The Metamorphosis - Franz Kafka - Episode #2 - Take a trip down existential lane! - a podcast by Christy and Garry Shriver

The Metamorphosis - Franz Kafka - Episode #2

 

Hi, I’m Christy Shriver.

 

I’m Garry Shriver and welcome to the How to Love Lit Podcast.  This is our second episode in our series on Franz Kafka and his great work “Metamorphosis.”  And before I forget, please let me remind you, if you enjoy our work,  text an episode to a friend and/or give us a five star rating on your podcast app.  It’s through sharing that we grow; we hope our work is resonating and is an educational resource worth sharing.  So, last week, we talked about Kafka’s life in the beautiful city of Prague at the cusps of the turbulent times heading into the turn of the 20th century in Eastern Europe. We talked about his family, the important relationships that influenced his work, the title The Metamorphosis and the beginning of this peculiar kafka-esaue novella – the term we still use today when referencing bizarre things in our world.  We also mentioned the many different philosophical movements that were swirling around Europe at this time that had a tremendous influence on Kafka the man and his work.  Christy, I know this is where you want to go start us today with this idea of worldview, so let’s get started.  What is worldview and why does that matter in regard to literature in general and specifically Kafka?

 

Yes- that’s exactly where I want to start.  And yes- worldview does matter- actually infinitely so - not just when we talk about literature- but all of life.  And it’s worth understanding properly-

 

Dr. James Sire defined it like this- he said- Worldview “is a fundamental orientation from the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions which we hold (either consciously or unconsciously) about the basic  constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.”

 

In other words, it’s HOW you see things when you look at the world.  It’s broader than your morals, your religion, your family, your culture- but it includes all of those things.  It’s a set of presuppositions- or rather, things you just feel are true for whatever reason and help you understand what you see when you construct your reality.  Our worldview helps us orientate ourselves and helps us even build our identity- something we all need to feel safe and engage other people confidently. 

 

The reason I even bring this up is because we see the world through lenses- perhaps like glasses, if you want to think of it that way- and these lenses are good things- they provide orientation for us- but there’s a problem- there isn’t just one of them- there are many ways to look at the world- but we generally don’t see it because we only have the one we have- and thus we have fundamental disagreement.

 

Of course this is the kind of thing philosophers have always discussed and really made mathematical schemata's to explain.  How do you ascertain what is true in this world?  How do we agree on what is important? Of course there are a few things that we can all mostly agree are indisputable.  Most of us, but not all of us would say this works great for teaching math- 2 plus 2 is always four- we can rely on that.  It won’t change.  Science is less certain but we’ve tried to find scientific certainties that are almost as true as the mathematical ones- for example,  I am told that matter can neither be created or destroyed- it’s a rule of the universe and as far as I know- has yet to be debunked.  Disagreement and disputes often arise when we get into the soft sciences, the arts, interpersonal relationships or even what we term  “real world”-  How is it that two people can look at the same thing and see different things.  Hence- Worldviews collide!

 

I know right!!  If you go to our website you can see this very famous sketch  that first appeared as an optical illusion on a German postcard in 1888 and was later adapted by British cartoonist William Ely Hill, who published it in a humor magazine in 1915 with the title "My Wife and My Mother-in-Law."  - ironically the same year as metamorphosis.  It’s the picture that I show my kids in class- , anyway, depending on how your brain works, when you look at it some people see an old woman and some people see a beautiful girl.  It’s so funny how people can argue after looking at this picture.  I see this happen every year with my kids- and the truth of the matter is- it’s both. 

 

And that occurs because of a phenomena called “perceptual bias” Your brain relentlessly tries to make sense of your environment and it uses shortcuts to so. And of course, history is the story of how people look at basically everything totally differently. 

So, what does this have to do with Kafka and his story about turning into a bug? 

 

Well, for one thing there are so many ways to look at this book- and depending on the lense you put on- you will see different things.  I want to talk about this book primarily through the lens of what we today call existentialism- although I know it’s controversial to do so..but for me it makes sense and helps me make this book practical for everyday life- and I really this book is extremely practical. Believe it or not?

 

I agree with you.  When you think about this book as being about human agency, the importance of healthy relationships, the consequences of isolation- now it’s not just about a bug.  It’s about all of us.  

 

Exactly, so Franz Kafka questioning life like so many, but at this time there were men (primarily men- no disrespect to women) writing about life in ways that hadn’t been done before-  Some were very religious-  Christian or Jewish, but some were atheist- and depending on their lense or worldview, they were looking at the modern world of Europe and drawing very different conclusions about how people fit together in it- and Kafka was a part of this historical dialogue.  They were going to kind of read each others works, write about each others works and this discussion developed into what today we call existentialism- although this actual word that really comes along after Kafka with a group of French intellectuals a few years later-

 

But I want to talk about this one guy that kafka read a lot of his stuff- and even related to personally because they both had screwd up love lives, but his name is Soren Kierkegaard and he was a Danish theologian/ philosopher.  So this guy Kierkegaard- opened up this can of worms about what constitutes existence.

 

On the surface it’s a pretty basic question- either this apple exists or it doesn’t exist.  But then you think about it for one minute more and it gets more weird- what about God- does he exist or does he not- what about people- do they exist or do they not?  What makes you exist? - Hence the world- existentialism  -when it comes to people are we like an apple? We have matter so we exist?  Or are we like God-metaphysical with consciousness and such?  We seem to consciousness AND a body- But then the second big question- and how does this make us have value?  Apples don’t matter very much in the world.  Are we only as significant as an apple because sometimes we don’t feel like we are?  Do we exist because we take up space and breath air?  And is that enough to create value?

 

 That’s deep stuff for the existentialist, and they get to thinking about this stuff- Kierkegaard is going to say and there is a whole movement that is going to really develop this idea even more – but he’s going to say- you can exist- yes- but you really don’t have any essence until you exert some control over your life and YOU create some sort of purpose. He’s going to say, YOU must create meaning for yourself- and if you don’t YOU have no point of existing.   I know I’m oversimplifying a whole lot to get- and you may say well, that seems obvious, but this is where I want to get to?  Kafka comments in this conversation.  Because in Metamorphosis we have this guy Gregor who turns into a bug?  So, does he exist or doesn’t he?  He has a body?  He has consciousness?  Does he exist if he has a different body?  Does that make him a totally different entity? And if he does exist what makes him Gregor?  Can he create meaning with this new set of circumstances?  Did his life even have meaning before?  And if you look at this first chapter with these questions in mind- the book makes a lot more sense- at least to me. it makes sense that this dude- who’s just woken up to find out that he’s a bug- doesn’t freak out- he just seems to think back about his life and how much he hated it.  He’s not asking the right questions of himself- but you, as the reader are asking these questions. You’re asking questions like, dude, why don’t you care that you just turned into a bug?  Why are you focusing on your job at this moment?  Why aren’t you trying to change yourself back into the person you used to be?

 

Of course, the more you think about these things the more difficult these questions are to answer.  Because what Kafka quickly illustrates through all of Gregor’s inner monologues- is something that is universal- in other words- we are all like this is some ways- there can be no doubt that life gives us circumstances we didn’t ask for.  And Kierkagaard talked about this too. Every person to be born is born to a factual situation, not of his/her own making. It is, in a sense, a product of coincidence—we are born in a certain country, to certain parents, brought up in a certain culture, a religion we didn’t choose with friends, skill sets and obligations we didn’t invite. 

 

And we get to see Gregor’s.  He lives at home in an apartment that he shares with a father who is stern, a mother who cries a lot but does absolutely nothing, a sister who loves to play the violin but isn’t a very industrious person.  The family used to be fairly well off, but the dad’s lost his business and now seems to just sit around all day.  They are not a low class family; they have a maid.  They have certain standards of living, but money is a huge problem.

 

And we can see all this pretty quickly from Gregor’s perspective and that this has changed the family dynamic- Gregor has had to assume the role in his family as the provider because his father’s lost his business, apparently both of his parents have poor health.  But, Gregor gives all the money to his dad, so really Gregor isn’t really in charge.  Gregor is a traveling salesman, but he hates what he does.  He doesn’t like the lifestyle of the hotel life, but he makes good money so he stays and endures a lot of abuse apparently it seems from colleagues at work, and especially his boss who in the only little glimpse we see of him, sits at this big desk from above and glares down at everybody.  There’s a quote where he describes his worklife.  He says, “He was a tool of the boss, without brains or backbone.”  It’s also interesting to notice that he locks himself in his room at night every night- maybe trying to exert some control, create some identity- whatever the reason it’s a detail that is a demonstration to keep people away from his personal space. 

 

Gregor goes to great links to say all throughout the first section, that he is committed to this lifestyle.  He’s not going to shaft his family or shirk his job- even though we find out when the manager gets there that things aren’t exactly going as well at work as he has let his family think.  Gregor, at least in his own mind, has told himself that he can’t get out of this.  He says this at one point, “Gregor was still here and hadn’t the slightest intention of letting the family down.”  Which to me is a quote that stands out because as a reader, and Kafka is really skilled by putting this kind of irony in the text, because as a reader, I find myself questioning that thinking.  I don’t see Kafka really doing anything about his situation.  His thoughts to himself and his actions are strange and communicate a variety of different messages. 

 

And hence another important idea from our man Kirkegaard.  He’s going to say there’s another side to things.  On the one hand you have a set of circumstances in your life that you didn’t create- in Gregor’s case, his family, his job, their finances- but  He’s going to say, and he’s a theist, so this is a Christian perspective, but he believes this essence is given by God, although Sartre is going to arrive at this same idea as an atheist later.  Kirkegaard is going to say, as a human, no matter your circumstances- crappy or not, every individual is absolutely FREE to choose- that’s our fundamental essence as expressed all the way back in the creation narrative, that is, we have the potential to place ourselves in relation to our accidental situation.  We CAN choose to “own” our situation instead of just being unwillingly determined by it. We can choose from new possibilities that we make up- if the obvious ones are crappy- and we all have, some more than others, but by being human we ALL have the personal power to reshape our situation.  Let me put it this way we can become more than what was determined for us by whatever is acting upon us- be it people in our lives, circumstances, whatever. We can transcend our given set of circumstances. This is  “becoming a self”: as a human being we have to take up our individual limitations and possibilities.  Now- that brings us back to Gregor- he clearly has crappy circumstances- and I’m not talking about being a bug- that’s a different issue.  I mean even before the bug.  This guy doesn’t like his life, but he clearly thinks he can’t get out of it.  He’s told himself that his family depends on him.  He can’t quit his job.  He has to just stay on this path.  And to me- that’s why he doesn’t freak out when he turns into a bug like we would have.  And this is where I’m going to speculate for must a minute- because why does Kafka start the story with him just being a bug- no explanation whatsoever.  In my mind, it can only mean a couple of things- option 1- maybe Gregor did it to himself? 2- maybe he didn’t, but he doesn’t mind that he’s a bug.  3- maybe it simply doesn’t even matter one way or the other- his life has been crappy- so how does being a bug make it different.  That seems to be how he looks at ti because the questions he asks aren’t how do I get my body back- but how do I get to work in my bug like shape.  He doesn’t seem interested or even consider that he might have the power to change back.

 

Well, there is something negative in how Gregor has viewed his life up to this point.  He doesn’t seem to have said NO to much in his life- to the point that when he turns completely into a bug- he doesn’t say no to that either. He clearly has not confronted the world.  He seems to just do what he is told.  And here he finds himself as a bug and doesn’t even feel alarmed.  There’s a lot to think about there.  In a sense, when he woke up to be a bug- maybe it’s not even all bad.  Like it or not, the people in his life are going to have to fend for themselves- his job, his family- he’s giving it all up- and he can claim it’s not his fault- he’s a bug- from one point of view- there’s a positive element to that if you are in a place in your life where you hate your life. 

 

Well, there is- but if we get to what has given his life meaning up to this point, it’s seems to be that he’s a provider for his family.  He DOES have a purpose, what happens if he give that up?  It is interesting that the whole way through the book, Gregor always thinks of himself as a person, but we’re going to watch him lose his personhood- or his essence. In fact, in each section of the book, Gregor loses something.  The first thing that goes is his body obviously.  But then it is his ability to communicate.  It seems that at first he actually had something of a voice-they understood him a little bit, but then that goes pretty quickly.  He also still seems to think of himself as the man of the house in part one; however, we’re going to see that in part two he pretty quickly loses his job and his standing in the family.   So then we see the next big existential question, If a person does not take himself responsibility for himself for those around him- what happens to him?  Does he lose his purpose?  Does he just become—“a thing among the things.”- like just an apple- If if that is the case- what becomes of you if you “exist”; but that’s it?

 

Ugh- and I think that’s kind of where Kafka displays an special genius.  what you described is really a weird thought, but when we turn it into a story about a bug it sort of makes sense.  Gregor wakes up, finds out he’s a bug, thinks about his job and how much it stinks, doesn’t think about shafting anyone, in fact, throughout the entire first section, he’s committed to keeping it to the point that he is going to chase down the manager who comes to get him for the office, and in his mind it’s an attempt to keep his job.  But yet, at one point when he’s trying to get out of bed, and that is. No small feat, but he says this, “In spite of all his miseries, he couldn’t  repress a smile at this thought”- and what was the thought, it was the thought that he’d locked himself in his room and no one could come help him even if had asked them to.  So, in a sense, there is an idea of liberating potential- but what’s the result of this long term? 

 

When I read this chapter, I get more and more frustrated with Gregor in that room.  Of course, Kafka’s style is so deadpan, there’s no emotion from Gregor- no panic, no desperation, but I find myself feeling anxious.  Just open the door, Gregor- get help- but when he does open the door- the reaction is primarily horror and anger- which I guess is understandable.  But, the word used to describe Gregor’s father is the word, “hostile”- he’s hostile to him.  And this brings me to the main idea existential idea that I see all over this book- this idea of isolation and alienation. 

 

And people simply cannot tolerate isolation.  We can’t live like this. 

 

And we see a clear picture of isolation at the end of chapter one.  Gregor is not the provider he once was.  He isn’t the tool of the office.  He isn’t the workhorse he’s been for this family anymore-so what do they do to him at the end of the chapter- the family hostilly pushes him back in his room- and notice that it physically hurts him.  He’s driven back.  At one point he cries, ‘mother, mother’- but she rejects him.  He snaps his jaws, but she screams, flees and falls into the father’s arms.  And I point this out because the way Kafka writes this passage could have made you feel sorry for Gregor- his mom just rejected him, but it’s not written like that.  It’s way more matter of fact, almost like, well of course she rejected him- he’s a bug- what else would she do.  It’s freakish and scary.  By the time Gregor is back in the room, one of his flanks was scraped raw.  There are ugly blotches marred against the white door, so I guess bug goo gets on the door.  He has a leg dangling and trembling in the air, he’s bleeding profusing and because his dad pushes him in with a hard shove the text says he “flew far into his room. The door was slammed shut with the cane, then at last everything was quiet.”

 

That last line to me is incredibly interesting- especially if you think this book is not just literal fantasy but perhaps a metaphor of how people actually feel.  So, let’s say, you are that person who’s become a bug and you have dropped ALL the expectations of your family and your world.  You make a decision either by your choice or maybe you get busted and it’s not your choice- but you are suddenly a different person than your family thought you were and you become disgusting to them- and you knew you would be if they knew you were a bug- and they behave exactly like you always knew they would- your work world runs away- your mother and father totally reject you- perhaps even violently- but then you are alone- and your first thought – ‘at last everything was quiet.”  There’s a stillness there- it’s out- now they know I’m a bug- and now I can have quiet.  This negative independence for the short term can be a very positive and even a liberating experience.  But carried over time..how does this play out.  How long will you enjoy the quiet?

 

Well, I will tell you what Kierkegaard says- he says this is good for the short term, but if it turns into a permanent attitude, it’s no good.  He’s going to say, that negative independence (and that’s what he calls it)- is a short term necessity but not a long term solution. Lewis Hyde, the American thinker says that this  “has only emergency use. Carried over time, it is the voice of the trapped who have come to enjoy their cage.”  Which I think is an interesting metaphor.  No one will ever admit that they enjoy a cage, but in a sense if you stay in the cage, you’re never responsible for anything- a lazy man’s attitude toward life. 

 

 True, if we want to go back to our discussion of Madison and the constitution- it’s the idea, that it’s easy to break something apart- criticize- complain- but how do you build something better.  What do you do if you take the responsibility upon yourself to make something in your life?  And how do you have meaning if you are not building?

 

And that takes us to part 2 of Metamorphosis- because Gregor has come out of his room and presented himself as a bug.  Now what?  Well, we’re going to be introduced to several things right off the bat- First of all, he has fallen into a comalike sleep- which annoys me personally.  It seems he’s just going to sleep this off- ignore the problem and see what happens.  But that aside, there’s more going on here- secondly, we start to see that he’s actually getting comfortable with this new status quo.  He’s not going to fight it at all.  The text says that he’s beginning to appreciate his antennae.

 

Which is a point I wanted to make.  It’s interesting to me that you can never get a firm picture in your mind of what Gregor actually looks like.  At the beginning it seems he is a bug that is just as big as a human.  Here is seems quite a bit smaller.  But we see he has antennae and lots of little legs. 

 

That’s a great point to make, if you feel yourself confused by that it’s not because you’re a bad reader (which is what I thought when I read this the first time).  When Kafka’s book was first published in 1915, Kafka was very emphatic about the cover.  He says this, ““the insect is not to be drawn. It is not even to be seen from a distance.” Instead he gives recommendations about illustrating the family or something else.  In the end, The slim book’s original cover, features a perfectly normal-looking man dressed in kind of a house coat looking distraught as though he might be imagining a terrible transformation, but not actually physically experiencing one.  I don’t like it really very much- you can google it and we can put it on the web- but honestly- I guess Kafka did.  But back to chapter 2- Gregor has antanee, little legs and finally is we’re going to see that his taste buds have changed.  What used to be his favorite food- milk is now so apparently repulsive to him that he can’t even bring himself to drink it even though he’s starving. 

 

There are a couple of different dynamics that I want to bring up with this first little scene in chapter 2.  First of all, we see the sister, Grete, reaching out to Gregor.  It’s clear that she loves him.  Grete is taking initiative in this relationship- not Gregor, Grete.  Gregor does nothing.  He complains about the food.  He says he now has time to consider how best to rearrange his life, but it is Grete who takes the initiative. 

 

I do want to point out something else.  The family has taken this intiative as well- they have gotten in that room, I guess while he’s asleep and they are not, taken the key from the inside and put it back in on the other side.  The text even points out that at the beginning everyone was clamming to get into the room but that has changed.  The power dynamic has changed.  They control the key- not him.  He gave that up.

 

Exactly- and here’s the second point about Grete- Grete is showing compassion here.  She is bringing in food- it seems to terrify her, but she gets her courage and goes in.  She tiptoes in while Gregor watches her from behind the couch.  He’s behind the couch- this seems to represent some sort of shame or maybe guilt, but at minimum shame.  He won’t come out- he won’t even connect- what he does is hope that she notices that he doesn’t like the milk she left him and brings him something else to eat. 

 

And this somewhast annoys me.  He doesn’t want to take any intiative in getting his own food.  He’s just going to see if she brings him something he likes better.    But she does- And this brings up another thing to notice which I think is important, when she picks up the bowl that has the milk in it she won’t touch it- she has a rag on her hands to protect herself from Gregor germs, I guess.

 

True- she’s repulsed.  But in a sense, this is a first in their relationship.  She’s doing for him- up to this point, it seems that he’s been doing for the family.  And there’s a powershift there. 

 

And we’re also going to see a pattern somewhat emerge between these two.  Grete brings out an array of things to find out what he likes and dislikes.  And then she leaves- Gregor won’t come out until she leaves and in his mind he says it’s, as he says, “out of a sense of delicacy” towards her- so she won’t have to look at him.  But I, as a reader, find this suspicious- it seems he doesn’t want her to see him or him to see her see him- so they never interact directly really- and that is going to be how they interact from here on out.  Another point to be made, and maybe this is just because he’s an actual bug, but he only likes spoiled things.  He never likes fresh things. 

 

Well, first of all, we see that he is being stripped away of everything that had made him him- his tastes, his preferences.  These make us unique as a person- and those are not gone.  He is eating spoiled things- other things- we are seeing him being cut off from everything- and of course, this is just another form of isolation. 

 

AND Grete cleans up after him.  She sweeps and makes the space tidy.

 

Yes- we really see a sense of repulsion- she’s repulsed and he’s ashamed.  I also think it’s important to note that Gregor, for the whole book, but it’s brought up here- he understands everything they say about him all the time- but they don’t know this.  He listens to them talk about him.   He runs to the door and listens if they’re talking about him in the other room.  And they don’t ever know this is the case. 

 

True- and what he finds out- or at least one of the things he finds out is that the maid has quit because of him.  She wants away from him and so as a result- the mother and the sister are having to do work they didn’t used to have to do.  They are cooking and cleaning.  This is work they didn’t have to do when Gregor was providing for them, now he’s watching then live without him and make adjustments.  The other thing, we find out, and this is about halfway thorugh the book, although not halfway through this chapter- is that the finances were not all that Gregor thought they were.  There had been a deception.  Let’s read this

 

Read pages pages 25- 26. 

 

Garry what are we do make of this.

 

Well, for most people, this would have been a betrayal that would have created outrage.  Gregor has been working all this time, basically for the family and it wasn’t necessary.  It left unsaid, but in some sense, his father was letting him believe a lie and work harder to support the family.  But Gregor says to himself at first that he is “delighted’.

 

Yes- he doesn’t seem resentful at all which wouldn’t be my attitude.  If we read onward, he actually goes the other direction.

 

Read page 27.

 

 But the he feels what he calls shame and guilt.  He feels guilty that his dad is going to have to work, that his mom is going to have to work, that his sister is going to have to work.  The circumstances of Gregor’s demise is going to force them into action that they had been using him for up to this point.

 

Exactly- and for me, this is the one point in the book that I actually feel a huge amount of empathy for Gregor.  I get mad for him- even though he won’t get mad for himself.  How could they have let him go thorugh that and not help?  It’s outrageous- except he doesn’t express outrage- just shame and guilt that they have to go to work- and that makes me mad to.  And for a second, I think- well Gregor what are you going to do now that you have this information- and then I read what he does- he lays there NOT sleeping this time- and he takes a tiny bit of initiative to move- he pushes an armchair up to the window and looks outside.  And this is the last part of the book I want to read today he says this,”he would crawl up to the window sill and, propped up in the chair, lean against the window, evidently in some sort of remembrance of the feeling of freedom he used to have from looking out the window.  For in fact, from day to day he saw things even a short distance away less and less distinctly.”  He seems to be losing his vision. 

Which brings us back to existentialism- for existentialists what gives life meaning- well choice does.  Choice is always an action where we connect to reality, to the world. Choice always means taking responsibility for a certain commitment to the world. And it is through that choice, through that connection to reality, that we find our personal power, if you want to use that expression- our value, our meaning.  And what we see happening here, it seems is the opposite of that. Choice also means paying attention; it means attending to something in the world.  And it seems that Gregor is not paying attention and he’s losing his sense to even see the world.  He’s losing his sense of freedom.

 

 

 To go back to that expression- he seems to be starting to enjoy his cage, maybe.  And Kierkiegaard would say that’s not that great.  Although he doesn’t seem to be suffering too much- his needs are all being provided for. 

 

 

Well, we’ve introduced a lot of heavy terms here- we’ve talked about what it means to have existence, the idea of isolation, shame, deception-

 

 

 Kafka has covered a lot of ground in just 25 pages of a relatively plot free bug story.  

 

 

And there is a lot more to say, so we hope you’ll come back next week to finish out with us this interesting take on some of the darker places in being a human.  Don’t’ forget, if you’ve enjoyed this episode, please share it with someone you know who might like it.  Also, give us a five star rating on your app. Be our friend on Instagram and facebook or visit our website.

 

 

 

Peace out!!!

 

Further episodes of How To Love Lit Podcast

Further podcasts by Christy and Garry Shriver

Website of Christy and Garry Shriver