This second half of August we will be reading and discussing The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka
This second half of August we will be reading and discussing The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka
All aboard. All souls at half-mast. Aye-Aye. -Samuel Beckett, More Pricks Than Kicks
OK, let me see if I can digest this a bit.
Metamorphosis 1: The family looses everything five years ago when the father (Mr. Samsa)'s business goes belly up.
Metamorphosis 2: Gregor turns into a salesman "almost overnight" (by my translation) rather than take a job as a small clerk.
Metamorphosis 3: "...[Gregor's] success was immediately transformed into hard cash"
Metamorphosis 4: The family returns to their accustomed lifestyle.
Metamorphosis 5: Mr. Samsa becomes older, lazier, fatter, seemingly unhappier with his new leisurely lifestyle. He doesn't even show respect or thankfulness to Gregor by rising when he comes home at night, just raises his arm(s) in a form of greeting or acknowledgment.
Metamorphosis 6: He loses intimacy with parents gains it with sister.
Metamorphosis 7: Gregor may be pleased to provide for his family, he is counting the days until he can leave his job. So, maybe not so pleased as he thinks, he is paying of debt, not really providing for his family, perhaps?
Metamorphosis 8: Over night Gregor turns into giant insect. In the translation I read it does not explain the white itchy spots, does anyone know of any significance this might have?
Metamorphosis 9: Family pounds on the door all morning to get him to come out then spends all evening with the doors firmly closed and no attempt to communicate with him on the first day.
Metamorphosis 10: Gregor eventually looses ability to speak and understand human language.
Metamorphosis 11: Mother at first can only scream eventually (what like a month later?) wants to see her son even though he is not quite himself.
Metamorphosis 12: Sister takes care of him tries to make things easy for him, then turns on him and to the parents says we must get rid of him.
Metamorphosis 13: Gregor dies. Did the sister poison him? Why does the maid say the family needn't worry about getting rid of the corpse? What happened to him?
Metamorphosis 14: The death of Gregor is a day to celebrate rather than morn.
Metamorphosis 15: The family find that their financial prospects are better than they seem while discussing it on the way to the country for the day.
Metamorphosis 16: So, their son is dead. They now realize their daughter has become a young woman, she stretches her young body to emphasize their thoughts. Apparently, they are cool with Gregor's death and are ready to pimp out their daughter to a suitable young man, who arguably will improve their circumstances.
++++++++++ Modified: 16, August 2010 +++++++++++++++
Metamorphosis 17: The magazine picture in a handmade frame becomes a piece of art. Is there any significance in the fur the woman wears and the fact that one of her arms disappears in the fur????
Metamorphosis 18: Grete cares for her brother then changes to ambivalence and ending in wanting to be rid of the thing. She can earn money, her body has changed, and she has grown into an attractive young woman who can be married off. {This one I added because of my response to .Kafka in his provoking challenge}
Last edited by LMK; 08-16-2010 at 07:30 PM. Reason: Addition of Changes
I'd rather have questions that I can't answer than answers that I can't question.
I've read the first two parts. I'll start commenting after I finish the last.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
I've been looking for a story by Kafka, called "Die Metamorphose"
I never realised it is the translation of "Die Verwandlung"
Quite long for a short story. I always looked at it as a whole book - that's why I never made the connection
I'll see if I can find an English translation of the story. I read the original version years agoo, but I am afraid it has been buried in the deep seas of my mind.
Thank you for the "summary", LMK.
It is not too late, to be wild for roundabouts - to be wild for life
Wolfsheim - It is not too late
Already read it
Sapphire -
Yes, it is more of a novella than a short story, in my opinion, here is an on-line link to it:
http://www.kafka-franz.com/metamorphosis.htm
I'd rather have questions that I can't answer than answers that I can't question.
Ah, Kafka, what have you done to literature. This discussion is sure to stagnate around the notion of 'existentialism'. Most Kafkaites are sensationalists. May I provoke the audience to discuss the following idea in relation to the story: how a person rationalizes phenomena, particularly how a character in a story experiences this rationalization and how the narrator adopts an appropriate tone and style to illustrate and symbolize the text as mind.
I have no blood in these veins
but words that run as coarse
and dark as when they first
encounter arteries of secrets
that burst onto this page.
Personally, I concider myself neither a Kafkaite nor a sensationalist.Originally Posted by .Kafka
It also seems, in my opinion, a bit unneccessary to predict how the discussion will play out, if it will stagnate around anything, though the most obvious would be existentialism which you yourself add to the discussion...ironic, perhaps?
With regard to your 'thought provoking' items, would you be interested in providing bit more clarity?
If and until that is offered, I will try to respond.
In addition to my list of changes, I labeled each a Metamorphism only to punctuate the title and tone of the novella, as well as to show that the metamorphosis is more than the character, Gregor, waking up to find himself transformed into a giant insect, there are many and each can be discussed should anyone care to.
The opinions that I point out will show how the mind, thoughts, feelings of a specific character changes by the highly unusual phenomenon of Gregor turning into an insect (or other catastrophic condition that changes his physical appearance and his ability to be a part of the family especially as provider).
I will attempt to do this despite of not because of the style of narration. I say this because, while the writer claims that the insect can no longer understand or speak human language the story is told as if they each understand each other. This is an implicit observation not an explicit statement from the author. However, the style does its work in what I am about to address because in spite of the contradiction of understanding or not understanding the language, it supports the growing disparity of feeling between the two most intimate characters, in my opinion.
Now on to your idea provocation, I will take the character Grete, as her character is the one that changes the most in the story.
The character acts kindly toward her brother, first speaking in soft tones through the door, knowing that something is amiss and pleading with him to let her in to help however she can (or to come out of the room so she can help, either way, I think it is to help). She brings him his favorite milk with bread, finding it all but untouched, realizes that the bit of spillage might be due to his trying to eat, but finding it distasteful to his current condition. She goes on to think what might appeal to an insect and brings him an array of things twice a day. She comes in to clean and keep his chair near the window. She cannot tolerate the sight of the new visage of the brother, but does so much for him perhaps the inability to look him straight on can be overlooked…hmm…perhaps, perhaps not. She sees he needs more room and moves furniture out of the room so he can crawl about more easily. She tries to adapt (morph) the surroundings to fit the new condition of the brother.
When the mother sees Gregor, as he tries to protect the painting, she faints. NOW, Grete can look at him, but what does she do? She shakes her fist at him.
Eventually the food and cleanings become lackadaisical at best, scooting the food in by her foot and sweeping it away later (usually untouched, but no mention is made that she tries to offer new or different foods as she might have early on). There are dirt streaks on the walls and dust in the corners, which demonstrates the lack of attention she now pays to the cleanliness of her brother’s surroundings.
Finally, she puts her foot down to the family, Gregor is no more. If the insect were Gregor, he would have had the consideration to remove himself from the premises, since he has not the insect is something that just must go. The parents agree.
The insect/brother dies; she (along with the parents) is relieved.
Now, Grete becomes the focus of the parents to perhaps secure their future.
Grete’s body has changed, her attitude has changed, SHE is changed.
I'd rather have questions that I can't answer than answers that I can't question.
I finally was able to start reading the story. Just finished with the first part, and it reminded me of just how much I love this story, and how hysterical it is. It is quite interesting comparing my perceptions between the first time I read the story to reading it now.
One of my favorite parts of the story is how completely nonchalant Gregor responds to the fact that he just morphed into a giant insect overnight, and his perception that even in his current state he could still carry on with his daily life.
I loved the fact that he went from thinking "oh I just tuned into a giant insect" to then trying to simply go back to sleep to when that fails contemplating upon how inconvenient his job is.
In my first reading of the story I had thought the surrealism of his response to the situation was hilarious, and while I still cannot altogether escape from the comic aspect of it, upon reading the story for a second, knowing already what the outcome is going to be, I see now something rather sad an almost pathetic in his way of dealing with the change which has taken over him.
His refusing to acknowledge what has happened him can be viewed as a denial of accepting such a preposterous situation as he has found himself in, as well the fact that his work still remains first and foremost upon his mind, and his being so tied into the troubles of his family, in the fact that he is still desperate to continue on with his work in spite of what has become of him, shows his dissociation from himself and his own personal needs and desires.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
Very interesting about the sister being the character who changed the most, also, the note about maybe Gregor didn't turn into an insect, but had some other thing happen that changed him physically and made him less a part of the family in everyone's eyes.
I'll try a different character. The father also changed, first he was a successful business man then he loses everything and his son is left to pay off his debts. He sits in a chair in his robe turning into a big lump. Is it because in his mind he feels like he's let the family down and turns inside himself in worry and fretting and embarrassment? Then when Gregor has changed and the father is needed again, he changes again. Gregor says the father is almost unrecognizable as the man he'd seen only a month (or so) before. Why does he not take off the uniform? Does he feel like he is contributing again and it makes him feel proud?
Well that's what I think.
I must have been typing when you posted Dark Muse. I also thought it comical, that he was trying to think how he would carry on even though he was an insect stuffing himself under the sofa. He never did seem to change in his mind, only physically.
He still wanted to provide, he still wanted to send the sister to conservatory for violin and so on, he stayed the same character.
Before we get to anything that abstract, lets discuss the story first, the characters, the mechanics of the story, and the movement. If we don't agree on that, such intellectualizing is useless.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
While I agree with Virgil that we might want to focus first on the basics, I can't help throwing some ideas out there before they slip my mind. Stephen Mitchell, the writer who has made any number of marvelous translations from the Tao Te Ching, to Gilgamesh, to the poems of Rilke, to The Book of Job makes some marvelous observations in his translation of Job about the link between that central Biblical narrative and Kafka. Before we jump on Nietzsche and Existentialism we might do well to remember that Kafka was a Jewish writer... he was well versed in the Jewish Bible and in the Jewish traditions of Midrash and reinterpretation of Biblical narratives. Any number of his tales deal with individuals confronted with the often absurd actions of superiors... often superiors that are faceless... never seen... never known to truly exist. Just as Job awakes to find his entire life rent asunder (over a wager between God and the Tempter)... in spite of the fact that "he had done no wrong"... so we have Joseph K. suddenly charged with a crime... the nature of which he was not permitted to know... or Gregor Samsa suddenly metamorphosed into a giant dung beetle... in spite of the fact that he had done no wrong. All of these bring us to that central Biblical question... why do bad things happen to good people... people who have done no wrong? Sure God/the Gods must be crazy?
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
I think the point of whether or not Gregor has done wrong can be debated, as concepts of "good" "bad" "right" "wrong" are in themselves subjective to the individual and can be viewed upon different levels.While I agree with Virgil that we might want to focus first on the basics, I can't help throwing some ideas out there before they slip my mind. Stephen Mitchell, the writer who has made any number of marvelous translations from the Tao Te Ching, to Gilgamesh, to the poems of Rilke, to The Book of Job makes some marvelous observations in his translation of Job about the link between that central Biblical narrative and Kafka. Before we jump on Nietzsche and Existentialism we might do well to remember that Kafka was a Jewish writer... he was well versed in the Jewish Bible and in the Jewish traditions of Midrash and reinterpretation of Biblical narratives. Any number of his tales deal with individuals confronted with the often absurd actions of superiors... often superiors that are faceless... never seen... never known to truly exist. Just as Job awakes to find his entire life rent asunder (over a wager between God and the Tempter)... in spite of the fact that "he had done no wrong"... so we have Joseph K. suddenly charged with a crime... the nature of which he was not permitted to know... or Gregor Samsa suddenly metamorphosed into a giant dung beetle... in spite of the fact that he had done no wrong. All of these bring us to that central Biblical question... why do bad things happen to good people... people who have done no wrong? Sure God/the Gods must be crazy?
While outwardly it does appear that is is a generally good person. He has not committed any crime which is known to the reader, and is dedication to his family can be seen as a noble act, but the fact that he might in fact have been too self-sacrificing can be seen as a vice within itself.
It seems as if in fact was too preoccupied with his work, a job of which it seemed gave him no pleasure in life and of which he was bond to because of the obligation he felt toward his family. He did not appear to have given any thought to himself and in fact denied himself any life of his own.
Even after his metamorphosis occurs the first thoughts which come into his mind is his need to get to work, and worry about his family, while he does not seem to acutally think about the effect the change will have upon him for his own sake.
While he should not have been completely self-serving, I think there lacked a necessary balance between paying heed to his own desires and needs and attending to his duty to his family.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
Gregor was like an insect in his behaviour before the transformation- leading an unsatisfactory monotonous life of work, 'beetling away'. The family are disgusted with him when he turns into a literal insect...he's more human than they are. They're horrible to him.
Why doesn't Gregor feel horror, fear, and all the other strong emotions that one would expect in such a situation as his?
"He lives most gaily who knows best how to deceive himself. Ha-ha!"
- CRIME AND PUNISHMENT (Fyodor Dostoyevsky)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
