So let me get this straight: one morning, a man wakes up as a bug. He is not surprised by this fact, but worries about the potential career-threatening possibilities of such a transformation. Huh. That’s a rather atypical reaction to a sudden transformation into a bug—to be fair, one could argue that there hasn’t exactly been a precedent for judging such matters, but still. Right off the bat, the reader is both forced to suspend rational thought and given a rather unflattering portrait of the protagonist, Mr. Gregor Samsa. As the story progresses, one hopes that there will be some redeeming character traits to be found in Mr. Samsa. Nope. He becomes even more spineless (Ha. Get it?), as evidenced by his opinions on his newfound and undesirable role in the family: “He stayed there all night, spending the time partly in a light slumber… and partly in worrying and sketching vague hopes, which all led to the same conclusion, that he must lie low for the present and, by exercising patience, and the utmost consideration, help the family to bear the inconvenience he was bound to cause them in his present condition” (¶ 37). As I continued reading, I found that, in my rising disgust for the man, I had to put down the textbook several times to seek out cockroaches and other such large insects with the hope of squashing Mr. Samsa. Alas, it was all to no avail.
Anyway, Kafka’s characterization of Gregor got me thinking (Unintentionally, I’m sure) about the necessity of such a story. Is it like “The Death of Ivan Ilyich”? That is, a not-so-hidden sermon on how the reader should live his or her life? If so, then apparently we should be less cowardly and bug-like and more courageous and human-like. It is my opinion that this is indeed the case, and Samsa represents either Kafka’s own failings(or self-perceived failings) or a dramatic characterization and personification( bugification?) of the many cowardly, ingratiating people that he and we have encountered in our lives. In the end, however, one cannot help but feel pity for poor Gregor Samsa. His death is a dramatically pathetic and pitiable conclusion to an already pathetic and pitiable existence: “The decision that he must disappear was one that he held to even more strongly than his sister, if that were possible…Then his head sank to the floor of its own accord and from his nostrils came the last faint flicker of his breath” (89).Whether we hate, identify with, or pity his cowardliness, the reader strongly reacts to Mr. Gregor Samsa. That universality is what has made “The Metamorphosis” one of the most famous short stories of all time. And in the end, it’s really just a story about a guy who wakes up as a bug. (492)
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
The Last Breath of Ivan Ilyich
“The Death of Ivan Ilyich”, by Leo Tolstoy, is a textbook example of an author presenting social commentary about his status quo. In the story, a petty, ambitious judge falls ill to a mysterious disease that leaves him increasingly miserable and helpless. As the thin façade that is Ivan Ilyich’s life begins to crumble around him, he begins to notice the vanity and phoniness of the people surrounding him. Through the third-person narrator’s critical tone and unflattering portrayal of the key characters, the reader realizes that the material and superficial benefits of Ivan’s socially-gratifying life have all amounted to nothing in the end.
In the beginning of the story, it is hard feel any sympathy for Ivan. The reader asks himself what such a man must be like to elicit such an unsympathetic reaction to his death from close friends and family members: “[Ivan’s] face was handsomer and above all more dignified than when he was alive ( ¶ 28). They are self-absorbed, and seem to always think only of their own discomfort or inconvenience: “the more intimate of Ivan Ilych;s acquaintances, his so-called friends, could not help thinking also that they would now have to fulfill the very tiresome demans of propriety by attending the funeral service and paying a visit of condolence to the widow”(18) Throughout the funeral service Peter Ivanovich, Ivan’s closest “friend”, can only think of the bridge game later that night and his own discomfort at the social norms surrounding a funeral. By portraying his friends and family’s reactions to Ivan’s death, Tolstoy asks the reader a poignant question: What kind of society and/or person would inspire such a superficial lifestyle?
The other important defining point in the novel is Ivan’s realization of the shallowness and hopelessness of his former life. At first, he denies it to himself: “And whenever the thought occurred to him, as it often did, that it all resulted from his not having lived as he ought to have done, he at once recalled the correctness of his whole life and dismissed so strange an idea”(305). It is only when he begins to question himself that he realizes the bad aspects of his life; the memories that had seemed so pleasant now appear to him as distant and forlorn.
Throughout the novel, Tolstoy paints an unflattering portrait of the upper crust of the nineteenth-century Russian society and those who aspire to be in it. As he describes Ivan’s bourgeois home: “In reality it was just what is usually seen in the houses of people of moderate means who want to appear rich, and therefore succeed only in resembling others like themselves”(100). As Ivan realizes the mistakes he has made and the skin-deep, petty life he has led, it is already too late; apparently, Tolstoy thinks greed is punishable by death. In one man’s death, Tolstoy is teaching the reader how to live, and in one man’s greed, Tolstoy leaves the question of humility. Sometimes what isn’t said and what isn’t done is what’s important.(512)
In the beginning of the story, it is hard feel any sympathy for Ivan. The reader asks himself what such a man must be like to elicit such an unsympathetic reaction to his death from close friends and family members: “[Ivan’s] face was handsomer and above all more dignified than when he was alive ( ¶ 28). They are self-absorbed, and seem to always think only of their own discomfort or inconvenience: “the more intimate of Ivan Ilych;s acquaintances, his so-called friends, could not help thinking also that they would now have to fulfill the very tiresome demans of propriety by attending the funeral service and paying a visit of condolence to the widow”(18) Throughout the funeral service Peter Ivanovich, Ivan’s closest “friend”, can only think of the bridge game later that night and his own discomfort at the social norms surrounding a funeral. By portraying his friends and family’s reactions to Ivan’s death, Tolstoy asks the reader a poignant question: What kind of society and/or person would inspire such a superficial lifestyle?
The other important defining point in the novel is Ivan’s realization of the shallowness and hopelessness of his former life. At first, he denies it to himself: “And whenever the thought occurred to him, as it often did, that it all resulted from his not having lived as he ought to have done, he at once recalled the correctness of his whole life and dismissed so strange an idea”(305). It is only when he begins to question himself that he realizes the bad aspects of his life; the memories that had seemed so pleasant now appear to him as distant and forlorn.
Throughout the novel, Tolstoy paints an unflattering portrait of the upper crust of the nineteenth-century Russian society and those who aspire to be in it. As he describes Ivan’s bourgeois home: “In reality it was just what is usually seen in the houses of people of moderate means who want to appear rich, and therefore succeed only in resembling others like themselves”(100). As Ivan realizes the mistakes he has made and the skin-deep, petty life he has led, it is already too late; apparently, Tolstoy thinks greed is punishable by death. In one man’s death, Tolstoy is teaching the reader how to live, and in one man’s greed, Tolstoy leaves the question of humility. Sometimes what isn’t said and what isn’t done is what’s important.(512)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
