“The Metamorphosis” written by Franz Kafka Essay

“The Metamorphosis,” written by Franz Kafka in 1912, follows several social patterns that are often observed in Kafka’s other works. The concept of growth and degradation is among these patterns. Another is the element of human nature that causes deception as a protective device. Within “The Metamorphosis” these two key patterns come together to develop a story that employs magic realism and dream logic to create a drama of illness. It is said in Roy Pascal’s book Kafka’s Narrators: A study of his stories and sketches that the abstract structure of the story “requires the reader to look beyond the surface area network of the story for another symbolic significance” (39 ).

By taking a better take a look at these 2 together, much deeper meaning and insight is found.

The idea of degradation versus growth is central to the meaning of “The Metamorphosis.” The story opens at the beginning of Gregor’s decent to death with the climax of the story in the first sentence. The story itself is simply the working out of the climax. Unlike a few of Kafka’s other stories, “the ‘transformation’ is not manifestly gotten in touch with any idea with any concept of punishment or self-punishment, however simply specified without description at the start; it is now on the punishment itself that Kafka dwells at length” (Luke 105). This penalty that Luke speaks of is that for “the unforgivable offense of self-assertion” (104) of which Gregor is guilty of when he takes control of the role of breadwinner in the household. Gregor’s degeneration follows another commonly discovered pattern of Kafka’s stories: “the hero falls from corporal self-sufficiency to cravings and then to death and silence […] (Thiher 40). This pattern can likewise be observed in Kafka’s “An Appetite Artist” and in “The Judgement.” Though at first the reader may wish to analyze the metamorphosis as metaphorical, it is meant to be taken actually.

The procedure of Gregor’s change and decrease to death is plainly shown by the department of the story into 3 chapters, one for each of Gregor’s break outs (Greenburg qtd. in Dixon 400; Luke 103). The very first chapter includes Gregor’s preliminary loss of power and influence in the family, which is mirrored by his dad’s gain in power and authority as, as soon as again, he ends up being the head of the family. Gregor’s loss of power is not just within his household however likewise in society as he becomes totally detached and ends up being progressively dependent on his household for his survival. It appears as though the family roles are reversed after the metamorphosis happens; instead of the household being reliant on Gregor, Gregor is reliant on his family. At the expenditure of Gregor’s life, the rest of his household is lastly launched from the chains and limitations that Gregor had actually troubled them all. Gregor is unsuccessful in his effort to interact with his household as his fall to “verminhood” is follwed with a fall from the language that may have had the ability to describe the original fall (Thiher 41).

The 2nd chapter involves the 2nd break out where Gregor runs out of his room and is attacked by his fear-filled dad. The apple that becomes lodged in his back even more shows the decay that is occurring in Gregor who is now gradually starving to death as his household begins to neglect him as they all have tasks to handle. By the third and last chapter, the household has actually handled a brand-new kind. They are all working and they have actually taken on 3 boarders. Gregor’s space has actually become a storeroom for those things that are no longer desired, including Gregor. The third breakout occurs as a result of Grete’s playing of the violin. Ironically, it is Grete, who initially is the advocate for Gregor remaining as part of the household, who lastly states that Gregor is no longer Gregor and that he must be disposed of (Kafka 407). I suppose as time progressed, she recognized that if any of them were to grow and mature then they need to rid themselves of everything that stands in their method (i.e. Gregor).

As a contrast to Gregor’s inescapable death is the final picture of the story. The household has actually been transformed. From being useless and paralyzed, they end up being efficient companies. There is a sense of revival as they begin to look to the future. The improvement of Grete is as however” [s] he awakens to her body’s sufficiency when Gregor has disappeared” (Thiher 44). As a final symbol and illustration of the substantial metamorphosis and growth experienced as an outcome of being released from Gregor’s control, the moms and dads decide that it is time to find a hubby for their child (Kafka 412). The destruction of Gregor, mirrored by the growth seen in the rest of his household, is advanced by the deceptive mindsets they all take on.

As the story starts, Gregor, the person most closely affected, behaves as if nothing runs out the regular. Even the other characters react as if it were a natural event, such like that he had woken with a cold or measles. According to Luke,” [this] disparity can be explained in psychological terms as a defense-mechanism including reality-denial and affect-displacement […] (111 ). Thiher likewise acknowledges that the story is largely based upon misstatements and deceptiveness (48 ). Gregor appears to have numerous deceptions. First of all, at the start of the story, he is delusional because he thinks that his bugness is merely short-lived (Kafka 377). Secondly, he sees his track record at work to be much greater than it really is. With the arrival of the chief clerk, we, the readers, realize that he has not been as exceptional at work as he leads us to think (Kafka 380-81). He has misrepresented his task security. He also is delusional with regard to his household’s social and monetary positions. He was under the impression that his household was not able to make it through without him so when the family service stopped working, he presumed the position of breadwinner of the household, enabling his daddy to grow progressively inactive.

As the metamorphosis advanced, all of these delusions and self-deceptions were exposed as the wear and tear of Gregor advanced and the growth and metamorphosis of his household happened. What in truth was later found was that his daddy had a sum of cash kept away and that in truth, he had actually maintained some of the wealth of the household service and that all the family members were rather efficient in working to make ends satisfy. His dad had actually deceived him. It appears that it was all of these deceptions that transformed Gregor’s father into a judge who condemned Gregor “to disappear, to die, and to end up being the rubbish that the sturdy charwoman [might] discard” (Thiher 44). As he towered above Gregor in his new uniform, Gregor acknowledged the change and began to realize his function in the subsistence of his household was rapidly ended up being inconsequential. As Gregor’s function as a family member diminishes, the view his household has toward him changes considerably.

When the story beginnings he is seen as Gregor, a taking a trip salesman but by the end of the story he is seen by his whole household as no longer being Gregor; he is viewed as merely a giant bug (Kafka 407). Thiher accepts this as he states that” [b] y applying throughout the story the kind of dream reasoning that allows one to be and not to be the exact same thing, to be Gregor and to be non-Gregor the vermin, Kafka produces the possibility for paradoxical misstatement at every level […] (50 ). The dream logic focuses our minds on the inessential details of the story that offer us a higher understanding of who Gregor was the life he faced now that he had been changed. It appears that these little details tend to draw empathy from the reader, followed by shock and then laughter at the absurdity of the circumstance.

The laughter and comedic results that result are likewise as a result of the logical inhibition that is required to follow such an absurd plot as it offers a relief of energy tension (Luke 111). “Gregor’s ‘flat’ response, as Kafka provides it, is horrifying because of its ‘remarkable’ psychotic […] character; because it insidiously increases the size of an implied rift between day-to-day actuality and monstrous possibility; and because it casts terrible and awful light on human inability to appreciate catastrophe” (111 ). The extent of deception that Gregor placed on himself is shown in his action to his brand-new body.

He presumes his situation is a hallucination or dream and he does not think that it is actually taking place to him. It appears through the family’s reactions (and Gregor’s) that the loss of his human shape is intolerable and for that reason it can not hold true. This reasoning leads both Gregor and the rest of his household to suspend belief, continue on with life as if nothing has taken place, and hence, acting as if whatever is as it always was. Society in basic appears to condition the members of society to respond in this method (concealing our faults and worries) so that a very little amount of attention is drawn and we are not seen as uncommon. The modifications of Gregor’s existence are seen as “simply imaginary” and Gregor thinks that his “early mornings delusions” will slowly disappear when he rises (Kafka 377).

He sees the strangeness of his voices as being the first sign of a cold, not as a product of his metamorphosis. By the end of the first area or chapter of the story, Gregor has nearly entirely lost expect a end to his “bugness.” It appears though that, even for his family, the disbelief and deception blinds them from seeing the truth. The Grete and Gregor’s mother believe that it is merely a momentary situation which ultimately Gregor will go back to his previous state. Gregor’s father sees the “metamorphosis as something that is to be gotten out of Gregor” (Luke 113). Gregor attempt to justify his experience, “hunting helplessly for explanations of the mysterious” (Luke 114). He views the symptoms of his scenario as part of “a dream, a cold in the head, a foolish hallucination induced by pangs of conscience, [or] the wonderful outcome of malevolent detraction by his co employees” (Luke 115).

Functions Mentioned

Kafka, Franz. “The Transformation.” The Author’s Path. Eds. Constance Rooke and Leon Rooke. Scarborough: ITP Nelson, 1998. 374-412.

Luke, F.D. “The Transformation.” Describe to me some stories of Kafka. Ed. Angel Flores. New York City: Gordian, 1983. 103-22.

Pascal, Roy. Kafka’s Storyteller’s: A study of his stories and sketches. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 1982.

Thiher, Allen. Franz Kafka: A study of the brief fiction. Ed. Gordon Weaver. Boston, MA: Twayne, 1990.

You Might Also Like