Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka Why Did Vladimir

Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka

Why did Vladimir Nabokov -- a brilliant, respected and often-quoted novelist, best known perhaps for his classic novel, Lolita -- do a razor-sharp editing job on Kafka's The Metamorphosis? And what is the meaning and the motivation behind Nabokov's intervention into the classic Kafka short story? This paper reviews Kafka's iconic short story and delves into the way in which Nabokov has editorially changed the direction and meaning of the narrative.

The Kafka story is considered among the most read and most discussed short stories in all literature. Why is it so well-thought-of? For one thing, it is dramatically different from ninety-nine percent of all short stories. For another, there is meaning within the bizarre events. Of course it is a ridiculous idea to change a man into a massive roach, and the beginning of Kafka's story has to be approached with an open mind for the reader. But the symbolism and the character changes are so stark they stay in the reader's mind long after reading about Gregor Samsa and his strange family. Samsa wakes up and "…finds himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect," that surely opens the eyes and challenges the mind of the reader.

This is a story that obviously has psychological significance; there are some critics who believe Kafka wrote this story in order to come to terms with his open rebellion against his father, with whom he had a relationship full of tension. Author Tom Hartman writes that because of Gregor's being unaware he was conducting life with human actions a "higher theme" is approached by Kafka. Gregor has an "unconscious denial" of his own freedom and humanity and hence, he has become "numb to his own humanity" (Hartman, 1985, p. 33).

Edith Krause brings Nietzsche's philosophy into the discussion of The Metamorphosis, suggesting that because of Gregor's demise, he is emblematic of a person who, in Nietzsche's words, "…feels wounded…in the deepest and most sacred part of his being… [And therefore has experienced the loss of] those vital 'commonplaces' that heretofore gave his life meaning" (Krause, 2005, p. 22). Whether or not that makes sense to the student reading Kafka's short story, bringing in a giant like Nietzsche to the critical review forces the reader to put on the proverbial thinking cap.

What is Nabokov's Issue with The Metamorphosis?

Leland De La Durantaye explains in his peer-reviewed piece that critics can easily hear "...echoes of Kafkan steps in the early works of Vladimir Nabokov" -- in particular, Nabokov's first novel (Bend Sinister, 1947) that features a "beetle-shaped bootjack" called "Gregoire" (which appears to be a clone of Gregor in The Metamorphosis) (De La Durantaye, 2007).

Other stories by Nabokov have thematic similarities to Kafka's classic short story but Nabokov denies that he had read Kafka's story before penning his own similar themed-stories.

De La Durantaye notes that in Bend Sinister the protagonist goes through a "miraculous transformation" albeit the setting is a "nightmarish world of absurd bureaucracy that at certain shadowy moments recalls Kafka "(315). Nabokov has called Kafka "the greatest German writer of our time" and that novelists like Thomas Mann are "…dwarfs or plaster saints in comparison to him" (De La Durantaye, 317). In fact when Nabokov put together his personal list of "the greatest masterpieces of twentieth-century prose," The Metamorphosis was in second place right after James Joyce's brilliant, iconic Ulysses (De La Durantaye, 317).

When Nabokov wrote that "…any outstanding work of art is fantasy insofar as it reflects the unique world of a unique individual," he certainly was also alluding to The Metamorphosis, De La Durantaye explains (321). In other instances Nabokov has lectured (or written) from the point-of-view that "…all reality is comparative reality" and "life does not exist without a possessive epithet" (De La Durantaye, 321).

In his lecture on The Metamorphosis Nabokov describes the protagonist (Gregor) as "…a central figure endowed with a certain amount of human pathos among grotesque, heartless characters…assess parading as zebras, or hybrids between rabbits and rats." Nabokov uses comparisons between other stories with bizarre twists (humans as animals or somehow caught up in a drama they had no part in creating) -- such as Jekyll's plight in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and the starling in A Sentimental Journey. The starling in the Sterne's fantasy cries, "I cannot get out, I cannot get out," but in Kafka's story there is no crying out to be release from the cockroach shell that Gregor is trapped in.

It is indeed an "absurd world" that the central character is caught in through Kafka's story, but there are riveting human aspects to the Kafka story as well which Nabokov recognizes and applauds. In his lecture, Nabokov rejects that theme that some critics have raised that perhaps (as mentioned earlier in this paper) Kafka was rebelling against his father through the character Gregor. "I want to dismiss…the Freudian point-of-view" that The Metamorphosis "has a basis in Kafka's complex relationship with his father and his lifelong sense of guilt," Nabokov asserts.

Being a bug -- some critics and scholars have said -- represents the son vs. The father according to Freudian "postulates," Nabokov continues. In this particular spin on the story, the bug supposedly represents Kafka's sense of "worthlessness before his father," but Nabokov will allow none of that idea to go without protest. "I am interested here in bugs, not in humbugs, and I reject this nonsense," Nabokov argues. After all it was well-known (at least Nabokov insists it was well-known) that Kafka was "…extremely critical of Freudian ideas" and Kafka considered "psychoanalysis as 'a helpless error'" (Nabokov).

What does Nabokov mean -- family members were insects disguised as humans?

In Part Two it is clear that Nabokov is beginning to show that he is suspicions of the family (in the sense that they may also be bugs, or at least sub-human in human form). To wit, "…on the whole the family is getting used to the situation. Here is the son and brother plunged into a monstrous change that should have sent them scuttling out into the streets for help with shrieks and tears, in wild compassion." But instead of being shocked, they are "…cozily taking it in their stride," Nabokov continues.