Plan:
Step 1: Read through the novel, finding major themes and motifs
Step 2: Figure out what theme is most similar/different to Metamorphosis
Step 3: Read Metamorphosis and the Stranger again twice, checking for all similarities between the two novels. Check for structure, theme and motif similarities. Also check for biblical allegories in both. Compare these.
Step 4: Read the secondary sources on Metamorphosis, and find one on The Stranger. Investigate the lives of Kafka and Camus.
Step 5: Organise these similarities by importance, starting with theme-related ones, and then talking about structure similarities, then motifs and finally biblical allegories. Compare throughout. Then do the same with differences, writing them in the same order.
Step 6: Talk about how the lives of the authors may have affected the author’s portrayal of their main character, and how it would have affected the theme of the books.
Monday 28 February 2011
Tuesday 22 February 2011
How Kafkaesque is Kafka?
The definition of Kakfaesque is this, taken from the Free Dictionary: Kaf·ka·esque
adj.
1. Of or relating to Franz Kafka or his writings.
2. Marked by surreal distortion and often a sense of impending danger:
This movie was definetly full of surreal distoration, and seemed influenced by the story of Frankenstein, or other such monster movies, where a mad scientist is attempting to create a terrible creature, by removing mans emotions. This is definetly surreal, and creates a sense of danger, where one is scared that the mad scientist will succeed. The film is riddled with fantastical elements, that seem out of place in late 19th centurary Prague. This include the castle being inhabited by the madman and his lackeys, and also the idea that the man has. It doesn't seem possible for this idea to have been at all possible in the late 19th centurary, and invokes a sense of sci-fi in the viewer.
The film contains little inside jokes and references to Kafka's work, with people asking him about the novels he is working on, and him replying that they would think it was silly. He tells them about the book, and they scoff, not realizing how ground-breaking 'The Metamorphosis' will be. When Kafka visits the castle, he tells his accomplise to burn his manuscripts if he doesn't return, a nod to the real Kafka's dying wishes. This little references help us to link that the character is based of Kafka, but isn't the real one, simply a fantastical version of him.
Continuing on the moves surreal trend, the whole thing is in black and white, something very uncommon in films in the 90s, that were released in the box office. This adds to the historical feel of the film, and makes you feel as if you are in the time, not to mention aging the film. Even I believed that it was a much older film, even though I know that Jeremey Irons, the man that plays Kafka, definetly isn't old enough to have played a character in the black and white era of the silver screen. This whole idea, however is turned on its head when Kafka enters the castle. Everything gains colour, making the whole sequence of scenes appear out of this world. It adds to the suspense of the film, and really throws you off when it comes in, as you have become accustomed to the lack of colour. This again adds to the surrealism, as it feels somewhat odd to be looking at the 19th century Prague in colour, as it seems to fit the black and whiteness of the film a lot more, being a Gothic city and castle.
adj.
1. Of or relating to Franz Kafka or his writings.
2. Marked by surreal distortion and often a sense of impending danger:
This movie was definetly full of surreal distoration, and seemed influenced by the story of Frankenstein, or other such monster movies, where a mad scientist is attempting to create a terrible creature, by removing mans emotions. This is definetly surreal, and creates a sense of danger, where one is scared that the mad scientist will succeed. The film is riddled with fantastical elements, that seem out of place in late 19th centurary Prague. This include the castle being inhabited by the madman and his lackeys, and also the idea that the man has. It doesn't seem possible for this idea to have been at all possible in the late 19th centurary, and invokes a sense of sci-fi in the viewer.
The film contains little inside jokes and references to Kafka's work, with people asking him about the novels he is working on, and him replying that they would think it was silly. He tells them about the book, and they scoff, not realizing how ground-breaking 'The Metamorphosis' will be. When Kafka visits the castle, he tells his accomplise to burn his manuscripts if he doesn't return, a nod to the real Kafka's dying wishes. This little references help us to link that the character is based of Kafka, but isn't the real one, simply a fantastical version of him.
Continuing on the moves surreal trend, the whole thing is in black and white, something very uncommon in films in the 90s, that were released in the box office. This adds to the historical feel of the film, and makes you feel as if you are in the time, not to mention aging the film. Even I believed that it was a much older film, even though I know that Jeremey Irons, the man that plays Kafka, definetly isn't old enough to have played a character in the black and white era of the silver screen. This whole idea, however is turned on its head when Kafka enters the castle. Everything gains colour, making the whole sequence of scenes appear out of this world. It adds to the suspense of the film, and really throws you off when it comes in, as you have become accustomed to the lack of colour. This again adds to the surrealism, as it feels somewhat odd to be looking at the 19th century Prague in colour, as it seems to fit the black and whiteness of the film a lot more, being a Gothic city and castle.
Monday 7 February 2011
Commentary Paragraph
Without the Commentary template:
This passage talks about how Gregor feels about his family taking his belongings out of his room. He talks about using the words 'taking away everything he loved'. This shows that he has a severe attachment to his material belongings, something that his mother and sister are ruining, by taking them away from him. He decides that he has no more time to waste with their good intentions, and breaks out. This shows that he no longer wants to be kept inside the building by their hatred for him, and wants to do something about it. He constantly refers to his sister and mother as Grete and her mother, showing the detachment that he has from his family. Also, he is willing to attack his sister to stop them from taking the picture that he loves in his room. This shows how much he hates his family for regarding him so lowly.
With the Commentary template:
Gregor feels unloved and forgotten by his family, in his new state of being. He begins to believe that they are attacking him, and hurting him deliberatly, and are deliberatly not treating him as a family member.
"They were cleaning his room out; taking away everything he loved; the chest in which he kept his jigsaw and other tools was already dragged off; they were now lossening the desk which had almost sunk into the floor, the desk at which he had done all his homework when he was at the commercial academy, at the secondary school before that, and, yes, even at the primary school..."
In the two pages that this extract is taken from, Gregor recounts how they no longer care about his possessions, and begin taking them away from his room. If you were having possessions taken away from you, you would feel unloved. The line after this passage says 'he had no more time to waste on the good intentions of these two women'. The fact that he uses 'two women' shows that he no longer feels an attachment to the two women, who were infact his sister and mother. Further on down in the text, Gregor refers to the women as Grete and her mother. Her mother! This shows severe deattachment, as he no longer refers to his mother as his mother. He refers to her as her mother, showing that he believes she is no longer caring for him, something that I believe makes up a major part of being a mother. At the very end of the text, Gregor says that he 'would rather fly in her Grete's face'. Until this point he has been peaceful, content to stay out of the way of his family. But at this point he decides to throw all of that out the window, so that he can protect the sole possession that he has left, a picture.
In the end, it is clear that Gregor feels that his family has abandoned him, and infact feels that the family ties that he used to have with them have disappeared, and no longer believes that he knows them.
This passage talks about how Gregor feels about his family taking his belongings out of his room. He talks about using the words 'taking away everything he loved'. This shows that he has a severe attachment to his material belongings, something that his mother and sister are ruining, by taking them away from him. He decides that he has no more time to waste with their good intentions, and breaks out. This shows that he no longer wants to be kept inside the building by their hatred for him, and wants to do something about it. He constantly refers to his sister and mother as Grete and her mother, showing the detachment that he has from his family. Also, he is willing to attack his sister to stop them from taking the picture that he loves in his room. This shows how much he hates his family for regarding him so lowly.
With the Commentary template:
Gregor feels unloved and forgotten by his family, in his new state of being. He begins to believe that they are attacking him, and hurting him deliberatly, and are deliberatly not treating him as a family member.
"They were cleaning his room out; taking away everything he loved; the chest in which he kept his jigsaw and other tools was already dragged off; they were now lossening the desk which had almost sunk into the floor, the desk at which he had done all his homework when he was at the commercial academy, at the secondary school before that, and, yes, even at the primary school..."
In the two pages that this extract is taken from, Gregor recounts how they no longer care about his possessions, and begin taking them away from his room. If you were having possessions taken away from you, you would feel unloved. The line after this passage says 'he had no more time to waste on the good intentions of these two women'. The fact that he uses 'two women' shows that he no longer feels an attachment to the two women, who were infact his sister and mother. Further on down in the text, Gregor refers to the women as Grete and her mother. Her mother! This shows severe deattachment, as he no longer refers to his mother as his mother. He refers to her as her mother, showing that he believes she is no longer caring for him, something that I believe makes up a major part of being a mother. At the very end of the text, Gregor says that he 'would rather fly in her Grete's face'. Until this point he has been peaceful, content to stay out of the way of his family. But at this point he decides to throw all of that out the window, so that he can protect the sole possession that he has left, a picture.
In the end, it is clear that Gregor feels that his family has abandoned him, and infact feels that the family ties that he used to have with them have disappeared, and no longer believes that he knows them.
Thursday 3 February 2011
A Hunger Artist
This slightly creepy short story is about a man that fasts for other peoples entertainment. This is both creepy, and extremely interesting. It talks about the affects that audience and change have on a persons mind.
The story starts off with the man being adored by people all around, people come flocking to him to marvel at the sight of him, a man who is able to not eat for days on end. They look at him simply as a circus attraction, which he is, and use him for their own personal gain, something that probably makes him feel happy with himself, as he is an artist, somebody that performs so that others may take emotion from it.
This happiness is why the hunger artist got into the job in the first place, a way to share his emotion with the many people that come and watch him.
However, as the story goes on, people get bored of the Hunger Artist. I can't blame them, honestly. Once you've seen a man starving himself, I'm fairly sure you've seen them all. It can't be that exciting. Of course, when people are bored with something, they stop watching it. And this of course means that the people watching the Hunger Artist would stop. And as I said at the top of this blog, having people be happy with his work is what makes the main character happy with himself. Therefore, he feels upset.
This is similar to Hunger, where the main character is constantly trying to make other people happy, so that he can feel happy about himself. Examples include when he tries to give money to those that are less fortunate than himself. In Hunger Artist, the main character eventually gets replaced by a young panther, something that takes the attention of the people that come to the circus, and something that makes the Hunger Artist feel as if he has failed at his craft. The main character in Hunger feels the same way, when his articles don't get published, because nobody can read them, and he is unable to show people his fantastic writing.
The story starts off with the man being adored by people all around, people come flocking to him to marvel at the sight of him, a man who is able to not eat for days on end. They look at him simply as a circus attraction, which he is, and use him for their own personal gain, something that probably makes him feel happy with himself, as he is an artist, somebody that performs so that others may take emotion from it.
This happiness is why the hunger artist got into the job in the first place, a way to share his emotion with the many people that come and watch him.
However, as the story goes on, people get bored of the Hunger Artist. I can't blame them, honestly. Once you've seen a man starving himself, I'm fairly sure you've seen them all. It can't be that exciting. Of course, when people are bored with something, they stop watching it. And this of course means that the people watching the Hunger Artist would stop. And as I said at the top of this blog, having people be happy with his work is what makes the main character happy with himself. Therefore, he feels upset.
This is similar to Hunger, where the main character is constantly trying to make other people happy, so that he can feel happy about himself. Examples include when he tries to give money to those that are less fortunate than himself. In Hunger Artist, the main character eventually gets replaced by a young panther, something that takes the attention of the people that come to the circus, and something that makes the Hunger Artist feel as if he has failed at his craft. The main character in Hunger feels the same way, when his articles don't get published, because nobody can read them, and he is unable to show people his fantastic writing.
Christian Perversions
Slightly late, but here it is:
In Hamsun's Christians Perversions by James Woods, he talks about how the main character from Hunger becomes angry when he meets a man that changes his mind extremely quickly. A common seen from Hamsun's works, this shows the most vital part of the novel, the character. The character is a very hateful person, and is always looking for a fight. This is essentially the direct opposite of Jesus. The only similarity between the two figures is that they both give charity to people. However, can you even call it charity if you give it to feel good?
For example, at the school here we have a variety of 'service' clubs. Yes, they are clubs made to perfome service towards less privelaged people. I'm part of one of them, the Animal Shelter. However, these clubs are supposed to be charity. But, I can assure you, if you go around and ask people in the club what they are doing the club for, you will mostly hear a variation of this response: I need the hours.
Is it charity if you do a charity club for your own personal benefit? I say no, because charity means you get nothing out of it. However, this doesn't mean its bad. You are still helping the group out, only you are getting something out of it. Besides, the IB virtually makes it impossible to do something for service. They say that you need 50 hours of service to pass the IB. Therefore, they force you to do it. What is the point in trying to teach somebody to do charity, and making them get something out of it? Its akin to me telling somebody to go and paint a building. Yes, they do it, and they get the hours out of it. They don't get the joy out of it though, the main reason for doing charity.
This whole argument applies to the main character of Hunger. He does kind things to people, but doesn't do it for charity, but for the pride of doing it. He believes that it is something that will save him, something that will help him get out of poverty. While these are valid beliefs, it removes the point of calling it charity. Therefore, I believe that at least on these terms, it is wrong to compare Jesus to the protagnosist of Hunger.
In Hamsun's Christians Perversions by James Woods, he talks about how the main character from Hunger becomes angry when he meets a man that changes his mind extremely quickly. A common seen from Hamsun's works, this shows the most vital part of the novel, the character. The character is a very hateful person, and is always looking for a fight. This is essentially the direct opposite of Jesus. The only similarity between the two figures is that they both give charity to people. However, can you even call it charity if you give it to feel good?
For example, at the school here we have a variety of 'service' clubs. Yes, they are clubs made to perfome service towards less privelaged people. I'm part of one of them, the Animal Shelter. However, these clubs are supposed to be charity. But, I can assure you, if you go around and ask people in the club what they are doing the club for, you will mostly hear a variation of this response: I need the hours.
Is it charity if you do a charity club for your own personal benefit? I say no, because charity means you get nothing out of it. However, this doesn't mean its bad. You are still helping the group out, only you are getting something out of it. Besides, the IB virtually makes it impossible to do something for service. They say that you need 50 hours of service to pass the IB. Therefore, they force you to do it. What is the point in trying to teach somebody to do charity, and making them get something out of it? Its akin to me telling somebody to go and paint a building. Yes, they do it, and they get the hours out of it. They don't get the joy out of it though, the main reason for doing charity.
This whole argument applies to the main character of Hunger. He does kind things to people, but doesn't do it for charity, but for the pride of doing it. He believes that it is something that will save him, something that will help him get out of poverty. While these are valid beliefs, it removes the point of calling it charity. Therefore, I believe that at least on these terms, it is wrong to compare Jesus to the protagnosist of Hunger.
Wednesday 2 February 2011
Gregor's Unhappiness
Gregor Sancha is the main character of Kafka, and I feel sorry for the guy. He works like a dog every day, and keeps a tiny fraction of the money for himself. He pays his parents debts, and is planning to put his sister through school. His parent's don't seem to feel sorry for him at all. When the chief clerk comes to the Sancha residence to ask why Gregor hasn't turned up, the parents try to persuade him that Gregor is ill. However, they do it out of purely selfish reasons: They don't want to have to pay back their debts themselves. When the father sees that Gregor has transformed into the creature, he is angry at the creature, because he knows that he will have to go back to work to pay the debts that the family have to the firm. The mother is also uspet, mostly because her son has transformed into a massive bug, but also because it means that they will be in financial trouble again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)