Erick Cumbe

Philip Yusupov

Steven Schwartz

Zhongyu Zhang

In Franz Kafka’s story titled ‘The Metamorphosis’, the reader is introduced to a man named Gregor who works as a traveling salesman. The main focus of the story is Gregor’s transformation from a man into an insect and how he and his family deal with the rather unusual circumstances they have been plagued with. As part of our class project, we selected four questions that we thought would provide us with the opportunity to learn more about Gregor through our own interpretations of events or ideas that are not straightforward. In doing so, we are able to understand the significance of occasions and ideas as to how they relate to our own selves.

Our first question, answered by Steven Schwartz, looks into the significance behind why Gregor’s family did not attempt to find a cure for him after he turns into a bug. The answer provides a unique view into Gregor- through the abilities of his family. We see that Gregor provided his family with so much, that they became unable to take care of themselves.

Why doesn’t Gregor’s family try to find a cure for him?

After turning into an insect, Gregor’s family decides to leave him as be and shut him off from their world. They alienate him which ultimately leads Gregor to want to die. Interestingly, one does not have to put too much effort to realize that Gregor’s family does absolutely nothing in the way of curing him. While this may seem odd at first, a closer examination into the actions of Gregor’s parents and sister shows that they simply had no drive to do anything- especially not work hard and find a cure for their breadwinner.

As the start of the story, we see that Gregor’s entire family depend on him. They rely on him for the food they eat, the home they sleep in and everything in between. As a result, we can conclude that Gregor’s family simply were not capable of doing a lot on their own.

This inability can be found in certain subtleties in the story. For instance, now that Gregor is unable to work and provide for his family, they resort to renting out space in their apartment to people who need a place to stay. While this idea may seem like a good way of making ends meet, we see that the family is unable to keep their apartment in good condition- a task that should be relatively simple when compared to all the things Gregor used to do for them. We see this inability to keep the apartment clean when one of the lodgers gets angry and declares: “… considering the disgraceful conditions prevailing in this apartment and family I immediately cancel my room.”  The very fact that they can’t even manage to keep a few rooms in their house clean and in good condition, shows just how incapable they actually are.

As a result of their proven incapability in doing simple things (take care of their home) the fact that they didn’t even try to help Gregor makes sense. It’s not that they didn’t want to, but rather they simply couldn’t.

Next, being that the above question allowed for us to delve into why Gregor’s family did not try to help him, we look into what Gregor’s relationship with his family is like. In his answer, Philip Yusupov discusses the relationship Gregor had with each of his family members.

What’s the relationship between Gregor and his family?

Gregor is the only one working in the family before his transformation. Dad failed to support the family. Gregor feels responsible for his family and takes his role very seriously. Dad attacks Gregor in different ways and being aggressive towards him. Mom tries to protect Gregor, but she ends up being not very successful in this. Gregor’s sister seems to be the closest relatives to him. Gregor was even trying to pay for the music classes. However, after Gregor’s change, the family completely abandoned him. To sum up, I feel that the relationships between the family and Gregor are distanced and cold.

Moving forward, now that we know a bit more about Gregor’s relationship with each of his family members, we decided to move along to the fuzzy, unclear characteristics illustrated regarding Gregor’s dead insect body. In answering this question, Zhongyu Zhang compares Gregor’s character to other characters found in books by Kafka. In doing so, we see that the ambiguity behind Gregor’s corpse is typical of Kafka.

What is the significance of the ambiguity behind Gregor’s corpse?

Gregor is a very typical character of Kafka. He was alienated in his life. He worked hard tried to feed his family but cannot get even a little respect. In this story his transformation didn’t change any of his situation.  He was still worried about train schedule and struggled with his small legs. The second maid his family employed she doesn’t have any fear of this “thing”. That points that is was not his transformation put him in this tragic situation. His death might be a release. Kafka didn’t put much passage on his death. Gregor was nothing but negligible in the society. His sister who was accounting on him felt happy on his death. His parents could start a new chapter of life. But only Gregor himself knew how much he suffered which had to finished with death.

Lastly, we felt as if the final necessarily part in understanding Gregor and who he was would be appropriately executed if we talk about the reaction his family had to his death. When answering the question of the odd reaction Gregor’s family had to his death, Erick Cumbe points to the fact that his family had already started to act as if he didn’t exist since his transformation. In essence, the response his family had makes good sense.

Why do you think Gregor’s parents and sister are unfazed about his death in the end?

Gregor’s parents and sister are unfazed about Gregor’s death in the end because they didn’t really care for him at that point. They would disregard Gregor and basically make him feel that he wasn’t part of the family anymore. Which in a way makes sense because of the change that happened to him. Gregor noticing this, realizes that living doesn’t mean anything anymore. Gregor living doesn’t benefit his family, which is why he dies with no regrets because he’s no longer a burden.

By answering the questions above, we are able to obtain a better understanding and idea of who Gregor was and how he impacted his family. While our answers are based off of information found in the text, as part of the nature of the questions, we used our own analysis to find the significance in the ideas raised and questioned in each of the four questions. It is through doing this text-based answering that we were able to in a sense ‘follow’ Gregor through his life and get to know him better. The order in which we chose to ask the questions follows Gregor’s life in a way that makes sense chronologically.

—

Our other two categories are as follows:

Category 2: Gregor’s Transformation

Questions:

1. What does the randomness of Gregor’s transformation represent?
2. Did Gregor deserve to be transformed into a bug?
3. What does Gregor’s death represent?

We put these questions together mainly because they all focus on Gregor’s transformation from human being to insect. We thought that doing so would allow for us to obtain a better understanding of the situation Gregor found himself in now that he is an insect.

Category 3: Understanding the Story

Questions:

1. How would the story be different if Gregor had transformed into a different animal?
2. Why is Gregor so focused on time?
3. Do you ever feel like you’ve suddenly woken up in the body of an ugly critter? If yes, how so?

We categorized these questions together for the purpose of understanding the story of The Metamorphosis better. These questions all cover a different aspect of the story, and can potentially be transformed into long, highly analytical answers which would really obtain a better understanding of the story.

As part of growing up in our society, we are taught to respect the law and all that it stands for. People know that they should avoid doing certain things to avoid trouble. Interestingly however, the idea of being protected by the law is not always clear. The notion of forgetting about the protection the law provides can be best explained when observing how we act in front of police officers. In such a case, instead of feeling safer when walking past a police officer, we almost feel unsafe. We are worried that the police officer may find a reason to arrest us- because we know he can- as opposed to thinking that his presence will act as a driving force to keep us safe from other people and the harm they may bring.

In his short story called “Before the Law”, Kafka plays with the same idea. The man is trying to enter into the law, however he feels uneasy about doing so because of the intimidating police officer. While deciding to spend many years in front of the gate waiting for permission, the man deteriorates to the point of not being to get off the ground. It is not before he is about to die that the officer finally tells him that the gate was built specifically for him. The fact that the gate was built for this particular man alone proves to show that the man read the ‘message’ from the police officer wrong.  It seems as if the police officer was simply telling him that the law is protective when giving the man a hard time. Unfortunately, in the same way we do today, the man failed to understand that the law also protects him- instead of only critiquing and protecting from him.  

Education is essential to moving forward. Education allows for the human mind to advance and conquer new ideas and ideals.

Education is necessary for everyone in our modern society. It requires devotion, and dedication. It is not easy to obtain or to retain.

Education is a must in our society. Not having a full time job while in school and waiting for the chance to get a great paying job is an opportunity cost that is worth all the struggle. It allows for people to distinguish themselves and gain knowledge in a particular trade or action. It helps people with various knowledge and talent work together and achieve greatness.

Education takes a long time. It results in the frequent questioning of our choices, but continual confirmation in our plans.

Lack of Education will lead to being excluded. One without education in the future will not be able to assist in maintaining our world or furthering our desires.

Those who choose to steer away from education will not know how to analyze certain situations and make the best out of them. They will be unable to find work or pleasure in their lives. They will be excluded from the credit received from future generations and will be remembered as useless and unsubstantial.

Education is important and worth the associated struggles.

—

This Manifesto is a combination of the style found in the Manifesto titled “Futurist Manifesto of Lust” by Valentine De Saint-Point and Mina Loy’s “Aphorisms on Futurism”. Much like Saint-Point’s Manifesto, this one does not specifically tell anyone to do anything, but rather ‘nudges’ the audience to agree with it. The Manifesto says only good things about the good (education) and only bad things about the bad (not getting an education). However, Saint-Point does not talk about the opposite of lust in her Manifesto. By discussing the opposite of education, I am adapting to the style of Loy’s Manifesto where she clearly talks about living and dying. In essence, Loy covers both aspects of the topic her Manifesto is discussing. We see her doing this by using words like “but” which allow us to see another aspect of whatever particular topic she is discussing.

Of the various Manifesto’s assigned, the one titled “Manifesto of Futurist Woman” resonated the most. I found the Manifesto somewhat comparable to the times we are living in now mainly because it deals with the ideas of feminism and feminists. Much to the contrary of how we look at the situation, the author, Valentine De Saint-Point agrees that women are different from men, and seems to elevate woman because they are different (as opposed to just wanting to make them be equal to men). Saint-Point interestingly indicates that without women being the way they are (in charge of raising the children and keeping the house), men would not be successful. She highlights the contributions of women in a wide array of methods including raising children (only until they are old enough to go to war, of course) and satisfying men. Saint-Point seems to be okay with this position in society and does not desire being on same level as men are as long as she is credited with having a substantial part in the war effort. While these ideas may or may not be what early 20th century feminism looked like, the fact that Saint-Point was a woman makes these ideas much more powerful. When comparing her Manifesto to what feminists in today’s society hope to achieve, we see that Saint-Point is okay with her current situation and wants to see some relatively small change in perception as opposed to position. It is for this reason that I find the fact that it is a woman, and not a man making these points to be remarkable, and truly effective.

Living in a world where people and their ideas are swiftly distributed over various means of communication, we are exposed to the teachings of many people. Some of these people use many words, but don’t really say much, while others say a lot while using a few words. People of the latter style tend to leave observers deep in thought. After reading the assigned poems by Emily Dickinson, I see that Emily Dickinson is able to get people thinking through her seemingly short poems. Her poems are all deep, and as a result leave readers thinking of not only the poem, but how her words affect our lives. For instance, in her poem titled “Tell all the truth but tell it slant”, we can interpret the poem to simply mean that it is okay (and maybe even good) to lie. However, we can take much more away from the poem if we are to take another minute to read the poem over again, and attempt to read between the lines. For instance, in the third line, Dickinson uses the word ‘our’. This word usage begs the question of who she is referring to- is she simply having an intimate conversation with the intended audience? Is Dickinson telling this to everyone in the world? The simple usage of this possessive pronoun can lead to a wide array of interpretation and potential action. Our ability to extract such a large amount of ideas from such short poems shows just how powerful her writing is.  

As Realism became more popular, people started to rely on it’s non-fiction qualities. Much to the contrary of past works, such as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, this type of literature focused on the way things really were. Novels were now composed of ideas that were not far-fetched, and readers became better able to relate to what they were reading. In addition, as part of being ‘real’ people were now able to get a better grasp of what the world around them was like. Interestingly, after comparing the ideas of Elaine Freedgood in her scholarly overview regarding Realism titled: “Nineteenth-centruy British critics of Realism” with an excerpt of George Eliot’s “Adam Bede”, I have observed that Realism is not without it’s own unique drawbacks.

Freedgood provides us with a great understanding of what Realism is all about, and how it can be used. She mentions that “The Realistic novelist was something of a sociologist and news reporter, a chronicler of the present and recent past, …” Eliot seems to agree, and they both continue to discuss how people relied on Realism and its style as a method of obtaining news and knowledge of current events. The two authors also seem to agree that authors from this time period worked very hard to show what is going on, and not add dramatic additions to make the story better: “So I am content to tell my simple story, without trying to make things seem better than they were;” (Eliot).

While obtaining news and ideas from the Realism method may seem to be appropriate, Eliot provides a very important flaw in the Realist method. She explains that she will explain things: “… as they have been mirrored in my mind. The mirror is doubtless defective…”. In other words, Eliot is acknowledging that (unlike in our media format where we can see video of events) what she is discussing is simply based off of how she mirrored the event, and the effect it had on her. In essence, the Realist form of writing is simply only an explanation of the event or idea as seen and interpreted by the author, and not by the reader. Readers of these Realist texts are simply learning about them through the frame of reference of the author.

While this may not seem to be a major issue at first, we can think of the game ‘broken telephone’ as an extreme example of just how limiting such texts can be. Similar to the aforementioned game, in which one relies on the information provided to them to inform another person of the occasion, facts and ideas in the Realist form can easily be misunderstood or misstated unintentionally. For instance, one author may hear a speech or see a sight and think of a certain time period while a person right next to them will see the same thing and think of a very different time period. If both observers were to write about what they feel, chances are readers would hear two contrasting accounts of the event. Being that most people during this time period would let these writings influence them, Realism could potentially result in a very confused society.

The ability of expressing oneself has been a part of human culture for many years. People have always found ways of clarifying how they feel to the people around them- especially during the romantic era. Interestingly enough, the way in which people went about expressing themselves has differed based on the time period, as well as where they lived.

When comparing the Chinese lyrics to the Arab lyrics, or Koran, we see some of the differences in the style of expression. As the introduction to the poem suggests, the poem titled “The Opening” was written as a praise for God and was written my Mohammed. As such, the text is very broad, and serves as an avenue for people of the Muslim faith to be able to praise God from many different approaches and not as a means of being specific. We see this level of broadness from the words used. The poem constantly refers to God, and while it showers God with praises, it does not provide any specific detail of as to what they are praising their master for.

Much to the contrary, the Chinese form is very specific and direct. The introduction to the text introduces us to the uniqueness of each poem from that time period. In the Chinese culture, scholars would write these poems on their own as a sign of grace. They would be expected to submit their praise when being hosted and cared for. In addition, writers would use these poems as an opportunity to express their political beliefs in a very clear and concise form. For instance, in the poem titled “Spring Prospect” by Tu Fu, we are exposed to his belief of the troubling state of his city with a sense of directness by use of the words: separation, favored and angry. He does not use broad terms as in the Koran which allows for the reader to have a direct understanding of what he is referring to.

Additionally, another notable difference between the Chinese poem and the Muslim verse is who the intended audience is. As part of being written by Mohammed and simply serving as a channel of communicating with God, the paragraphs, or suras connect man and God. On the other hand, when looking at Tu Fu’s work, he is clearly speaking to other human beings. This difference in who they are talking to is very informative with regards to the culture. Both groups of people seem interested in expressing themselves, however the Muslim people look towards God to express themselves, while the Chinese people look to one another. In doing so, we see that the Muslim’s believe in God as being the one who is in control of the lives of humans, while the Chinese culture looks to find change in the actions and beliefs of other people.

Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein as part of a competition, and was able to successfully create a story that has continued to recreate and update itself in various forms. A 2009 Hollywood film named Splice does just that. Interestingly, Splice provides its viewers with an update on what the story would look like in our own society. The movie is based of off two scientists, Clive and Elsa who work to combine the DNA of various beings (including humans) to create their own hybrid being. Much to their surprise, they create a living creature that they name Dren. Overtime Dren becomes family to Clive and Elsa. Viewers are provided with a unique view into what Dren’s life is like as she grows up. Dren seems to go through many of the same phases as adolescents in our society, and is fortunate enough to mature under the maternal guidance of Elsa.

All seems to be going well until Dren becomes viscous and violent and develops a poisonous stinger that is powerful enough to kill (the movie clip above is of that scene). Dren goes so far as to poison her cat, assaulting Elsa, and having sex with Clive (after sedating him). Dren continues to be a source of issues for the two scientists and goes so far as to kill three people. 

While Dren and Shelley’s monster seem to have similar characteristics, I think that looking at their differences is especially interesting.  I do not think the writers of Splice were trying to move away from the original version of Frankenstein, but rather worked on updating it.

For instance, learning more about Dren led me to think of Frankenstein’s monster as a teenager much like Dren is for most of the movie. In looking at it from this perspective, we can learn a lot about how the world was for adolescents in 1818 by comparing them to those of  2009 because they are the same ‘type’ of person, just at a different time.  

In the 1818 version of the story, we don’t see Victor having to deal with an obnoxious, self centered being. While the monster does kill Victor’s family and friends, he does so out of desire of having a companion. We see this desire, and the willingness of the monster to have a face to face conversation on page 102 of the book. The monster seems so sincere, that Victors sympathizes with him, and agrees (at least initially) to make the monster a wife.  On the other hand, when committing her ‘crimes’, Dren is not doing so in effort to advance her desires, but rather in effort to rebel and deceive her scientific parents. Dren does not seem to have an apparent reason for committing the acts she is doing.
The change in roles is very revealing of how our society is compared to how society was at Mary Shelley’s time. At 1818, people seemed to not be as cared for as during the time of 2009, and may even be a bit more respectful. The monster kills out of desire for love, Dren strikes out of spite which is strongly correlated to the loving atmosphere in which she lives. The differences between Dren and Victor’s monster serve as a distinction between how people acted in 1818 and how they act in 2009.