which no one, including himself had any control. “This metamorphosis allows his hidden self to emerge, the self that had been stifled for so many years” (7). Gregor is no longer the person his family depends on and need him to work, but a creature representing his true personality. Gregor was never really "alive" as the head of the house. Even if he had eventually paid off his family's debt, by that time his life would have been wasted. But in actuality, “Gregor's death comes not as a human but as an insect, when the family he once support and came to rely upon completely neglects him” (3).

O’ Connor does not believe Gregor’s family to be true antagonists. Kafka shows not only a metamorphosis in Gregor, but also in his mother, father, and sister Grete as well. “At first, Gregor's metamorphosis brings out hate and fear in his family, despite everything he has done to help them” (9). However, as the family adjusts to Gregor's metamorphosis, they adjust their lives at the same time. They had grown sluggish depending upon Gregor in his current form, but now they must learn to once again take care of themselves. The family gradually becomes independent and can take care of themselves; unfortunately, for this to happen, Gregor had to become a disgusting vermin. “Kafka knew that the family had to want its independence from Gregor but still be guiltless in attaining it; the only way to make this work was to make Gregor repulsive to them (9).

As the Samsas’ become more independent, they neglect Gregor more and more as he begins to deteriorate and die. The more independent they become, the urge to get rid of him grows ever higher. Mr. Samsa, once completely dependent on his son for all financial support, found new purpose and wanted to work again. He raises his stature once again to reclaim his spot as the man of the house while Gregor withers and dies (10). Just as the family becomes completely independent and decides that Gregor is more of a annoyance than they can continue to endure, Gregor dies. O’ Connor observes that this is because Gregor had to be “sacrificed for their rebirth” (11). It is as though there was a sense of balance of dependence in the house before Gregor's transformation; he supported everyone but still dependant on his family for several things, such as shelter and love. However, after the transformation, Gregor's family becomes completely independent, since they need nothing from Gregor, nor has he anything to offer them. Since, finally, he serves no purpose, it is only fitting that he rots away to leave his family their newborn freedom.

Gregor's transformation is much more than just a physical transformation. It is a means of liberation for both Gregor and his family. Since Gregor was a bug, he was no longer able to work, thereby freeing himself from the oppression of his father's debt. Since Gregor could not work, his family had to get jobs, thereby freeing themselves of their dependence on Gregor. Kafka puts realistic problems making the reader feel sorrow but yet engrossed in this story. The characters become real people, with real problem, in a real world, and the readers of the text become interested in how they develop. Gregor's metamorphosis was necessary for his freedom, as his death was necessary for the family's freedom. Gregor may have passed on at the end, but the last line of the story "And it was like a confirmation of their new dreams and excellent intentions that at the end of their journey their daughter sprang to her feet and stretched her young body" give us hope for the rest of the Samsa family and for their future as they return home.

Work Cited

O, Connor C. "A Consideration of Kafka's Metamorphosis As a Metaphor for Existential Anxiety About Ageing." Existential Analysis. 23.1 (2012): 56-66. Print. Kafka, Franz, and A. L. Lloyd. Metamorphosis. New York: Vanguard, 1946. Print.

[kafka499-blog]

Ruyu Hung’s “Caring about strangers: A Lingisian reading of Kafka’s Metamorphosis

Ruyu Hung’s “Caring about strangers: A Lingisian reading of Kafka’s Metamorphosis,” explores the essential enquiry of whether or not we are capable of caring about and relating to an out-cast member of society. He references a core principle of the philosopher Alphonso Lingis, in which Lingis details how the repugnance and fear of foreigners leads us to alienate them from society.  Hung’s article begins by citing a fundamental inquiry concerning the nature of mankind. “Why should I care about a stranger, a person who is no kin to me, a person whose habits I found disgusting?” (Rorty, 1993, p. 133). Hung then asks, “If so, can we as ordinary people as Gregor’s family members tolerate and include the eccentric and the unintelligible people, who could be our beloved family, relatives or friends, in our lifeworld and rational community?” (Hung 438).  

Hung’s prefaces his argument by analyzing a hypothesis presented by Rorty, which states that

“As members of a community, we understand each other because we share the same language, the same system of symbols. We act and     respond to each other in the so-called proper way, a predictable way. But   there are some people who do not share the same language with us, who cannot be predicted. They are unpredictable, odd strangers and     foreigners. Then, how do we members of the rational community face and deal with them those strangers, those eccentrics? According to Rorty (1989, 1993), to be sensitive and sentimental to strangers and others’ feelings could widen our mind and imagination to relate ourselves to strangers and others” (Hung 437).

Rorty’s theory suggests that we become members of a rational community by integrating ourselves with others through predictable language, mannerisms, and responses during social interaction. Those who are unable to act within the predictable confines and standards of the community are deemed foreigners.

Rorty also claims that the community can open its minds and better connect with unknown foreigners by utilizing “sentimental education.” These concepts are significant, because Hung believes that Kafka’s Metamorphosis is a testament to the benefits of implementing sentimental education. Hung writes, “[t]hrough reading the story an important question arises: Is it because Gregor becomes a monstrous insect, a stranger or an alien that his family abandons him? If so, can we as ordinary people as Gregor’s family members tolerate and include the eccentric and the unintelligible people, who could be our beloved family, relatives or friends, in our lifeworld and rational community?” (Hung 438). Hung reveals what he believes is Kafka’s response to the question of whether or not the strangers can assimilate into “ordinary” culture. “Kafka’s reply is, ostensibly, ‘no’.

However, this negative answer could direct a most profound reflection of our tolerance of otherness,” Hung writes (Hung 438).

For Ruyu Hung, The Metamorphosis addresses what is typically regarded as human, and what is not. He summarizes a significant portion of the plot in which Grete (Gregor’s sister) switches her stance on Gregor by refusing to care for him since he is no longer physically human. This brings up another question. How do we identify what is human and what is not? “How do we distinguish a rational person from a pseudohuman? How does Grete know Gregor is no longer rational and not a human being? As The Metamorphosis shows, the ability to use language is one of the most important criteria” (Hung 439). What exactly is a rational person according to Kafka? Hung believes that Kafka defines rationality based on an individuals the ability to speak the common language. This is at least the case in The Metamorphosis.

“Communication with common language discriminates those who are us             from those who are not. This relates to the second part of the message mentioned above: the inhumane treatment, exclusion and cruelty. The   unintelligibility and inability to use language lead Gregor to lose his role in the human language game as well as a part in his family. The ‘family’ does not only mean Gregor and Grete’s family but also the whole human society, the moral circle of (rational) human beings. Gregor this  monstrous insect the pseudohuman is no longer one of human family and   thus deserves no humane and ethical treatment. The reader might doubt  how Gregor, who was once the dear supporter of the family, is abandoned  so quickly” (Hung 440).

Hung attributes the rapid exclusion of Gregor to fear. The rational community tends to isolate those it deems as threats, strictly on the basis of fear. Shifting back to The Metamorphosis we see an example of Lingis’s theory. Gregor’s family is not liable for rejecting Gregor because “his beetlehood (Nabokov, 1980) justifies his being a moral stranger, an ethical alien. Based on this, it is taken for granted that Gregor’s family (the rational community) should do something with Gregor (the stranger)” (Hung 440). This is quite possibly the most foolproof theory that Hung presents throughout the entire article. One cannot argue with the endless civilizational evidence that points toward a history excluding those we perceive as threatening and those who do not speak our language. “The exclusion is justified for the reason that the stranger is no human being; the stranger is, in Lingis’ words, an animal without language, nothing but rotting flesh” (Hung 441).

Hung goes on to discuss the advantages of employing Lingisian and Rortian readings of The Metamorpohsis. “Nonetheless, the Lingisian perspective has shown us the undeniably important role that emotions, feelings and sensibility play in perceiving the consonant transformation in everyone’s life, in having sympathy with others, and in recognizing the fact that everyone is a stranger.” Rorty endorses sentimental education as a means of resisting the rational temptation of moral education. Sentimental education can improve our care for those who have nothing in common with us by sensitizing depth-perception (Hung 445). By playing on the protagonist’s sensibility, Kafka eliminates the preliminary fear and hesitation that a traditional moral reading produces. The universal emotions found in The Metamorphosis create a screen for Gregor, which prevent us from viewing Gregor as simply an insect. For the Lingisian reader, Kafka constructs a scenario, in which we are compelled to find mutual ground with Gregor. This likely influences our perception of Gregor because we view Gregor as a victim of a wild circumstance, but nonetheless, we regard Gregor as human. According to Hung:

“Lingis’s stories describe   interesting details of the gestures, voices and attitudes of people in foreign lands or in remote countries. These subtle nuances make visible strangers who could have been invisible before. The stories bring us to  face strangers with their sweat and tears, blood and flesh, wrinkles and scars. Therefore, we as readers suddenly come to realize that strangers are human beings” (Hung 441).

Lingis introduces the notion of adding “depth,” which is the act of envisioning “the road the other has travelled, the obstacles he has cleared, the heat of the sun he is fleeing. Perception perceives through the surface turned to us, into the depth of the organism and into the depth of the world (Lingis 1994f, p.23). Through a Lingisian reading of the text we are able to embody the stranger. The stranger is probed in-depth, and given a fair opportunity to be added to the rational community. As a result, we are able to fully appreciate to the outsider, and relate to him. So why exactly should I care about the stranger? As Lingis states, “’Because I am the stranger and the stranger is me as we are in our mortality and vulnerability’. The journey continues as long as we live; we keep questioning ourselves as strangers” (Hung 446).

Hung believes Kafka’s intentions of exposing our inability to associate with strangers is misplaced. However, through Lingisian and Rortian lenses, The Metamorphosis encourages us to relate to the protagonist on a human level. Hung believes that we are in-fact the strangers. As he puts it earlier in the text, “Those who might have disgusting habits like the homeless or foreigners whose cultural practice is repulsive to us, or those who we may not be familiar with, like immigrants or tourists, and yet who we still care about because they are (in part) me and I am (in part) them. To care about myself and my beloved implies caring about strangers” (Hung 445).

Works Cited

Hung, Ruyu. "Caring About Strangers: a Lingisian Reading of Kafka's "metamorphosis"." Educational Philosophy and Theory. 45.4 (2013): 436-447. Print.

[kafka499-blog]

Ciaran O’Connor’s “A Consideration of Kafka's Metamorphosis as a Metaphor for Existential Anxiety about Ageing”

Franz Kafka's most renowned and most often criticized works is the short story, "The Metamorphosis." In “A Consideration of Kafka's Metamorphosis as a Metaphor for Existential Anxiety about Ageing,” Ciaran O’Connor writes "’The Metamorphosis’ is most unusual in that the first sentence is the climax; the rest of the story is mainly falling action (4).” Gregor Samsa, the story's main character, has been turned into an enormous insect. Despite this fact, Gregor continues to act and think like any normal human would, which makes the beginning of the story both tragic and comical at the same time. For O’Connor, Gregor's metamorphosis represents both freedom from maintaining his financial stability and his family's freedom from their dependence upon Gregor.

Long before the story takes place, Gregor Samsa's father had a business failure that left him deep in debt. His son, Gregor, works as a traveling salesman for the company to whom he owes money; Gregor is slowly working off his father's debt. Gregor is not happy with his job, which O’ Connor calls "degrading" and "soul-destroying," but Gregor believes that his family's existence depends upon him "sacrificing himself by working at this meaningless... job," and so he continues (pg. 2). She states that Gregor is a slave to his boss, which would imply that there is no escape for Gregor:

However, Gregor does escape from his life of indentured servitude by becoming a giant insect. O’ Connor explains the effect of The Metamorphosis on his working position. “The metamorphosis has intervened and made work impossible. It accomplishes, as we can see, in part at least, the goal of Gregor's longed-for rebellion. It sets him free of his odious job. At the same time, it relieves him of having to make a choice between his responsibility to his parents and his yearning to be free. The metamorphosis enables Gregor to become free and stay "innocent," a mere victim of uncontrollably calamity. (pg. 6)

The article suggests that in taking on this current bug form is the only real way to completely free himself from his job. As a result, Gregor is released from his servitude and family responsibility without any guilt, but must live out the rest of his life as a giant insect. O’ Connor believes that “there were no accidents, but simply acts springing from unconscious motives” (9). If this is true, then Gregor's metamorphosis could be considered his self-punishment for wanting to quit his job.

This metamorphosis represents Gregor's chance for freedom as an individual. Throughout his entire life, he has let other people make his decisions for him; this is the first occurrence in his life over which no one, including himself had any control. “This metamorphosis allows his hidden self to emerge, the self that had been stifled for so many years” (7). Gregor is no longer the person his family depends on and need him to work, but a creature representing his true personality. Gregor was never really "alive" as the head of the house. Even if he had eventually paid off his family's debt, by that time his life would have been wasted. But in actuality, “Gregor's death comes not as a human but as an insect, when the family he once support and came to rely upon completely neglects him” (3).

O’ Connor does not believe Gregor’s family to be true antagonists. Kafka shows not only a metamorphosis in Gregor, but also in his mother, father, and sister Grete as well. “At first, Gregor's metamorphosis brings out hate and fear in his family, despite everything he has done to help them” (9). However, as the family adjusts to Gregor's metamorphosis, they adjust their lives at the same time. They had grown sluggish depending upon Gregor in his current form, but now they must learn to once again take care of themselves. The family gradually becomes independent and can take care of themselves; unfortunately, for this to happen, Gregor had to become a disgusting vermin. “Kafka knew that the family had to want its independence from Gregor but still be guiltless in attaining it; the only way to make this work was to make Gregor repulsive to them (9).

O’Connor uses The Metamorphosis to discuss time being wasted and lost. If we decide not to use this time to become wiser, that entire time is absolutely lost: According to O’Connor:  “We run the risk of losing track of time and coming to an inevitable imperfections of our conclusions” (pg. 10). She believes Gregor had wasted his entire life stuck in a terrible situation trying to work off his father’s debt. He never got a chance to experience the other aspects of life and try and become a better person than he was. She also brings up the fact that Gregor, condemned to his room, was not able to mature. Grete, in contrast, begins to learn more about her brother’s condition, and even at such a childish stage in her life, she begins to help him. Grete ages as the story goes on and she gets older, she becomes more aware of the situation and does notice she just sees him as an infestation.

As the Samsas’ become more independent, they neglect Gregor more and more as he begins to deteriorate and die. The more independent they become, the greater the urge to get rid of him becomes. Mr. Samsa, once completely dependent on his son for all financial support, finds new purpose and wanted to work again. He reclaims his spot as the man of the house while Gregor withers and dies (10). Just as the family becomes completely independent and decides that Gregor is more of an annoyance than they can continue to endure, Gregor dies. O’ Connor observes that this is because Gregor has to be “sacrificed for their rebirth” (11). It is as though there was a sense of balance of dependence in the house before Gregor's transformation; he supported everyone but still dependant on his family for several things, such as shelter and love. However, after the transformation, Gregor's family becomes completely independent, since they need nothing from Gregor, nor has he anything to offer them. Since, finally, he serves no purpose, it is only fitting that he rots away to leave his family their newborn freedom.

Gregor's transformation is much more than just a physical transformation. It is a means of liberation for both Gregor and his family. Since Gregor was a bug, he was no longer able to work, thereby freeing himself from the oppression of his father's debt. Since Gregor could not work, his family had to get jobs, thereby freeing themselves of their dependence on Gregor. Kafka puts realistic problems making the reader feel sorrow but yet engrossed in this story. The characters become real people, with real problem, in a real world, and the readers of the text become interested in how they develop. Gregor's metamorphosis was necessary for his freedom, as his death was necessary for the family's freedom. Gregor may have passed on at the end, but the last line of the story "And it was like a confirmation of their new dreams and excellent intentions that at the end of their journey their daughter sprang to her feet and stretched her young body" give us hope for the rest of the Samsa family and for their future as they return home.

 Work Cited

O, Connor C. "A Consideration of Kafka's Metamorphosis As a Metaphor for Existential Anxiety About Ageing." Existential Analysis. 23.1 (2012): 56-66. Print. Kafka, Franz, and A. L. Lloyd. Metamorphosis. New York: Vanguard, 1946. Print.

[kafka499-blog]

Critical Context

Critic Mark Spilka believes that Kafka’s The Metamorphosis, was created by building on bits and pieces of other writer’s works. Great writers before Kafka’s time wrote versions of Gregor’s character, a hardworking and often neglected person whose life becomes a version of turmoil. According to Spilka, “these writers formed a literary trend, which Kafka brought to full fruition or perhaps brought into being with his story, as he synthesized and clarified the latent form” (3). Gregor is a direct product of Kafka’s reading of Dostoevsky and Dickens among others (Spilka 3).  

Kafka may have thought up his story on his own, yet it was from authors like Dickens and Dostoevsky that he gathered the raw materials necessary for his story (Spilka 3). Kafka learned much from reading Dostoevsky’s works The characters in Dostoevsky’s work may not turn into giant bugs, but Gregor was modeled after a sales clerk who also was dissatisfied with his job and life like so many of Dostoevsky’s characters. “But the miracle itself, the change from man to vermin, derives from Dostoevsky: in function, it conveys the reality of unconscious life and connects it with the conscious plane, the realm of urban pressures” (7).

Not only was Kafka interested in Dostoevsky’s work, but he was also very fond of and attracted to the work of Dickens, whom his work also closely resembles. There is a parental type theme that runs through much of Dickens work, and it is that theme that Kafka transferred to his story. Gregor is locked in his room for almost the entire story, and Kafka got the idea to do this from one of Dickens characters also being locked in his room. The boy, who is locked in his room due to a spelling lesson mishap in Dicken’s novel, gave Kafka a basis fors Gregor’s exile. The father of the boy in Dicken’s story who forces him into his room, “compared him, not with an insect, but with an "obstinate horse or dog" (12). In this instance, the boy in Dicken’s story does not become a bug, nor is he compared to one, but he is still compared to a creature that is other than a human. The boy in the story is placed in the same category as an animal or as a lowly creature that does not deserve to be among others, to be kept away in his room due to his own mistakes and incorrect behavior. Kafka takes the idea of comparing a boy (or man in Gregor’s case) to something that is not human, and placing him in a lower level of the animal kingdom by making him a bug. He does not just compare Gregor to a bug, but he actually turns him into one. Gregor is exiled into his room just as the boy in Dickens novel is, but he does not get the chance to come out, and he is not treated like a human ever again.  

Kafka’s work parallels Dickens’ David Copperfield most of all because Gregor shares so many of the traits seen in Dickens main character. The character David, in Dickens novel, relates to Gregor because, “young David has been shut off from his family after a wild household commotion; he has been beaten by his stepfather (even as Gregor is kicked or pelted by his father)” (14). Kafka must have felt something or an attachment of sorts when he read this novel by Dickens because two main scenes in The Metamorphosis mimic the events that took place in David’s household. Gregor’s father is not a stepfather, but Kafka’s description of how he treats Gregor may lead some to believe that his mannerisms and behaviors are very un-father like. Gregor’s father is the person who seems to care the least over his transformation into a bug. He does not offer any help to Gregor’s mother or sister when they attempt to move the furniture in Gregor’s room or to make it more comfortable for him. Gregor’s father is also the first to chase him back into his room and the only person to hit Gregor during his time as a bug.

 When The Metamorphosis is understood in this way, it makes us see the text differently.. The beetle that Kafka creates is both literal and figurative, because a lot of hard working people, or even people with illness may feel like they are being treated like bugs, and there is precedent for this feeling in earlier authors Gregor wishes that he did not have to work in the job that he hated, and go through his burdensome daily life activities anymore, and he got his wish. There any many people in the world who are dissatisfied with their lives or their jobs, and they wish that there was something, anything, that could bring them away from it and give them the ability to stop taking care of obligations. In Gregor’s case, his wish was fulfilled and he did not have to work a day in his life after his transformation.                      

But Gregor is not entirely made up of bits and pieces of other characters in other works, because he is also a product of Kafka’s childhood. Kafka did not have an easy childhood, nor did he get along very well with his father. In this sense, Gregor’s terrible treatment by his father makes much more sense and it speaks to the way that Kafka had probably felt about his father from his childhood, and into his adult years. David, in Dickens novel, had problems with his stepfather, yet Dickens may have not had any problems with his real life father/stepfather growing up. Kafka felt exclusion and probably felt unloved by his own father, which would make sense as to why Gregor is treated so poorly.

According to Spilka, Kafka has a way of making a conventional story into something that is out of this world. For Dickens and Dostoevsky, their characters share traits that are similar to Greogor’s, yet their situations are nothing like Gregor’s. David, in Dickens’ work may be compared to a dog, yet he does not turn into a dog. He may also be abused by his step father, but he is not pelted with apples on his bug exterior, leaving welts that make it sufficiently hard for him to walk and move. Kafka takes general or ordinary situations and makes them literal. Gregor does not want to work anymore, and wishes that he did not have to, therefore, the next morning he is physically unable to work because he has turned into a beetle. For example, many people fight with their bosses, and may sometimes plead to keep their jobs upon being fired, but Kafka once again takes a generally seen situation, and makes it into something much bigger and out of the ordinary. Gregor chases after his boss in his bug like state, rather than just speaking with him in a civilized manner, as most people would in a business situation. The traits that Gregor embodies from other writers may be common, yet Kafka takes the commonality out of Gregor’s traits, and makes them unreal.

 Works Cited:

Spilka, Mark. Kafka's Sources for the Metamorphosis. Comparative Literature.Vol. 11,No. 4 (Autumn, 1959); Duke University Press: 289-307.

[kafka499-blog]

Psychoanalyzing the Samsas

           “Narrative Lessons for the Psychotherapist” by Jerome S. Gans, uses Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis as a teaching method for clinicians who are psychoanalyzing patients. Through analysis of Gregor Samsa’s condition and Kafka’s narration the therapist-reader is able to examine Samsa’s fictional condition and employ the methods of critical reading in order to both diagnose him emotionally, and discover underlying messages throughout the story. Through literature, Gans is able to teach methods of psychoanalysis to students while exploring varying meanings of the text.

The act of reading literature itself can offer different tools to a psychotherapist’s sensitivity. This is needed in order to be able to hone in on what a patient really needs when their only clues are a storyline told by the patient. Similar to what a novel could be; a story separate from the life of the therapist, that he now has to look into and define. Often, patients can be unreliable narrators when presenting their world through their perception, similar to the way that a narrator in a story cannot always be fully trusted. Understanding how to analyze literature when this occurs equips the therapist with certain tools he can use on his patient, “Through an appreciation of the craft of storytelling, psychotherapists can arrive at a deeper understanding of their patients’ narrative style and its effect on them.” (353). The therapist must delve deeper into what a patient could be unconsciously saying, in the manner that a book could contain a hidden message behind the meaning of it’s text—it’s true meaning.

Kafka as a narrator offers an outside perspective to what’s actually going on the in the minds of the characters. All we mostly have to go on are their actions. All we have to go on about Gregor Samsa are the thoughts he allows us to hear. The article explains that Samsa should be considered as a patient to the therapist-reader. Through Kafka’s voice we hear the tale of this horrible condition Samsa has gotten into.  Samsa presents himself as a son who only wants to do right by his family. This makes sense because we hear this all in Samsa’s voice, and patients often paint themselves in positive lights so as to make their actions seem more benevolent. The reader’s task in the literature is to uncover who Samsa really is as a character, “Kafka invites the reader, just as many patients invite their therapists, to consider questions about evil” (354). Through this psychoanalytical lens we are to evaluate Samsa in a different light and not just take all his statements at face value, the same way you wouldn’t trust everything a patient was saying. Identifying the motivations behind Gregor or the family’s actions reveals their character. Sometimes it’s what they’re not saying that ends up being important, “the reader, similar to the therapist who is persuaded that the account given can be understood only as the patient renders it, has the opportunity to ask other questions, form other hypotheses” (354). It becomes the therapist-reader’s job to decipher what is actually going on under the surface.

It is clear that Gregor has a deplorable home life. This horrible thing has happened to him and his family blames him for it. Kafka’s narration can be read on different levels of a character. The mother and sister like to act as though all their motivations come from a place of love and protection for Gregor, or they’re somehow thinking of him. But as Gans further examines, both characters have ulterior motives for coming to Gregor’s needs. Through treating the characters as though they were patients and through the psychoanalytical lens, Gans furthers the search for the true meaning of the text. Further more, all the negativity that Gregor encounters in his life increases with the abuse of his father and then the humiliation he suffers at the end, all leading up to when the family meets to figure out a way to get rid of Gregor—this guy has it rough.  All of this has outwardly warped Gregor into the character he is—exactly how a patient’s life would have been  shaped by their environment. Gans explores the idea that Gregor has manifested himself into this bug as a reflection of how he felt as a human; “…his transformation into a bug captures the sense of contractedness, brittleness, vulnerability, and loathing which have characterized his long-standing feeling about himself” (356). In this way, Gregor outwardly manifested as this creature because that was how he felt on the inside.  

Gans uses a different method for doing a close reading of the text. In this way this argument is a formalist one because it holds the idea that the answers to understanding the text are in the text itself, and in the text alone. This observation did not take into account any personal information about Kafka while it evaluated the novel, all it took into account were continuous evaluation of the characters and how they presented themselves. I definitely agree that there is a deeper meaning behind the text and the perspective the article employed allowed for an interesting view that broadened my understanding of the text. The characters were pitted against themselves, and through their speech Gans was able to decipher secret meanings—in the same way he would analyze an actual patient. When I took into consideration that my view of the storyline may be slightly skewed because the characters themselves may be deceiving, the true meaning came within reach. Gregor considers himself, and depicts himself, as a loyal member of the family and through the narration we sympathize with him because of his mistreatment; but what of this behavior can be explained? The other characters in the book start to look less menacing, and more understandable. You no longer look at Gregor as the only victim, and even start to sympathize with the family. Taking all perspectives into account, and exploring the text and combing for clues to motivation allowed me to see this version of the story.