Good! That is what I like to see. I just love it when I see people reflect and criticize literature. It shows you have promise as a critical thinker, and don't settle for the second rate. Wonderful, and I really do mean that, That's actually pretty close to my own reading. I mentioned before in this thread that I have a Marxist interpretation. Marxist literary theory is basically a reading of a text that emphasizes the economic details. For example, I did a paper as an undergrad giving a Marxist critique of Lord of the Flies that argued the children's fighting was essentially an economic one. That when the 'tribe' split, the two factions could have lived apart, if it wasn't for a food source which basically ensures conflict, and I called Ralph as (at least in a sense) an imperialist. Obviously I think that book is more complicated than that, but it is one interpretation you can give. With Metamorphosis, Gregor's transformation is in my opinion the best thing that could happen to him. His family had been relying on him for far too long, the only attempt he seems to make to improve his situation is to encourage his sister to take up music but his father forbade it. So when Gregor is turned into a beetle, all of his problems surface and are dealt with, and he is able to experience the only pleasure in life that we know of him experiencing - while making those who reduced him to the 'breadwinner' (good phrase) pay. What's the first thing that happens as soon as Gregor's money runs out? The middle class Samsa's have to work and take in tenants - they have to earn their keep too. After learning their fault, Gregor dies alone and it's tragic because now he is utterly defeated, but at least he is now under no illusions - which in a way is an amazing bonus for him. The saccharine ending is a new beginning for the family, as they are now reborn as honest, hardworking people instead of oppressive dominators. Again, this is far from the only interpretation you can give of the story though.
It's certainly a valid interpretation, just like any other interpretation supported by textual evidence. Interestingly enough, Kafka all but gave away his intentions for writing this story. In his diaries, he mentions several times how he thinks of himself as a burden on his family because of his various illnesses. Gregor Samsa similarly becomes a burden on his family because he can't work and has to be fed by others. This story was essentially a way for Kafka to vent his frustrations.
An interesting connection. I didn't know Kafka suffered from various illnesses, it's understandable he'd use Gregor as a way to vent. I wonder if Kafka's family saw the implications within? My teacher didn't see this connection, though. He apparently thought the book was more about how humans were really cockroaches under the delusion that we mean something. Let's just say he and that student had an argument regarding that. Though I can see it as well, to some degree. Gregor turns into a beetle/cockroach and his family quickly thinks of him as a disgusting burden. The tragedy, from what my teacher saw, was that Gregor finally learned who he really was to the wider world. Just a useless little insect.
I hate teachers who do this. In my classroom this never happens. Your teacher does have a valid reading of the story too, though, and there is more of an element of Jewish mysticism that flavors the story to, but I don't have the knowledge or resources to delve more into this. If you like the story, the Stanley Corngold translation is by far the best as far as I am concerned - it doesn't make the mistake of calling Gregor a cockroach anyway. It can be found in the Norton Critical Edition which also includes selections of Kafka's diary that are directly related to the story, and essays by respected academics that approach the story from a number of angles. The only real question around that book is why I haven't bought one, quite frankly, the Norton Critical Editions are always worth the buy.
For anyone who is wondering what I mean about the cockroach thing, the quality of the translation is extremely important when it comes to understanding the tone, meaning, content and context of a story. For example, here is the first sentence of the story in the original German: Here's how I read this sentence, a few things moved around for ease of reading in English: *A few of the words toward the end of this sentence have been moved around, 'verwandelt' means 'metamorphosis' for example - the name of the story in German is 'Die Verwandlung'. Forgive me, I'm not sorry. Here's the Corngold translation: Here is Michael Hofmann's translation, it is one of the more popular translations of the story, published by Penguin Modern Classics. This is the Kafka I imagine most people, at least most people in the United Kingdom will encounter: This is not only an incorrect translation of the word 'Ungeziefer', it's actually misleading to say Gregor is changed into a cockroach - for reasons that should be clear if you carefully read the story and note the bug-Gregor's physical descriptions. 'Bug' would be a good word to use in this sentence, nice and non-specific and gets the essential idea of what Gregor has become across. I find the word 'monstrous' used between the other two translations to be a bit much, especially considering ungeheueren is a word that relates only to size I think. 'Cockroach', however, is not just wrong, it's horribly specific which I think takes something away from the mystery of what Gregor has become. As it goes on the Hofmann translation, it must be said, has some good points and bad points, but this one word is the deal breaker for me. I not only cannot recommend the Hofmann translation, I actually recommend almost any other translation.
Ah, so Kafka never intended to outright specify what exactly happened to Gregor. It was just that he awoke to find that he had turned into something that wasn't human. I had to read the version that stated he turned into a cockroach, even had him spend a few pages exploring his new form. Not going to lie, it had me chuckling for a moment as it could've come straight out of a children's book with him flailing his legs in the air and struggling to move his massive girth off the bed. This was not what Kafka had intended, I'm assuming. We're supposed to be horrified that he had changed, not feeling like we're reading a Disney book about a guy who is quite surprised he's suddenly a cockroach, true? Come to think of it, it doesn't really seem to fit with the whole tone of the story. The rest of it gets more and more tragic, but the beginning of the version I read seems almost too comical to fit in.
Kafka never intended to outright specify what Gregor has been turned into, he's been turned into some form of giant pest. The bit I quoted was just the first sentence, the bit with Gregor exploring himself is still there in the original German text - which also leads to a very astute observation that Nabokov made, that Gregor never finds out that he has wings. That might seem trivial at first, but think about it; it's a very important symbolic point. Might it suggest that Gregor is now completely trapped? I think so. In fact, that long bit about Gregor exploring his new body pretty much tells you outright that Gregor is not a cockroach. Check out the video I posted earlier in this thread of an acted version of one of Nabokov's lectures. In my mind he looks like an all brown scarab beetle with two large pincers on his head that he uses to try to open doors in the Samsa household with. Kafka's tone is very important, perhaps essential to understanding his stories. 'Metamorphosis' itself is quite a dark story, you are right, but I always find a strange lightness to Kafka - especially with stories like 'Amerika', and I don't think of 'Metamorphosis' as this oppressive, Silent Hill type darkness. Kafka could be quite funny in a very odd way.
From Wiki: Nabokov has a wonderful series of lectures on literature. In one such lecture, he makes the argument that Samsa is a beetle. However, I don't think it's ever explicitly mentioned that Samsa has any wings at all, so how Nabokov came to that conclusion I don't know.
You and me both. The best we can do is his Lectures on Literature. Apparently he goes into great detail about the layout of the Samsa house because he feels it's important for understanding the story. He also has Lectures on Russian Literature for anyone who's interested in that subject. (He really seems to dislike Dostoevsky.)
Yeah. I heard that about Dostoevsky. Nabokov heavily criticized Dostoevsky's dialogue skills and descriptions if I remember rightly.
WHAT?!?!?!?!?! I can't deny I'm not a hugely passionate Kafka fan, but ... *different opinions, Lemex, different opinions*
We had the edition that had lots of essays and analysis in the back of it. Kafka even said it was barely readable and the ending was unbearable. Maybe it's my age.... but oh my god if we weren't reading it along with the teacher in class I would've taken a 0 for the whole unit on the book. I like the idea.... maybe.... but Kafka was all over the place with both the plot and the writing. Any other books by him to look at? Perhaps, some that are better?
Would that be the Norton Critical Edition by any chance? The Metamorphosis I would say is one of the better short stories of the last 100 years, being a commentary on the nuclear family, capitalist repressions, and yes maybe Absurdism as a way of pointing to the contradictions in society. It's also sort of funny in how silly it all is. It's a nightmare, really. Kafka's own opinion on the story is I would say irreverent, for one he was a horribly depressed man, for two, as I think Oscar Wilde said 'My worst nightmare is being understood'. Or something like that. I must admit, I'm not crazy passionate about it, but I do respect the story a lot. I would say, however, my favourite Kafka story is 'A Country Doctor'. I don't know why, but I love the way that story feels.
You didn't like it? Well I've only read it once so maybe I'll have a different opinion now, but when I read it at uni (not part of my degree; I read it just because) I absolutely loved it. It's not really about the story - it's about humanity, and the sheer ugliness of it, and the tragedy of it. Take a moment to simply feel it, rather than analyse it per se. It's quite a simple story really. Maybe wait a few years and read it again - but don't dismiss it just yet. Time and age and to be honest, even where you're at in life could affect how you might interpret the book. When I read it, I was looking for a lot of sorrow, I suppose. I had a particular fondness and appreciation for sadness and tragedy and brokenness, and I think that's why Metamorphosis appealed to me greatly. I'm in a different place in life now where I no longer "appreciate" such things, because I've come to realise it's all too real (thankfully still not through personal experience - just through observation) - so perhaps now I would not enjoy it so much. No idea. I should read it again.
I mean I guess it's that version. It said "Bantam Original" but that seems kind of stupid. I definitely respect the book. I mean, it's published and in English classes, and I'm not, but I still don't like it. To me the writing seems all over the place. Like it just feels odd to me. On the story itself, apparently (as explained by my English teacher), Gregor is Kafka himself as alienated by his family as Gregor is. Him turning into a cockroach was just a vessel for that and it's all about how Kafka's family treated himself. I mean that's cool but it's still silly. I don't see as much about the capitalist repressions or nuclear family in it. Gregor's dad was a failed businessman and Gregor put himself up there to support the family. Also I hate the ending. Absurdist or not, don't spend that long working up a character just to kill them. That's not fair. But that's just me. Maybe I'll look at it in a few years and love it.
I've tried the Trial in several different translations, all more or less to the same effect. Not only was I unimpressed by the writing, but the descriptions were often so exhaustively mundane, I could literally not wait till I finished the book. Granted, looking back on some of those scenes, and having gotten through the bland, often pointless descriptions, I can say there was an effect. The Trial in my mind is definitely one of those books where the sum is greater than its parts. It's a rather dry meal, but afterwards, you're left with a very creepy sensation. Definitely not a forgettable novel. I have to read more of Kafka, before I can be sure, but the Trial gives me the distinctt feeling that Kafka was really really good at one thing when it came to writing, sort of similar to Lovecraft. I also bring up The Trial every time I have to pay another ticket.
The descriptions were also very bad. Okay so I either found a major plot hole or I missed something: in the last chapter his family is like "If only we could communicate with it, maybe we could've come to some terms." Well Gregor knew that and wanted to communicate and would have saved his life maybe... so why didn't he? In Chapter 1 he could talk, so what happened? That's been bothering me since we finished the book in class today and I feel like that little effect ruined the book.
Kafka is one of those writers you really need to study in order to understand. I only began to "get" him after I read his diaries. He was a fascinating person to say the least.
Since this conversation took on a life of it's own in a thread meant for otherly purposes, I have taken the liberty of giving it its own thread in Book Discussion, where it fits better.
I honestly didn't mind Kafka's Metamorphosis, thought it was somewhat understandable. I loved how cartoonishly Disney it started out when Gregory woke up as a bug and he was all, "Ah! Curious form, I shall examine myself as well as make an attempt to roll out of my bed." It lulled me into a sense of curiosity and security before Kafka started laying down the misery. There are multiple interpretations to it, but I like to think that what happened was that Gregory got too ill/injured to continue work anymore and his family saw him as a bug/pest to their lazy way of life. I mean, the guy was pretty much the sole breadwinner of the family, everyone else mooching off of what he earned, and what does he get as repayment when he can't work anymore? Resentment from his own family who pretty much abandon him at the end.
Sometimes when reading literate and thick works, one needs to question one's own initial reactions of the work, if one wants to understand and reap the benefits of the work. Granted, you don't have to, and to be one of those bastards, but I'm sure there is something for you to gain from it; however, this could be said of most anything, and so disregard as preferred. I don't recall the terminology, but the Greeks had this idea of purifying the self (in terms of character and intellectual matters) before being ready for certain things. (Sorry for being a vague asshole. I demonstrate my lack of knowledge.) To bring this to Kafka's Metamorphosis, you may need to prepare yourself as a reader to properly ingest the story. As a more obvious example, one, without much prior experience with similar works, would be hard pressed to pick up Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and have an easy go of it.
