The Metamorphosis - Franz Kafka - Episode #3 - The lessons on becoming an isolated insect. - a podcast by Christy and Garry Shriver

The Metamorphosis - Franz Kafka - Episode #3 - The lessons on becoming an isolated insect.

 

Hi, I’m Christy Shriver.

 

And I’m Garry Shriver and this is the How to love lit Podcast.  Thanks for being with us. If you’re enjoying our podcast please tell a friend!

 

This is our third and final week to be discussing Kafka’s popular novella The Metamorphosis. In episode one, we looked at the author’s life, his difficult relationship with his abusive father, and the context of the turn of the century to somewhat situate ourselves in Kafka’s world.  We also took a look at the title and the first line of the story, trying to navigate the German, albeit poorly, but one of the main takeaways that we want to keep in mind from that discussion is the idea that Kafka is writing a story about a person who has changed into a vermin, a dirty bug unfit not even for human sacrifice.

 

Great point to have in mind as we continue to the end of the book.  By way of one interesting little anecdote about Kafka’s life and that word vermin in regard to his father- now, lots and lots has been written and many people ask about Kafka’s Jewishness and how much of his writing is about his experiences as a Jew- especially knowing what we know about the coming holocaust, I don’t think it is necessarily interesting for us to discuss, except for this one story- so Franz had made friends with these Eastern European Jews who were poor and he was hanging out with them about the time he was writing this book.  Hermann Kafka did not like Franz hanging out with them and actually used the word “vermin” to describes these people who he found to be unacceptable and beneath kafka’s station.  There is speculation that this personal interaction is where he got the name, but I’m not sure anyone knows for absolutely sure.  We know the Nazis used it in reference to Jews later, but I couldn’t any direct connection in that regard, although I stand to be corrected if there’s one I don’t know about. 

 

Last week, we turned to philosophy and kind of looked at this book, as you called it, through the lens of the existential world view.  We talked about how the core value of existentialism is human agency and the importance of taking personal responsibility for one’s life looking at everything through the lens of choice.  And, Christy, it was obvious, at least to me, that as an expression of existentialism, you found Gregor to be lacking. 

 

Indeed, I do find him lacking.  He is passive about his own life.  He’s always been passive about his own life.  As you said, in his mind, he seems to justify this in his own mind by viewing this irresponsibility as being willing to take responsibility for every one else in the world, and perhaps there is good in that, but yet he refuses to take any responsibility for his own self.  He  finds ways to justify in his own mind this refusal to assume agency- and even sees it as a noble or as a good thing to do for others but not himself – as a reader, we can clearly see this perspective as confining to his personal growth- it’s expressed as claustrophobic- like being locked up and it breeds despair and what ultimately is killing him really.

 

True- and this is where so many of us can relate.  When we look at Gregor’s transformation into a bug and how repulsive he is- it’s easy for many of us to see ourselves.  To say- Holy CRAP- this is my life.  I’ve been a bug.  I AM a bug!  I’m letting other people make decisions for me that I should be making.  I’m making excuses for my own inaction or using my personal power.   Or, maybe it’s just easier to be a martyr in our own minds and serve other people than to figure out what we want for ourselves- questions that are actually harder than you would think.  Gregor seems to never ask these kinds of questions. 

 

And what you find out- after you have turned yourself into a bug is that you absolutely do NOT get what you thought you would- this kind of living is actually repulsive to others and it doesn’t get for us the meaning in life we think it might.  But the other way doesn’t work all that well either- because living selfishly- which is what bug life primarily leads to- isn’t all that great either.  Gregor clearly valued his family.  He clearly loved his family.  He was sacrificing his whole life for his family, but he did not demand reciprocity of respect from them for whatever reason- and so they didn’t give it to him- not even before physically turning into a bug and definitely not after.  The relationships in this family were never truly healthy to begin with, and what we see develop into the second and third parts of the book- are larger and larger illustrations of isolation and alienation which ultimately overwhelm Gregor.

 

Indeed- before we move on through the rest of the book, I did want to revisit one more important take away from last week and this is what Kierkegaard calls negative independence- the idea that if you are trapped in a situation like what we’ve been talking about- there is definitely something liberating and even healthy about dropping it all.  And we see this happen to Gregor by turning into an actual physical bug.  All that responsibility that he had been carrying for his family- the finances for his father, for his sister- all that had been dumped on him is now gone.  He’s free- and that can feel positive.

 

True- but Kierkegaard also says, you can’t stay in that place forever.  You can’t get comfortable in the cage, so to speak.  In Gregor’s case, first there is a certain peace.  Gregor sleeps, something he hadn’t done much of the night of his transformation.  But staying in this place, getting comfortable in this place, Kierkegaard warns, leads to darkness- to negativity- to resentment- to isolation.  And that is where we are ready to hit the story today.  We left Gregor in his room.  He had just found his dad had money he didn’t know about, and although his dad had never directly lied about their financial situation, he had deceived Gregor into thinking he didn’t have money when he did. 

 

But Gregor doesn’t seem all that upset about this discovery. At this moment he actually feels shame and guilt for being a bug and relinquishing this role as the provider. 

 

Indeed, and of course, the main ideas we are going to look at today as they play out in the rest of the story are the ideas of shame and alienation.  But to develop this, I do want to veer away from existentialism and get back into literary elements because there are some interesting literary techniques worth looking at and thinking about that Kafka uses to really help us understand how shame and alienation can develop in our lives.  First of all this imagery, the metaphor and symbols- these three elements in writing all kind of blend together and sometimes it’s hard to know which is which. We understand that Kafka’s drawn for us a picture of a bug in our brain. That’s imagery.  Then as we read, we begin to see that that image is a metaphor for something.  But then we see other things that seem to develop into what we can understand to be symbols.

 

As we remember, symbols  are things that are concrete- physical things in stories.  For example, you cannot say that isolation is a symbol, isolation is an idea.  But perhaps the bug body is a symbol FOR Gregor’s isolation- a concrete representation of something that is abstract and hard to conceptualize.  So, the second question you should ask is- how do you know if something in a story is is a symbol?  And that is a hard question, because authors don’t just tell you directly.  They imply.  One indicator that something in a story might be symbolizing something bigger than what it is- is if that something seems to stand out more than other things- maybe it catches your attention because it’s weird (like we’re going to see with this picture with the woman in the fur) or that it  is referenced multiple times (like the door).  Maybe there is an object that takes a point of prominence in the story (like Grete’s violin).  If you see something like that you might wonder if it’s a symbol- and if you think something might be a symbol, then you ask- what could THAT possibly symbolize.   So, as we get into section two and then in section three, I see kafka playing around with a lot of symbols and of course what they mean is often arguable- but looking at them is where we find the layers of meaning that have made this book stand out and really mean something to so many people for so many years.

 

Right off the bat, we see that there is a lot of attention given to the door between the rooms.  It opens, it closes, there is the business with the key going from one side to the other, and then in the third section we are going to see that they start leaving the door open just a little bit- they pretty much quit caring about it at all.  What does that door mean?  It’s definitely in a place of prominence in the text.  It’s a physical object.  I think the door fits the requirements to be a symbol- but what of? Well, to answer that question, you have to think about the general purpose of a door, and then what might it mean in this case.  I would suggest that doors are usually portals- from inside to out- in some stories we see that they can even be from one world to the next- and I think that’s what it is here too.  At the beginning, because Gregor doesn’t like his life, his job, his place in his family, he locks the door and wants to stay inside this confined space.  But, now that option is closing to him.  He has been uninvited- the portal has closed.  Then in the third part, they leave it open, and he does actually come in, but actually there was no more portal- it is at that point that he ends up leaving forever.  It’s something to think about. 

 

The second symbol I think is worth mentioning and where we kind of left off in the story is the window.  Throughout the story, we will see Gregor repeatedly turn toward the window, maybe he looks to the window to find comfort or to reflect on something- I think many of use windows like that.  But in his case when he looks out, he confronts a view that confirms his dreary situation.  Just like doors, windows are used as symbols a lot in literature, windows can mean liberation- think of Rapunzel staring out the window.  But in this story- whether the window is open or closed- there is no liberation.  Instead, it seems like something of an intrusion.  Gregor’s inability to take any kind of responsibility for his life precludes the opportunity that a window might afford.  I heard the Nigerian writer, A. Igoni Barrett, talk about this book because he wrote his own very influential book called Blackass kind of by way of inspiration from Kafka’s story, but he said in an interview with the BBC, he said, he got to thinking about Gregor, and he thought, why doesn’t Gregor leave.  Why doesn’t he become the king of the cockroaches somewhere out there? 

 

And a man of great agency, like Igoni Barrett, would see it like that.

 

Yes- and although it’s arguable, for me- this is the idea we kind of see swirling around the dramatization of this window.  By staying near the window there is this idea that he has a desire to liberate himself from this suffocation and isolation, but unlike Barrett, for whatever reason- he just stares and loses his ability to see.  The window really becomes a reminder that he is NOT of this world anymore.  He’s disappearing and becoming something of a dreary wasteland himself.

 

You know another point to make, and I know many of us have this experience, windows express this idea that you are watching people live their lives but you don’t get to participate.  They can be in themselves an expression of isolation.  I read in the literature about Kafka that he often talks about windows in his letters to friends.  He describes at length what he sees going on outside from his window.  He sees kids playing, activity near the river, just different people living their lives. He seems fascinated by the idea that you could see into people’s reality, from the safe place behind the window and people didn’t even know they were being seen.  This may be a fun thing at some point- and people watching is often fun and what people do at outdoor cafes or at festivals, but sometimes if you do this by yourself it’s expressing a feeling of being isolated and NOT being a part of the world.

 

And that is what I think this second part is all about.  He is no longer a part of this world he’s always known.  And in fact, now that he’s been a bug for about a month, the world is developing into a place where they absolutely don’t need him.- his world has shrunk to a universe of one room- almost just one person, but  His isn’t the only metamorphosis- Grete is really making a huge change and so is the dad.  This is what the narrator says about Grete and what her parents thought of her and I quote, “they had frequently been annoyed with her because she had struck them as being a little useless.”   Well, now Grete has an important role in this changed family dynamic.  She’s the expert on Gregor. She’s Gregor’s caregiver, and there are several interactions in this section that demonstrate this.  And speaking of transitions- Gregor is becoming more and more comfortable being a bug- look what he has started doing to pass the time.  He crawls all over the walls.  It seems almost fun.  He likes that he doesn’t have to stay on the ground, he crisscrosses everywhere.

 

 In fact, he actually enjoys it.  The text says “he especially liked hanging from the ceiling.”  He says, “one could breathe more freely.”  So-again- there is absolutely something to like about the bug life.  There aren’t many people who haven’t at one time or another thought, I would love to just give it all up and hang from the ceiling- it’s a common fantasy.  How many times have you heard someone say on while lying on a beach, after they’ve done nothing but eat and drink, lay and sleep say- “I could get used to this.” 

 

Ha- I guess that’s true, I may have been guilty of saying that at one point myself- well in this case, his roaming around is actually going to be the impetus for a grand collision.  Grete, our new responsibility taker, wants to take out all the furniture so Gregor has more space to run around- a very compassionate perspective from a practical sense- but in another sense, it’s a confession of sorts as to her perception of Gregor’s actual nature.  She needs her mom to help her because the furniture is too heavy.  So, the mom, who hasn’t been in Gregor’s presence at all comes in, and this turns out to be very emotional both for the mom and actually for Gregor too. 

 

The mom doesn’t want to move the furniture.  She comes in and says out loud that it’s kind of  an admission that her son is gone forever- it’s a jarring moment for her.

 

When she speaks, her voice moves Gregor too.  Kafka says this, “even now he had been on the verge of forgetting, and only his mother’s voice, which he had not heard for so long, had shaken him up.”  That old world was calling.

 

Now all of a sudden he doesn’t want them to move the furniture either.  And strangely he takes his first action towards agency, but it doesn’t go well.  It’s kind of a funny passage, and there is some grotesque humor in this book from time to time.  It says this,start at bottom of page 33 “and so he broke out….” Read to watched the women whe they returned”

 

And our attention is drawn to that weird picture of a woman in fur the advertisement that Kafka described in the beginning of the story.  Some say it’s a symbol of sexuality.  Who knows.  Maybe it is.   Symbols are often ambiguous.  Whatever it symbolizes exactly, it clearly represents something from his old life- the person he used to be- and it dawns on him that he’s letting it all slip away – somehow this turns into this awkward last stand. 

 

Again, we’ve all been in that place where you change your mind about something and suddenly want to take a final stand on whatever the issue is, and you do, but it’s awkward and doesn’t come across like you think it might.

 

No- let’s read what happens next after he comes out to protect this picture-

 

Read page 34 “He squatted on his picture and would not give it up….all the way to the…middle of the big table.”

 

So, here we have Gregor- he’s passed through that portal.  He’s invaded that family space.  He wants back in.  And there are several things to notice- the first thing that strikes me is that Grete calls him by his name and addresses him.   That hasn’t happened, but it’s an admonishment.  He’s in trouble.   The power has clearly inverted- and Kafka emphasizes this by reminding the reader that these are the first words she had spoken to him since his metamorphosis.   The next is this description of his feelings,  He’s tormented, but what does he do- he runs around like a crazy person and stops in the middle of the table- and presumably remember, he is a large bug that stinks.  But then comes the big scene with the dad, and we see that Grete is not the only other character who has had a metamorphosis- look at this description of the father who comes to a scene with his wife passed out and the bug on the table.  Read it for us Garry,

 

Page 36. To “went for Gregor with a sullen look.”

 

So there you have, the father has gotten his power back, almost a resurrection of sorts.  And he comes for Gregor with this bazaar chase around the room which the narrator describes as being in a sort of slow motion (although they didn’t have movies I don’t think in 1915) to know what slow-motion is.  Or did they and I’m wrong?

 

Well- Edison had already invented the motion picture, but there’s  several more years before the tv would come out- so Kafka probably didn’t know that expression.  But as far as this chase goes, it comes to an abrupt halt with this stranger act of violence- the father literally pummels apples at Gregor, and one of them gets him pretty good causing his mother to beg for her life.

 

Yes- and so much has been said about this bizarre event.  First of all, apples are a weird weapon.  Some have pointed out the traditional biblical symbolism of the apple (although there isn’t an apple in an actual Bible story- apples are also used a lot in Greek mythology- it’s come to symbolize temptation, knowledge even immortality.  Other people have noted that the apple that ultimately kills him is described here as being “nailed to the spot and stretched out his body in a complete confusion of senses.”  They see kafka trying to reference the crucifixion of Jesus and maybe they are crucifying Gregor.  I don’t know- these kinds of things can go on for days- and the stuff that people write essays on.  We see the mom’s clothes falling off too as she embraces the father, “in complete union with him.”  That also is strangely worded.  What is most obvious, and we see this in the beginning of the next chapter is that the apple stays lodged in his back and serves as a reminder to the family that Gregor is their family member and there is a responsibility there.  The text reads like this, “it was the commandment of family duty to swallow their disgust and endure him, endure him and nothing more.”

  The narrator is clearly speaking from Gregor’s point of view- and from gregor’s point of view- we see an expression of total, not just isolation, but alienation.  He is not one of them any more- he’s a disgust and a duty.  And since this is clearly understood, the door doesn’t need to be closed all the way anymore.  It can stay cracked open because they know- he’s not coming back in.  He can look it, but he can’t come in. 

 

  The burden of alienation has switched over the course of the story.  And of course, this brings up the big ethical question raised both in the Bible, but more recently by the philosopher Immanuel Kant.  The Bible says, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  Kant says it is the ethical principal that you should act towards others as if your actions served as a universal law applicable to everybody including yourself.  But, does that apply to bugs?  Most would say no- does it apply to other forms of other-ness- hence the ethical dilemma? The family seems to be struggling with this ethical dilemma.  And although we are seeing this story through the eyes of Gregor, we find our sympathies switching towards the family in this third section of the story;  Gregor is useless.  He provides no value; he doesn’t harm anyone directly but he is causing the family harm.  They are embarrassed by his existence.  They are grounded from leaving their apartment.  Outside people are uncomfortable, grossed out when they find out about their secret- and it is a secret.  They don’t even have pleasant conversations in the house anymore.  Gregor and the secret that is Gregor is the darkness that weighs on them.  How far does this ethical rule apply?  Can we make ourselves so loathesome to others that an outside observer would find our family members justified in dehumanizing us?  Has Gregor dehumanized himself?  That seems to be what Kafka is asking? 

 

Kafka's enigmatic sayings: "Every human being must be able to justify his life .. . no human being can live an unjustified life," and "Man cannot live without a permanent trust in something indestructible in himself” seem to make sense when we look at them through the perspective of this third chapter in the book. They finally answer this ethical question with a big fat NO, we have no ethical responsibility towards this guy- and we’e going to see that they don’t even feel bad about it- not after this last chapter.In this last chapter, Kafka does everything to create an intense sense of hopelessness on the part of everyone. The father won’t get out of his seat.  Grete barely tries to feed Gregor anymore and has all but given up on cleaning.  The family take on boarders- despicable people who treat them poorly and they just put up with it.  The mother washes other peoples underwear for a living- how strange a detail is that.

 

True- and let me go back to existentialism for one more moment because I see it here in this chapter.  Theistic and Atheistic existentialism disagree when it comes to the idea of hopelessness- theistic existentialists find hope and purpose in God.  Kafka, went a different direction.  Kafka follows the line of thinking of the more famous Nietzsche who many know for that famous line  “God is dead”, and Kafka agrees  with Nietzsche in part but answers back that we shouldn’t let his shadow (meaning ethics) to disappear from our souls as well as God, because together with God's shadow we shall also disappear from this earth. And what he means by this is that, even though atheism can lead to hopelessness because it often takes away hope from the human soul, holding on to ethics can be an answer to that- that it is something that must be fought against- because for Kafka to give up hope is to give up life, and I think that is what this third chapter is all about- of course Nietze calls that Kafka’s “absurd hope”, but we’ll save Camus and the idea of absurdity for his own body of work later on..

 

Probably for the best, we’ve frontloaded a lot of philosophy and that stuff can make my head hurt- but of course, that is exactly what happens with this strange metaphysical scene which I guess, is the last bit of action in the book- we see the culmination of a loss of hope.  The awful boarders are out in the dining room where the family used to dine, although they now dine in the kitchen.  Grete is in there playing the violin and they ask her to come out to play for them.  The door to Gregor’s room is left open, so he can hear Grete play.  Unforutnatly, the boarders don’’t like her playing. But Gregor does.  These lines are kind of recognizable- Garry would you mind .    

 

Read page 46, “Was he an animal”…til “without a ribbon or collar”

 

Garry what do you think of that passage?  It’s very strange.  First that violin, it meets the criteria for a symbol.  It represented the love that Gregor has had for his sister, it’s a symbol of culture.  He was going to send her to the conservatory.  But, here there’s this introduction of Gregor seeing himself as an animal-.  He asks himself if he was an animal that music could move him so.  How is that animalistic?

 

 He reaches out to Grete.  He’s had so many opportunites to reach out to her,. Now he reaches out to her but his thoughts are possessive in nature. He thinks of not letting her out of his room.  He fantasizes that she would stay in there of her own free will.  This is not a reciprocal relationship.  This is no better than the reversal of what was wrong at the very beginning.  He crossed the portal into the community of the outside, but he is not of that community anymore, nor ever will be.  He’s not thinking like a community member.   He is repulsive, offensive, and not just useless, he’s harmful. 

 

Of course his presence in that room in front of those boarders is horrible.  They freak out, demand money because of the dirty conditons of the house, the mom seems to have something that appears to look like a panic attack, the father aggresses the boaders, but it is Grete that voices the climatic line.  She says, “We must try to get rid of it.”  And she calls Gregor an it- the last time she called him by name, but no more.  His dehumanization is complete.  She says, ion is complete.  She says, You just have to try to get rid of the idea that it’s Gregor.  Beliving it for so long, that is our real misfortune.  But now can it be Gregor?  If it were Gregor, he would have realized long ago that it isn’t possible for human beings to live with such a creature, and he would have gone away of his own free will.  Then we wouldn’t have a brother, but we’d be able to go on living and honor his memory.  But as things are, this animal persecutes us, drives the roomers away, obviously wants to occupy the whole apartment and for us to sleep in the gutter.”  Ugh- what an indictment.

 

And, of course, Gregor doesn’t disagree with Grete, as we see.  His death follows and is strangely described.  You don’t really notice that he’s been killing himself for quite a while by not eating.

 

True, it’s mentioned that he’s not eating much and that he’s spitting out his food, but I wasn’t foillowing that this was a suicide attempt until it was over.  I will say, I’m not sure you can even call it a suicide attempt, since the causality of his death is left ambiguous- he wasn’t eating, but he had the injury of the apple as well.  Also he is living in total filth and basic neglect, so that may have played a role.  Was his family responsible?  Was he? 

 

It seems that Gregor Samsa commits suicide for the well-being of his family. In other words, ethically, Gregor does the right thing- existentially.  He doesn’t serve any purpose, so he cancels his own existence in the end.  And as we see, the family is better off for.  It’s amazing how quickly this changes the dynamic. 

 

One thing to notice is that the story changes how it refers to the parents, where up to this point, it’s been mother and father now they are referred to as Mr. and Mrs. Samsa.  When the cleaning lady find Gregor dead it says this, she says, “Come and have a loo, it’s croaked.  It’s lying there, dead as a doornail.!  The couple Mr. and mrs. Samsa sat in their marriage bed and had a struggle overcoming their shock at the cleaning woman before they could finally grasp her message.”

 

It’s like they are new people.  And of course, Mr, Samsa says upon seeing it, “Now we can thank God.”  He crossed himself, and the three women followed his example.  A Catholic symbol. 

 

Grete is going to notice that he had stopped eating.  The vulgar cleaning lady is the one who eventually disposes of Gregor.  Let’s erad this last parasgraph. 

 

Read last paragraph of last page.

 

Garry what do you think of the ending?  You know Kafka never really liked it. 

 

Well, it’s difficult because there is certainly no moral closure.  Instead of Gregor finding meaning, creating identity, breaking free- he shrinks into total nothingness.  The family in turn, finds a renews hope in his demise. 

 

This is a story with no redemption.  Can we see it as a cautionary tale?  Something along th lins of learn from the bug?  Somehow, I’m not sure that’s how Kafka meant it.

 

Well, I’m not sure either.  It seems the existential thing to do is to let it speak for itself.  So on that note, let me invite you to change courses with us next week and we move along in history to another Jewish writer, this time Elie Wiesel, as we read his memoir Night- a recollection of his experience at age 15 of being taken to Auschwitz. 

 

Thanks for being with us. Like us on......FB, IG and .com. Tell a friend about us.

 

Peace out

 

 

 

 

 

 

Further episodes of How To Love Lit Podcast

Further podcasts by Christy and Garry Shriver

Website of Christy and Garry Shriver