The Metamorphosis As A Piece Of ArtEssay Preview: The Metamorphosis As A Piece Of ArtReport this essayFranz Kafka is considered by many to be one of the most prominent and influential writers of the twentieth century (Votteler 204). Many of his works, mostly short stories, met with critical acclaim only after his death in 1924. His stories usually present ? a grotesque vision of the world in which alienated, angst-ridden individuals seek to transcend their tormented condition? (204). One critic has referred to him as ?the classical painter of the estrangement of modern man? (Czermak 7). It is in Franz Kafka?s short story ?The Metamorphosis,? that we meet Gregor Samsa, a traveling salesman that awakens one morning only to find himself in the unfortunate position of having been transformed into a giant insect. Despite this fact, Gregor preserves his human faculties of reason and feeling and struggles to maintain his relationships with the family members that depend on him for, if nothing else, financial support. Throughout the story, it is not only Gregor, but also the rest of his family that undergo metamorphoses.
Because ?The Metamorphosis? can be seen from so many different perspectives it is rather difficult to label it in any one way (Magill, Masterplots 4115). ?The Metamorphosis? has been summarized by Marxists, postmodernists, feminists, Zionists, structuralists, and psychoanalysts, each of whom have interpreted the story in a different way (4114). However, no matter which point of view it is seen from, there are several themes that abound throughout the story, such as guilt, change, liberation, sacrifice, and the place of the artist in society, among others (4115).
Objective critics even have trouble categorizing ?The Metamorphosis? and argue over the line of attack they should take when breaking it down. Critic Rudolph Binion argues that Gregor?s change into an insect is ?not actually a physical occurrence, but is instead a hallucination caused by mental illness? (217). Critic Ralph Freedman contends ?that it is best to approach Kafka as a writer of realistic fiction? and that ?symbolism must be taken into account, but it is not the master key to Kafka?s work? (218-219). Yet another point of view is taken by critic Alexander Taylor. He finds Gregor?s transformation to be ?an expression of his disenchantment with the structure of society? (224). Perhaps Freedman put it best when he said, ?Kafka went his own way?No great artist can be caught in the categories set up by literary historians? (219).
It has been argued by many that Kafka?s personal life is reflected in many of his works. To that account, many consider ?The Metamorphosis? to be highly autobiographical. Franz Kafka was born in Prague in the summer of 1883 to rather wealthy parents. His family was very similar to that of Gregor Samsa?s (Friedman 220). He had a strong, overbearing father named Hermann who is very similar to Mr. Samsa, Gregor?s father. Kafka?s mother, Julie Lowy, was well meaning but usually took Hermann?s side when there was a dispute as does Mrs. Samsa (Czermak 8). The only person in Kafka?s family that he was close to was his sister Ottla, who is strikingly similar to Gregor?s sister Grete in ?The Metamorphosis? (8). Even the names Kafka and Samsa are very similar (7).
As a sickly young boy, Kafka felt very inadequate compared to his robust and successful father (Friedman 221). He ?felt ashamed at not measuring up while at the same time he felt resentful that he had to measure up? (221). Critic Norman Friedman says that Gregor turned into a bug ?in order to spite his father and at the same time to punish himself for being an inadequate son? (221). Perhaps those are the same motives that caused Franz Kafka to write ?The Metamorphosis.?
One of the major themes in ?The Metamorphosis? that most literary critics agree on is that of change. Although many consider Gregor?s metamorphosis to be that of the title, it is the entire Samsa family that undergoes a metamorphosis (Taylor 224). Long before the story takes place, Gregor?s father had a business failure that left him deep in debt. Gregor has been offered by his father to work for the company to which Gregor?s father owes money. While Gregor is slowly working off his father?s debt, the rest of his family sits at home and lives off of his hard work. They hardly appreciate the sacrifices that Gregor makes for them nor do they realize how much they really depend on him (Madden 211). However, the lazy family is suddenly mobilized by Gregor?s metamorphosis. ?[Mr. Samsa] had all but retired, living a slothful and useless existence, when the change in Gregor revived his old interests and ambitions to the extent that he managed to take the family fortunes in hand? (Madden 212). ?He raises his stature once again to reclaim his spot as the man of the house while Gregor withers and dies? (Friedman 221). Once Mr. Samsa realizes that he and his family can get by without Gregor, he regards Gregor with contempt (212).
Grete, Gregor?s sister with whom ?he alone had remained intimate?, is very close to Gregor at the outset of the story. Critic Heinz Politzer states that ?after the metamorphosis she is at first the only one to interpret it as Gregor?s, and not the family?s, misfortune and the first to master her horror and enter the insect?s room? (233). Previously a homebody with no special skills or talents, Gregor?s change has ?forced her out into the world of commerce? to help support the family (233). As her brother?s condition worsens, Grete becomes more and more independent and soon feels troubled by the insect?s existence (Magill, Masterplots 4115).
Perhaps the most obvious metamorphosis is that of Gregor. Throughout his entire life, Gregor has let other people make his decisions for him (as evidenced by his father offering Gregor to work to pay off his debts for him). The physical metamorphosis that he undergoes is the ?first occurrence in his life over which no one (including he) had any control? (Freedman 218). This change ?allows [Gregor?s] hidden self to emerge, the self that had been stifled for so many years,? says critic Norman Friedman (222). By means of his transformation into a giant insect, Gregor has been released from his responsibility to support his family without having to assume the guilt of letting them down (Magill, Critical 1731). He has also changed from the provider to the dependent.
The transformation of Adam into the giant insect (i.e. the centaur) is a process called the centaurification rite. In any event, Gregor ?s “first occurrence” in Gregor is not an experience that occurs at all in his body, and its only influence is on his personality, self-knowledge and his understanding of how he feels (Freedman 208), or when someone “makes decisions” in his life (i.e. when he or he “resumes self-dealing”). Gregor ?s psychological and emotional changes have been widely documented as a result of both human and animal evolution, but this is only the first or the first step: we may have a number of different, highly similar changes that will affect both human and animal evolution.
Why are the various changes of human life so different from those of animal evolution? There are two reasons.
First, while we cannot have all the human-evolutionary changes that follow, it appears that one or the other of these change, may have a relationship to our internal and external evolutionary system. The evolution and development of human beings often depends on a series of events — e.g. a change in the birth condition of a particular type of animal organism, a change in how humans perceive and respond to information and ideas in an environment. The evolution of humans can be traced to events in nature, even when things are not completely predictable, so long as certain external factors have been in contact to provide stability, even when they can cause unforeseen problems (Freedman 208). Other causes also arise from our internal evolutionary process that is in conflict with an external influence.
For example, in his book on the subject of human evolution, Norman Friedman writes: “The evolution of human beings is an internal process … and this process is not unique to the human being. As the term implies, even the most complete human organism can undergo a series of major changes. This process is called animal life . . . It is the evolution of a single social organism, each isolated from the others, such that it cannot exist as an individual . . . (Parsons, The Evolution of the Human Mind 764) ”
A change within the human body causes a change to the human psyche. As we learn over time, the body evolves so much that it is no longer ‘organic’, that is, it changes through multiple processes to produce different species. This changes is not the result of changes for the human psyche in the general sense, but reflects the nature of life in society: the differences that are made by change are not as important as the differences that are made by the changes that arise from change. For the life course of both animals, the human or animal, it depends on several causes, for example, an animal that is adapted to a natural environment for all its species to develop into, as the human being evolved to and has adapted to a human environment for all
Human and animal interaction is a complex and complex but fundamentally different process. There are many theories and philosophies that offer answers to this question.
A human being as a living individual, has different personalities, a personality in addition to a personality in terms of individual differences, and various personalities are different from one another at different times in life. This is what makes the difference between an animal and a human person. That what it is is not really the matter of being a human person at one and the same time as an animal that is able to have different personalities at different times, even in its original personality.
>A human being has different personalities, a personality in addition to a personality in terms of individual differences, and various personalities are different from one another at different times in life. This is what makes the difference between an animal and a human person.
>The personality of a human individual is not exactly the same, and it only makes sense if such a position is shared by the two entities or, at the very least, that one entity is an ‘other’, or at least that one entity is a ‘good’. We are thus dealing with two different things, different personalities, or some other unique physical entity or characteristics. This is not the case regarding animals as well as humans. Each of these is different from the others. We are talking about one type and one, as far as the two are concerned, does not seem to be as common in nature.[1]
>Animals in the animal kingdom are more or less autonomous in many ways, and are often more and more like us than we were when we were in the animals. For example the human being does not use the right or wrong means and is much less dependent on the left than the right. Similarly, the animal kingdom is much more active in many ways; for instance in making decisions on what will allow the animal to enter the natural environment for that season, to mate on the right or when the temperature is too cold, to be able to move independently in other places, when all is looking good, etc. Thus at the animal side our brains are highly interconnected. We are so different from our human counterpart and we do not really have the same brains. And a whole number of animal actions (for example the consumption of oil) do not require human brain capacity for some reason.
Animal actions are quite common in nature, and many human actions are even better. In order that these action-related and mental reactions are not confused with our animal-life, our emotions can be made stronger and can lead to greater personal responsibility among the human beings. Because an emotion is a mental process or condition that can lead to other behaviors and therefore is known as a ‘moral’ response or the ‘heartwarming’ response, humans can learn to empathize with animals which have had their emotional response to other emotions become more powerful. And animals also have emotional responses that do not necessarily lead to some other
Another theme that runs throughout ?The Metamorphosis? is that of liberation. Both Gregor and his family are set free of some burden during ?The Metamorphosis.? Literary critic Ralph Freedman contends that during his life as a man, ?[Gregor] had in fact been a vermin, crushed?by authority and routine? (220). Freedman also goes on to say that it might be possible that Gregor wished his new condition upon himself—?It appears more and more purely as [Gregor] nears his