Short Story Club: The Metamorphosis by Kafka

[King Mob]

This second half of August we will be reading and discussing The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka

[LMK]

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}

[Virgil]

I've read the first two parts. I'll start commenting after I finish the last.

[Sapphire]

:eek: I've been looking for a story by Kafka, called "Die Metamorphose" :brickwall I never realised it is the translation of "Die Verwandlung" :blush: Quite long for a short story. I always looked at it as a whole book - that's why I never made the connection :crazy:

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. :)

[kelby_lake]

Already read it :)

[LMK]

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

[.Kafka]

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.

[LMK]

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.




Personally, I concider myself neither a Kafkaite nor a sensationalist.

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.

[Dark Muse]

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.

[EJMathews]

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.

[Virgil]

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.




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.

[stlukesguild]

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?:out:

[Dark Muse]

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?:out:

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 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.

[kelby_lake]

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.

[bouquin]

Why doesn't Gregor feel horror, fear, and all the other strong emotions that one would expect in such a situation as his?

[kiki1982]

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.

That's a great thought, 'beetling away'... :)

Indeed, Gregor's life was unsatisfactory. But are his parents not horrible to him because it is innate to people to be afraid of things like insects, particularly if they do not fly around, but creep everywhere? Is it not normal to them to want them dead anyway? Not that they eat their food, because they only eat the rests of it that have gone bad, but they don't like them anyway. Still, they won't die of hunger if they're there, but they don't like them.

The sister is one of those people who are a little bit more resillient and do not follow the rest of the horde.

A lot of scholars have linked this motive in his work to the Jews and anti-Semitism, but I think it might have something to do too with the Jews being part of a Catholic society. If they are not hated, then they are still not part of it, they are a community within that society, who marry amongst themselves or have to convert and then get shunned. And then there is Kafka's family in itself, which was part of the Jewish community, but was not practicing in the synagogue. So, they were part of the community within society, but still apart from it, because they did not do what they were supposed to do. For the Catholic rest, they were Jews by race, so non-Cathonlics, as so different. For the Jewish community, they were not practicing, so not real. As a result, I think, Kafka had a lot of knowledge of the other religion, but at the same time, wasn't part of anything, except by race, but what is that? Kafka once said that his Bar Mitswah was the most meaningless thing he had ever done in his life... Just because, obviously, it was something material and not something 'true'.

I suppose that might also have something to do with it. Being part of the family, because being Gregor, but at the same time not bieng part of it because one is different.

[Dark Muse]

On the one hand with the exception of his sister his family can be viewed as being ungrateful towards him for all the sacrifices he has made for them. Giving away his own life and dedicating all his time to working to support them and pay off their debts, attending to a job of which he dislikes with only thoughts for them, and yet when the tables turn and he finds himself in a position of needing support, his parents are not willing to make the same sacrifices that Gregor has. They do not want the inconvenience of having to deal with him in this state now that he is no longer a use to them, but has become a burden and an inconvenience which destroys their perception of the normality of their lives.

Yet on the other hand, I agree in part with kiki, their reaction to Gregor and what has become of him, I think is a normal human response to such a situation. After all it is something no one is prepared to deal with and people do have a fear of that which they fail to understand. They are not prepared to deal with something which suspends their ideas of reality as most people are not. I would not say they are truly horrible people, but they like the strength to forebear when faced with something which challenges their abilities of acceptance, understanding and tolerance.

As his parents there is an expectation that no matter what they should love and accept him, and support him during trails of need and difficulty, even if it does cause themselves suffering and inconvenience, but when it comes down to it, is there truly such a thing as unconditional love? Is absolute unconditional love really within any humans capability and capacity?


Why doesn't Gregor feel horror, fear, and all the other strong emotions that one would expect in such a situation as his?

That is one of the things which I myself question, the way in which he reacts or perhaps fails to react to the situation. In my first reading of the story it is strange and baffling and even quite humorous but upon reading it again I think I pick up on things of which I did not see the first time around.

I have come to the belief that his lack of response to what has become of him is in part driven by a sense of denial, his own inability to fully and completely process which has happened to him, for it is something that so completely suspends belief that he is too shocked to actually acknowledge it even if he cannot deny what he is seeing he cannot bring himself into full belief of it.

His lack of reacting in an emotional way that one would except is because he is refusing to actually deal with it, he wants only to go back to his life as normal in the hopes that by doing so, he will discover that the situation had all just been some illusion and that he will once more become normal if his actions follow their normal course.

I also think that part of it is a statement as to just how little he has thought of himself and his own life. The fact that in such a dire circumstance he has been brought to, instead of wondering how it will in fact affect him and what it will mean to his life, his only thoughts are of how to get to work for the sake of his family and what will become of his family if he fails to be able to perform is ordinarily daily duties.

[spookymulder93]

Finished the story last night.

So let me get this straight: He goes to work all the time to help support his family even though he dislikes his job. He wakes up one day transformed into an actual bug. The family has to start taking care of him, but when they get jobs they feel they don't have the time to take care of him.

He worked hard to put food in 3 mouths plus his own and his reward is to die of starvation belly up in a dirty apartment room? Sounds like an accurate description of life.

What strikes me is he is the only one who doesn't act shocked at the fact that he's turned into a bug. I wonder what kind of bug he was? The charwoman says beetle, but I got a picture of a roach.

[Virgil]

Finished the story last night.

So let me get this straight: He goes to work all the time to help support his family even though he dislikes his job. He wakes up one day transformed into an actual bug. The family has to start taking care of him, but when they get jobs they feel they don't have the time to take care of him.

He worked hard to put food in 3 mouths plus his own and his reward is to die of starvation belly up in a dirty apartment room? Sounds like an accurate description of life.

What strikes me is he is the only one who doesn't act shocked at the fact that he's turned into a bug. I wonder what kind of bug he was? The charwoman says beetle, but I got a picture of a roach.

:lol: I think you've got a good summary there. It never says what type of bug, but I picture a cockroach too.

[EJMathews]

Finished the story last night.

So let me get this straight: He goes to work all the time to help support his family even though he dislikes his job. He wakes up one day transformed into an actual bug. The family has to start taking care of him, but when they get jobs they feel they don't have the time to take care of him.

He worked hard to put food in 3 mouths plus his own and his reward is to die of starvation belly up in a dirty apartment room? Sounds like an accurate description of life.

What strikes me is he is the only one who doesn't act shocked at the fact that he's turned into a bug. I wonder what kind of bug he was? The charwoman says beetle, but I got a picture of a roach.

Yes, I think you've got it. He was living the life of an insect, {here we go} existing in the moment, with only a far away dream of quitting his job and the hope to send his sister to learn to play the violin better. His actual existence was nothing more than crawling around, selling things, not even enjoying breakfast like the other salesmen, just working, eating, getting little sleep (which he as an insect eventually stops doing). Gregor was not the change, he was not what the metamorphosis, in my opinion. The overall family changed and individuals within the family changed.

[Rores28]

Finished the story last night.

What strikes me is he is the only one who doesn't act shocked at the fact that he's turned into a bug. I wonder what kind of bug he was? The charwoman says beetle, but I got a picture of a roach.

I've read that Kafka insisted that upon the story's publication they not affix any sort of illustration of a bug. It would seem that he may have wanted to leave this ambiguous, maybe so that we superimpose the kind of bug we find most repugnant?

[LMK]

I've read that Kafka insisted that upon the story's publication they not affix any sort of illustration of a bug. It would seem that he may have wanted to leave this ambiguous, maybe so that we superimpose the kind of bug we find most repugnant?

I did not know this about Kafka's not wanting any bug illustration. That is very interesting.

It also fits with the thought that the insect was a way to describe Gregor in as awful terms possible. Perhaps he was stricken with polio and the sight of the iron lung was repugnant, in other words, perhaps his change into the insect is not the important metamorphosis. Gregor some how in some way changed so that he could no longer provide for the family, be a part of the family and was not easy on the eyes.

The metamophosis that takes place in so many other areas of the story are more of a caterpillar to a moth change than Gregors 'condition' because his thought process and feelings towards his family his goals do not change.

[stlukesguild]

English translators have often sought to render the word Ungeziefer as "insect", but this is not strictly accurate. In Middle German, Ungeziefer literally means "unclean animal not suitable for sacrifice" [2] and is sometimes used colloquially to mean "bug" – a very general term, unlike the scientific sounding "insect". Kafka had no intention of labeling Gregor as any specific thing, but instead wanted to convey Gregor's disgust at his transformation. The phrasing used in the David Wyllie translation[3] and Joachim Neugroschel[4] is "transformed in his bed into a monstrous vermin".

However, "vermin" denotes in English many animals (particularly mice, rats and foxes) and in Kafka's letter to his publisher of 25 October 1915, in which he discusses his concern about the cover illustration for the first edition, he uses the term "Insekt", saying "The insect itself is not to be drawn. It is not even to be seen from a distance."[5] While this shows his concern not to give precise information about the type of creature Gregor becomes, the use of the general term "insect" can therefore be defended on the part of translators wishing to improve the readability of the end text.

Ungeziefer has sometimes been translated as "cockroach", "dung beetle", "beetle", and other highly specific terms. The term "dung beetle" or Mistkäfer is in fact used in the novella by the cleaning lady near the end of the story, but it is not used in the narration. Ungeziefer also denotes a sense of separation between him and his environment: he is unclean and must therefore be excluded.

Vladimir Nabokov, who was a lepidopterist as well as writer and literary critic, insisted that Gregor was not a cockroach, but a beetle with wings under his shell, and capable of flight — if only he had known it. Nabokov left a sketch annotated "just over three feet long" on the opening page of his (heavily corrected) English teaching copy.[6] In his accompanying lecture notes, Nabokov discusses the type of vermin Gregor has been transformed into, concluding that Gregor "is not, technically, a dung beetle. He is merely a big beetle. (I must add that neither Gregor nor Kafka saw that beetle any too clearly)"

from- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metamorphosis

Kafka's choice of the archaic word, "Ungeziefer", seems highly instructive. Beside leaving the exact notion of Gregor's transformation open to individual interpretation, it would also seem to suggest again some of what I mentioned in my early post with regard to Kafka's debt to Jewish Biblical literature. The unclean animal suggests that which is repellent in Jewish Biblical law... but one wonders if does not also suggest something of the antisemitism of the time which portrayed the Jews themselves as "unclean"? Of course I don't believe we can limit the interpretation of this work to a comment on antisemitism any more than we can reduce it to a comment on Capitalism, Communism, etc... I simply suggest another possible level of interpretation and inspiration.

[bouquin]

Finished the story last night.

So let me get this straight: He goes to work all the time to help support his family even though he dislikes his job. He wakes up one day transformed into an actual bug. The family has to start taking care of him, but when they get jobs they feel they don't have the time to take care of him.

He worked hard to put food in 3 mouths plus his own and his reward is to die of starvation belly up in a dirty apartment room? Sounds like an accurate description of life.

What strikes me is he is the only one who doesn't act shocked at the fact that he's turned into a bug. I wonder what kind of bug he was? The charwoman says beetle, but I got a picture of a roach.



I'm reading the French translation by Jean Torrent. In it the servant calls Gregor "cafard" meaning cockroach. I myself imagine him as some sort of beetle because of the description of his back having become as hard as a shell/carapace.

[.Kafka]

I enter the world of the Metamorphosis as a wayfarer. And here are parts of my journey in sad words.

Suppose your world is suddenly disemboweled, the center splits open and spills out; guts, numbers, and words. Facts and figures, statistics and realities, all confound and collide. Absolute panic sinks into thoughts, trauma bites in the skull, and a scathing fear gnaws. Perhaps years of psychological nurturing could fortify a mind to cope with the bizarre, miraculous, and outer-terrestrial. But how is it that under these very circumstances, Gregor Samsa, a mere traveling salesman, is unmoved, and at most, slightly annoyed? Where is the terror?

The metamorphosis of Samsa occurs before any empirical information is provided. No reasons are given as for his situation. There are no narrative directions as to whether readers should condemn or sympathize with him. No answers are provided as to why this gross metamorphosis has arisen. One moment Samsa is comfortably asleep and in the next he plunges from fantasy to reality, only to find, that his reality is now tainted and undermined. Corngold describes the sudden beginning as, “The thrust of the work is to describe the response of Gregor and his family to the abrupt metamorphosis violently inserted into conventional reality” (Kafka, 2004, pg 61).

The introductory paragraph is presented in a meticulous, realist style. Every nuance of Samsa’s new body is methodically described. This keen description tethers the event of the metamorphosis in the realm of fact and alleviates doubts of its delusional characteristics.

Works of literature are not immediate and chaotic spawns; they are meticulously and painstakingly conceived. But on completion, the author is cast into the unknown, disseminated by the encircling forces of interpretation. And the greater this feeling of death, the more acutely the text is absorbed as a personal and private experience.

Who is the narrator? What is the narrator? What are the intentions of the narrator? Can we as skeptical readers accept Samsa’s transformation as fact, or do we only, on the basis of fact and actuality, question its symbolic structure and allegorical qualities?

I find the story odd and unworldly inasmuch that even though Samsa undergoes a profound transformation he retains human rationality, human consciousness, human feeling, and most significantly, human language. An example of the anthropocentric nature of Samsa’s metamorphosis is perceptible in this casually interested statement from the opening paragraph, “he found himself changed”, wherein Samsa retains an ability to rationalize and to identify with himself (Kafka, 2004, pg 3). And as we know of identity it is the condition of being oneself. Even though Samsa’s skin has transformed into a tough “armor plate” and numerous legs have sprouted, Samsa is very much himself, or the narrator is persuading us to believe this regardless of his physical transformation. Moreover, the narrator anticipates our instinctive need to classify Samsa’s experience as an “unsettling dream” and diminishes it. This textual anticipation implicates readers. For thematic purposes the narrator again repeats “It was no dream”, to distill any doubts the reader may yet possess (Kafka, 2004, pg 3). However, a dreamer may readily confess of the truthfulness of the dream by dismissing it as ‘(but) it was no dream’, for the dream, to the dreamer, is real and utterly convincing. Both interpretations are valid. Whereas one draws readers closer in interacting with the text, the other draws reader deeper into Samsa’s psyche. It is as such in the opening paragraph, that the most prominent themes of the story are established in conjunction with the binary opposition of the concepts of the exterior and the interior: identity, transformation, and classification. Furthermore, in the following paragraph another key theme is introduced – the phenomena of normalizing and familiarizing. “His room, a regular human room, only a little on the small side, lay quiet between four familiar walls” (Kafka, 2004, pg 3). The aforementioned quote of the omniscient narrator achieves two things. Firstly, it illustrates for readers that Samsa’s surroundings are recognizable and by all means normal even though he has changed. Secondly, it highlights the physical transformation of Samsa, by referring to the room (all rooms are human) as ‘human’.

Kafka, F. (2004). The Metamorphosis. New York: Bantam Dell.

[LMK]

I'm reading the French translation by Jean Torrent. In it the servant calls Gregor "cafard" meaning cockroach. I myself imagine him as some sort of beetle because of the description of his back having become as hard as a shell/carapace.

This is the unfortunate issue we all face when reading translations; we are at the mercy of the translating writer, and is one reason why I suggested we read the same translation (see original thread for short story club).

I think the author is not as concerned about what Gregor turned into, but that living his insect like life, he finally finished the metamorphosis and physically came to look like the insect he was. He was this all along, and his family barely gave him notice, let alone respect for what he was doing for them. In the end they gave his death no notice.

I maintain it is the sister; Grete who shows metamorphosis in character, a caterpillar that does what needs to be done...will she tie herself in a cocoon and become the butterfly?

[Dark Muse]

This is the unfortunate issue we all face when reading translations; we are at the mercy of the translating writer, and is one reason why I suggested we read the same translation (see original thread for short story club).

Though I think it is really irrelevant if an individual sees him as a cockroach, dung beetle, or just some unnamed undefined thing. Though the way in which he is described within the story does seem very cockroach like, I myself never really gave much particular attention into exactly what he was suppose to be. It was enough to know that he changed into something that leads an insect like life and is seen as repulsive to other people.

[LMK]

Though I think it is really irrelevant if an individual sees him as a cockroach, dung beetle, or just some unnamed undefined thing. Though the way in which he is described within the story does seem very cockroach like, I myself never really gave much particular attention into exactly what he was suppose to be. It was enough to know that he changed into something that leads an insect like life and is seen as repulsive to other people.

I agree, exactly, Dark Muse!

I didn't see the cockroch and even when the maid (in my translation) called it a dung beetle, I didn't visualise it that way. I don't think what he morphed into was as important as that 1) he took on the physical appearance of what he had become and 2) there were many other transformations occuring within the story.

[Dark Muse]

In a way it seems as if Gregor's metamorphosis which leads to his eventual death was actually a catalyst which helps to set his family free. As LMK points out the many different sorts of change which occur within the book.

Ultimately Gregor's good intentions towards his family ended up acting like a burden to them and held them back from be able to come into their own. They became too dependent upon him as he took it upon himself to carry the full brunt of the debt upon his shoulders in seeking to take care of his family. Because of this his family had no motivation to actually do anything for themselves and to truly consider their options and possibility for the future but simply accepted their state and fell into an impoverished stupor. Allowing themselves to believe they were completely helpless because Gregor took care of everything for them.

Perhaps Gregor is an "abomination" in the way in which the parental roles become almost reversed. Gregor takes on his father's duty of providing for the family, and instead of his family taking care of him. It seems that Gregor also took over an almost paternal role toward his sister in determining what she should got to the academy and that he would find the way to provide the means to allow her to do so.

But after the incident occurs, when his family can no longer rely upon Gregor they are forced than to rely upon themselves and actually considering their future options and find a means to once more provide for themselves and in doing this they become more responsible and more confident within themselves.

With the father's finding a new job (though his actions toward Gregor are disagreeable and unsympathetic) he goes from being a timid old man to once more rising into a position of authority over his family, and thus sets the natural order and thus Gregor is removed from the picture.

[Virgil]

Is it worth discussing why Gregor becomes an insect? In a story where everything else has realistic events, doesn't one have to see if there is an answer based on some pseudo realistic reason? There seem to be several possible rationalizations.

[stlukesguild]

I think the deadpan realism is what allows us to almost accept the absurd change... yet it also makes it more disturbing. If there were more elements to the writing that were of a fantastic or fabulists-like nature, I don't think it would be so disconcerting.

[Dark Muse]

I think the deadpan realism is what allows us to almost accept the absurd change... yet it also makes it more disturbing. If there were more elements to the writing that were of a fantastic or fabulists-like nature, I don't think it would be so disconcerting.

Yes, that is an excellent point. Placing this extraordinary event on the backdrop of such sparse realism is what makes the situation more believable for the reader. Both Gregor's reactions to what happens as well as simply seeing the daily lives of the family, and how systematically the sister looks after him is such a stark contrast to the metamorphosis itself.

It would not be so nearly disturbing and provocative if it was placed within a more surreal setting, because it would make Gregor's change an easier pill to follow if it did not stand out so strongly against his surroundings and his life.

[hanzklein]

If you ask me, the reason for Gregors' insect transformation is a metaphor for a crippling illness. The characteristics of Gregor are spot on for anyone who has been considerably ill and nauseous before. For example his difficulty in maneuvering, his disgust at milk which he used to love and his inability to speak properly. Kafka himself had Tuberculosis if I remember right, maybe he based this story on his experience. Something else supporting this is how often sickness is mentioned in the story. Also, the view outside of his window of the hospital disappears - a hospital is a place which cures illness. There's more to the story though, the painting could represent the fall of man with the snake around the womans' neck and also references Venus in Furs, an interesting book to reference in this story considering its nature. His father also pelts him with apples, perhaps another reference to adam & eve.

I've only read little outside of the main text which I just finished today, I plan to read more criticisms, essays and analyses sometime soon.

Edit: and about the ending, that's definitely quite puzzling and thought provoking. It seems a weird way to end the book. But about the maid, she symbolizes a cleaner. Maids are paid to clean, and she pokes pokes Gregor with a broom as a joke. A broom, as we all know, is a an item used to clean up messes. The maids ambiguity about how she disposed of him leaves an enormous room for pondering what it could mean. Even more puzzling is what it means when Grete transformed into a beautiful young woman by the end. I have some thoughts on this, but I'll leave it out.

[bouquin]

On the back cover of my book the family name of Gregor is printed as "Samson." I don't know if this is mere typographical error or was done on purpose, anyway it leads me to think of Samson in the Bible who wakes up one morning only to find out that he has lost his herculean strength because Delilah has cut off his hair.

[LMK]

On the back cover of my book the family name of Gregor is printed as "Samson." I don't know if this is mere typographical error or was done on purpose, anyway it leads me to think of Samson in the Bible who wakes up one morning only to find out that he has lost his herculean strength because Delilah has cut off his hair.

Is it only Samson on the outside cover or throughout the book?

It seems to me that the biblical analogy of Samsno would be the antithesis of Gregor; Samson believes his power was in his hair, so is weak (or punished by God for allowing it to be cut knowingly or unknowingly). However, Gregor seems to have been an insect long before he turned into one physically (whether he actually did, or as I have said before, if he just became physically abhorrent and no longer useful to the family).

[bouquin]

I wonder if Kafka himself might have wanted to make reference to Samson in the Bible when he gave the family name Samsa to the character Gregor. Maybe the two names have the same origin?... just like Joshua~Jesus, Miriam~Mary, for example. In my opinion, Gregor's circumstances need not exactly ressemble that of the biblical Samson's; suffice to say that they both experienced sudden and dramatic transformation in the span of a night's sleep, I think that would already merit comparison.

[LMK]

I wonder if Kafka himself might have wanted to make reference to Samson in the Bible when he gave the family name Samsa to the character Gregor. Maybe the two names have the same origin?... just like Joshua~Jesus, Miriam~Mary, for example. In my opinion, Gregor's circumstances need not exactly ressemble that of the biblical Samson's; suffice to say that they both experienced sudden and dramatic transformation in the span of a night's sleep, I think that would already merit comparison.

I believe Samsa is Hungarian for Samuel.

[kelby_lake]

The story could be viewed in terms of gender. Gregor asserts his masculinity through work and the power he has over his sister. His sister slowly takes this away- first by controlling his feeding, then by going to work, and ultimately by her fertility, which triumphs over his impotency. Grete can assert her feminity, and by extension, herself; Gregor cannot assert his masculinity, or himself.

[Midnight Pete]

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.

When I read Metamorphosis I didn't get the impression that the trasformation from man to beetle was a literal one. First of all, and most tellingly, is is Gregor's own initial reaction. You would think a man who has just realized he is a giant insect would be horrified, hysterical with fear and suprise. But no. The way Kafka writes it, it's as if Gregor was not at all surprised to find himself transmogrified into a beetle. And the reactions of his family don't match up, either. Why do they not run away screaming when they see him?

In my opinion, Kafka never did indicate one way or another if Gregor was in fact a giant beetle or just a man who perceived himself to be a giant beetle and subsequently went insane.

[kelby_lake]

When I read Metamorphosis I didn't get the impression that the trasformation from man to beetle was a literal one. First of all, and most tellingly, is is Gregor's own initial reaction. You would think a man who has just realized he is a giant insect would be horrified, hysterical with fear and suprise. But no. The way Kafka writes it, it's as if Gregor was not at all surprised to find himself transmogrified into a beetle. And the reactions of his family don't match up, either. Why do they not run away screaming when they see him?

In my opinion, Kafka never did indicate one way or another if Gregor was in fact a giant beetle or just a man who perceived himself to be a giant beetle and subsequently went insane.

Fact of the matter is that he is a beetle, whether you regard the transformation as imagined or whether you regard it as literal. This beetleness is so pervasive that it has swallowed up whatever identity he had as a human, if he really had one at all.

[Kyriakos]

I think that he was indeed transformed into a giant beetle, and not just imagined himself as one. Also the reactions of the family, although not entirely logical, have fear and disgust in them.
Also the reaction of the three people renting the room is of equal surprise towards Gregor.

I think that Kafka wanted to replace, though, an obvious metaphor (being turned into a beetle, but being human in reality) with a state that was a manifestation of that metaphor in physical terms.

[FROADS]

I don't know if Kafka is the first, but to me he appears to be one of those few authors who completely disregards the interests of a reader. Which is genius in a strange way, lol.

When I first read this story, I really did think there was gonna be a happy ending. Well, a more resolute conclusion than to Gregor's forgotten simple death.

[wat??]

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.



It's interesting to note here that even though it's almost universally accepted in English translations that Gregor has turned into an insect (more specifically a cockroach) while he slept; the actual wording used by Kafka could possibly mean to convey something quite different.

Oddly enough Wikipedia mentions this and I've pasted a few paragraphs from the article on 'The Metamorphosis' below.

"English translators have often sought to render the word Ungeziefer as "insect," but this is not strictly accurate. In Middle German, Ungeziefer literally means "unclean animal not suitable for sacrifice" and is sometimes used colloquially to mean "bug" – a very general term, unlike the scientific sounding "insect." Kafka had no intention of labeling Gregor as any specific thing, but instead wanted to convey Gregor's disgust at his transformation. The phrasing used in the David Wyllie translation and Joachim Neugroschel is "transformed in his bed into a monstrous vermin."

However, "vermin" denotes in English many animals (particularly rodents) and in Kafka's letter to his publisher of 25 October 1915, in which he discusses his concern about the cover illustration for the first edition, he uses the term "Insekt.", saying "The insect itself is not to be drawn. It is not even to be seen from a distance." While this shows his concern not to give precise information about the type of creature Gregor becomes, the use of the general term "insect" can therefore be defended on the part of translators wishing to improve the readability of the end text."

[wat??]

If you ask me, the reason for Gregors' insect transformation is a metaphor for a crippling illness. The characteristics of Gregor are spot on for anyone who has been considerably ill and nauseous before. For example his difficulty in maneuvering, his disgust at milk which he used to love and his inability to speak properly. Kafka himself had Tuberculosis if I remember right, maybe he based this story on his experience. Something else supporting this is how often sickness is mentioned in the story. Also, the view outside of his window of the hospital disappears - a hospital is a place which cures illness. There's more to the story though, the painting could represent the fall of man with the snake around the womans' neck and also references Venus in Furs, an interesting book to reference in this story considering its nature. His father also pelts him with apples, perhaps another reference to adam & eve.

I've only read little outside of the main text which I just finished today, I plan to read more criticisms, essays and analyses sometime soon.

Edit: and about the ending, that's definitely quite puzzling and thought provoking. It seems a weird way to end the book. But about the maid, she symbolizes a cleaner. Maids are paid to clean, and she pokes pokes Gregor with a broom as a joke. A broom, as we all know, is a an item used to clean up messes. The maids ambiguity about how she disposed of him leaves an enormous room for pondering what it could mean. Even more puzzling is what it means when Grete transformed into a beautiful young woman by the end. I have some thoughts on this, but I'll leave it out.

I'm inclined to take this sort of stance as well. It seems pretty clear that whether the entire incident takes place in a dream, or is entirely metaphorical the transformation does not actually occur physically in the way that it's described.

Being transformed into an enormous vermin, for me means only that he has become insignificant, pathetic and a burden to his family. While all of the anthropomorphic shenanigans (wall climbing, being unable to speak or communicate...etc), which create a strange blurring of reality, don't necessarily contradict the idea that the transformation is purely that of perception.