http://www.bostonbibliophile.com/2009... ( )

The book that started it all. Possibly even more influential in the horror genre than Lovecraft. Awkward at times but deeply unsettling and seminal. ( )

What a waste of life to read this book. Do you ever read a book that is supposed to be really good and come away from it thinking "Man, if I wrote a book like that publishers would laugh in my face" or "Monkeys could do a better job, why do people like this book?" That's what I thought about half way through it. The whole story was forced and almost painful to finish even though it's less than 100 pages. Get your existentialism elsewhere. ( )

            Throughout time, the great reads occasionally change and morph from one generation to the next, one century to another; however, some works of literature have withstood the test of time with miraculous vigor.  One of these exceedingly antiqued pieces is The Metamorphosis, a bizarre web spun for us by Franz Kafka.  Although originally concieved in Austria-Hungary nearly a century ago, The Metamorphosis has been affecting lives and, through them, history, all this time.  As long as readers continue to recognize the timeless truth revealed in The Metamorphosis about both humanity and life, people will continue to ponder over it and assign a meaning of their own.

There is much debate over the purpose of Gregor's transformation in Kafka's abstract masterpiece and despite the ambiguity (and universality) of such a piece, many critics claim a self appointed truth.  However, as a reader, difficulty becomes stressed upon the necessity to form unique and valued opinions even when alternative realities presented without question bombard said reader at every turn.  The sheer obscurity of The Metamorphosis alone is enough to topple anyone's perspective of the difference between dreams and reality, and yet even that is made abundantly clear by the second paragraph of Kafka's slim novella: "It was no dream" (Kafka 3). Although Kafka’s intent may seem clear, settling down with the idea that perhaps The Metamorphosis lives in a setting with it's own standard of universal normalcies causes discomfort.  Alas, Kafka provides no explanation for Gregor's unexpected transformation, and rather strands the reader after sentence one.  "When Gregor Samsa woke up one morning from unsettling dreams, he found himself changed. . .into a monstrous vermin" (Kafka 3).  Unlike the typical style of writing, Kafka introduces the climax of his masterpiece in the first sentence of the novella and leaves the rest of the story to gradual degeneration.  Not to say that Kafka's writing is, in any way, less superior throughout the rest of The Metamorphosis, but rather that the highest point in the plot is Gregor’s transformation from human to bug; nothing from the remainder of the novella tops that.  But the point remains that finding an anchoring idea from The Metamorphosis is challenging; the conflict between knowledge and reality remain extraordinarily pertinent but are left for the reader to decide based on their own standards.

In order to decipher any meaning from The Metamorphosis, the reader must first question the reality and knowledge of the Samsa household.  In our realm of reality, waking up as a bug is considered an impossibility, yet when Gregor is first revealed to his family they appear to recognize him as their son and brother.   It is clear that although Gregor states that he is a dung-beetle, the family recognizes him as the person they have always known: "Let me go to Gregor, he is my unfortunate boy!"  (Kafka 31).  In the novella's closing commentary, Luke states that Kafka succeeded in creating a bitter reality in The Metamorphosis by reminding his readers that the responses of those around Gregor "are always psychologically 'true'" (Corngold 67).  One could draw from this that there is a possibility that Gregor has not gone through any transformation at all and is merely suffering from a series of delusions.  Binion repeatedly validates this idea, stating that "It all falls within the narrative convention, corresponding as it does to the hero's ironic attitude toward his own symptoms" (Corngold 64).  However, the theory of delusion also has its gaps.  If one were to assume that no real transformation has occurred, and perhaps suspect another alternative –for example, Gregor's metamorphosis as a metaphor for sickness– then one would have to deal with the parts of text that treat Gregor in distinctly animalistic ways.  Not only is Gregor literally sleeping under a couch, but the Samsa family simply does not treat Gregor like a human. Upon Gregor's first appearance from his room, his father has the sole intention of causing harm to Gregor; "...and stamping his feet, started brandishing the cane and the newspaper to drive Gregor back into his room" (Kafka 18).  This act of violence suggests that Gregor does not merely believe himself to be a bug, but rather has gone through a physical transformation.  But it is not just the father who treats Gregor with cruelty.  Although the women of the house do not commit crimes of such brutality, they still occur.  Midway through the novella, Gregor accuses all three family members of ceasing communication with him: "...not a soul had addressed a word directly to him" (Kafka 33).  Gregor says this, and other similar ideas, with bitterness toward his family for his new found treatment.  But surely if Gregor is merely sick, the family would do all that they could to comfort him, and yet they do not.  Gregor's narrative also supports this conclusion of Gregor's remaining sanity; not only does Gregor describe his bug-like characteristics, but also his daily activities which all indicate that his transformation is literal and real.  After a short adjustment period, Gregor is eating garbage, climbing on walls and supporting a festering apple in his "armored" back. 

So why then -one must ask themself- has Gregor gone from a Family Supporting Salesman to a Dung-Beetle in the course of a night?  This question has troubled many scholars even if the Samsa's are not particularly bothered by it.  Reader responses vary with individual perspectives, however the main ideas revolve around analyzing The Metamorphosis as either a tale of religious interpretation, or that of Kafka's autobiography.  Weinberg views The Metamorphosis in religious perimeters but also considers Gregor's transformation as incredibly negative, which he supports with the original translation of the German word used to describe Gregor, namely "an unclean animal not suited for sacrifice" (Corngold 66).  It should also be noted that although Gregor does his best to make his existence as an insect painless for his household, he is slowly banned from all contact with the other members of his family.  Weinbergh also mentions that he sees the religious references as "a literary play with the religious connotations of [Kafka's] images" (Corngold 63).  And after studying Kafka's diary entries from the time, Corngold adds that "Kafka's deepest concern in 1912 is for literature and not for religion..." (Corngold 63).  Holland however was able to find numerous biblical references in his reading of The Metamorphosis: "The description of Gregor's boss has breadth enough to apply not just to a petty office tyrant, but even to an Old Testament God...  Read this way, the debt that Gregor assumed for his parents and must pay resembles original sin"  (Corngold 73).  Although this interpretation is extreme for some readers, Holland does bring up a fair point that, like Christ, Gregor gives up his life and could arguably be dying for the sins of others.

After studying Kafka's diary entries for himself, Sokel provided perhaps the strongest evidence that The Metamorphosis was meant as a biography: "The position of Gregor's room is, by the way, an exact duplicate of the position of Franz Kafka's room in the apartment of Herr Hermann Kafka..." Sokel goes on to quote an excerpt from Kafka's diary in 1912 that states, "When I lay on the sofa [I hear] the loud talking in the room on either side of me, by the women on the left, by the men on the right..." (Corngold 69).  The members of both Kafka's and Gregor's families communicate through his room "as if [he] were not a human being at all or in any case not an adult, a situation which actually becomes a reality with his transformation" (Corngold 69).    And so it becomes increasingly apparent that perhaps Kafka was merely depicting his own life and his self image through The Metamorphosis: his family relations, self-value, and the way he views his role in the family.  If that is the case, then it is easy to conclude  how demeaned one in that position might feel in relation to their family.  The extreme lack of affection and respect (particularly demonstrated by his father) causes great pain to both Gregor and Franz Kafka.  But more similarities between Kafka's life and The Metamorphosis exist, as Dalmau Castanon points out: "Gregor's 'slight dull pain' is one of several signs pointing to a concealed symptomatology of tuberculosis within The Metamorphosis" (Corngold 71) and it is noted through historical references that Franz Kafka had already been afflicted with tuberculosis in 1912 which would eventually kill him. 

The debate continues over right and wrong, but with a well-rounded understanding, one can easily communicate and sympathize with one another's opinions.  Religion, family, and Kafka himself all play a role in deciphering The Metamorphosis, but ultimately there is no grand conclusion, no final answer.  Until a time has come that we can all hold different opinions in peace, I'm afraid that we must stick to the Reader's Response theory of analytical critique, after all, The Metamorphosis means nothing to me if I had never assigned it meaning.  ( )

The strange and creepy story of a man who wakes up one day having turned into an insect. The story revolves around how he reacts to this strange situation, and how his family treats him in return.

I found this book very enjoyable, laughing out loud at the first line of the book, (Kafka didn't beat around the bush but instead jumped directly into it), and also laughing out loud several times at the seeming nonchalance of the main character's reactions, along with those of his family.

I must admit some ignorance with regards to the philosophical, or anyway the allegorical suggestions of the story. I read an essay about it which was included in my edition of the book, but I disagreed with the essay. The writer claimed that the book is about death, and that the death at the end signifies sacrifice, but I felt that the character hadn't chosen that death to save anybody, but was more just committing suicide out of pure grief, like a broken-hearted dog who stops eating and starves itself to death.

But, it's very thought-provoking nonetheless, and a quick and ultimately satisfying read. As I said, though, the idea of it is quite creepy. ( )