Short Story Club: The Metamorphosis by Kafka

[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.

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.