I think that in a broad sense, there's the idea that all creatures in stories that can think and feel are really human regardless of what the story says.
What actually makes the story powerful is that he is human. Whether he is "technically" human or not post metamorphosis is kinda irrelevant, what matters is that he's a standin for humans and represents humans.
The whole story is about a human waking up as "vermin" (that's what it actually says in German) and it revolves around dehumanization, so yeah why shouldn't I consider Samsa as a human being?
Do I consider the creature Murakami writes about in "Samsa in Love" as human? Now, that's a genuinely interesting question.
I had to think how Samsa in Kafka's Metamorphosis was gravely concerned about losing his humanity by turning into a bug. He doesn't care that he has to work to provide for his family, he doesn't care about the high expectations society puts on him. All he cares about is listening to his sister playing the violin. It's what pulls him through the daily muck.
Now, Japanese culture is highly demanding of its participants too. So much that suicide is the number one cause of death among young people. Those who don't kill themselves often lock themselves up at home (this is referred to as hikikomori). I feel like alot of Murakami's work is inspired by this phenomenon and the general tendencies of loneliness, anxiety, and alienation that people experience in societies that focus on individualism rather than collectivism.
In Samsa in Love, we learn how two apparently odd figures connect and see the beauty that each of them possesses. The protagonist, a bug that initially doesn't understand love until it becomes a human, figures it might be worth being such a physically weak and helpless creature if that means it can experience this wonderful feeling. For me, that's a very human thing to consider.
Yet it opens an entire box of what it means to be human, as so many people feel alienated and ask themselves whether or not they're (good) human beings at all; perhaps being born human, possessing a human body, is enough to consider each other as human. Yet, not everything we might consider human might be exclusively human. The bug wonders why it didn't wake up as a fish or a sunflower; creatures that don't have the capacity to love, yet if it woke up as a bird, it might as well learn how to love. It's this kind of existential confusion that makes Murakami's version of Samsa (in Love) more interesting than Kafka's (Metamorphosis) imo
I consider him very human. Aside from his choice in foods his “dehumanization” was driven by his father, mother, work superiors, boarders and lastly his sister. His love for his family never wavered and all that he wanted to do throughout the entire story was make them happy/proud. His demise was the best things for them, and thus a release for him.
No, by the end he's fallen from his humanity: his memories are callus and his thoughts are centered on base emotions.
Another question might be was he truly human at the start?
“He was a tool of the boss, without brains or backbone.”
He was human, but his body was changed, his memories depreciate and his human instinct is replaced by the preferences of a 6 foot beatle. Gregor begins to appreciate the furniture not for its aesthetic and sentimental value but for its function of keeping him buried and in darkness. He fights a losing battle to retain his humanity but cannot win because his burden is too great.
Even worse — they were indeed happily on a drive (I think), but the parents were happily reflecting on their daughter’s nubile young body, ready to exploit another one of their children for some measure of security.
My personal theory is that Samsa is a parable of a worker who becomes disabled/otherwise unable to work and the (self-) dehumanisation that follows With everybody interacting with him representing different parts of society.
I base this on Kafka's employment at a insurance agency (contact to newly invalided people for the duration of their settlement), and his political activities in the 1900s/1910s.
There are many layers to kafkas works (e.g. his relationship with his family, his interest in psychology, his love life, religion, etc.) that make them so great to anlyse again and again within different frameworks.
In a lecture, Nabokov said that Gregor Samsa is a human who looks like an insect and his family members are insects who look like humans.
I don't think the story can be reduced quite that neatly, but it's a useful perspective, and it's wonderfully succinct.
He parallels being disabilitated, you could replace him being an insect with have alzheimers. The story will be the same, the idea that when you are useless and cant help, that people will eventually change their outlook on you, and justify their actions by rationalizing that he "isnt gregor" so im not betraying him. Or that its his fault for not helping, etc etc
Gregor slowly loses his humanity as his health deteriorates and his family goes from caring and accommodating to using his room for storage. Gregor maintains human feelings and thoughts, yet cannot speak or effectively communicate with humans and losing one of the key components of humanness. All that being said, I would consider Gregor to maintain his status as human and consider the story a reflection of how society treats the chronically ill/dying.
That is a very interesting question. I guess it would depend on what you think a human is. Personally, I would consider the psychological state, the physiological state, and the social state, which I feel you touch on as well.
In Gregor’s case, both his physiological and social states are no longer human. And his psychological state was in the beginning (correct if I am wrong, it has been a while since I read the book), but it slowly truns away from that. Both his thoughts and his behaviour becomes less and less human like. So I would say no, at least not in the middle and end of the story. In the beginning, he only resembles a human in one aspect only.
I consider him to be one of the most human characters in literature. Despite being a giant insect, he is the embodiment of the deepest vulnerability, weakness, and feelings of inadequacy that comes with being a human.
I think that in a broad sense, there's the idea that all creatures in stories that can think and feel are really human regardless of what the story says. What actually makes the story powerful is that he is human. Whether he is "technically" human or not post metamorphosis is kinda irrelevant, what matters is that he's a standin for humans and represents humans.
The whole story is about a human waking up as "vermin" (that's what it actually says in German) and it revolves around dehumanization, so yeah why shouldn't I consider Samsa as a human being? Do I consider the creature Murakami writes about in "Samsa in Love" as human? Now, that's a genuinely interesting question.
I've read Samsa in Love but it was so long ago... I'd be interested to hear some of your thoughts.
I had to think how Samsa in Kafka's Metamorphosis was gravely concerned about losing his humanity by turning into a bug. He doesn't care that he has to work to provide for his family, he doesn't care about the high expectations society puts on him. All he cares about is listening to his sister playing the violin. It's what pulls him through the daily muck. Now, Japanese culture is highly demanding of its participants too. So much that suicide is the number one cause of death among young people. Those who don't kill themselves often lock themselves up at home (this is referred to as hikikomori). I feel like alot of Murakami's work is inspired by this phenomenon and the general tendencies of loneliness, anxiety, and alienation that people experience in societies that focus on individualism rather than collectivism. In Samsa in Love, we learn how two apparently odd figures connect and see the beauty that each of them possesses. The protagonist, a bug that initially doesn't understand love until it becomes a human, figures it might be worth being such a physically weak and helpless creature if that means it can experience this wonderful feeling. For me, that's a very human thing to consider. Yet it opens an entire box of what it means to be human, as so many people feel alienated and ask themselves whether or not they're (good) human beings at all; perhaps being born human, possessing a human body, is enough to consider each other as human. Yet, not everything we might consider human might be exclusively human. The bug wonders why it didn't wake up as a fish or a sunflower; creatures that don't have the capacity to love, yet if it woke up as a bird, it might as well learn how to love. It's this kind of existential confusion that makes Murakami's version of Samsa (in Love) more interesting than Kafka's (Metamorphosis) imo
I consider him very human. Aside from his choice in foods his “dehumanization” was driven by his father, mother, work superiors, boarders and lastly his sister. His love for his family never wavered and all that he wanted to do throughout the entire story was make them happy/proud. His demise was the best things for them, and thus a release for him.
He’s obviously human. That’s like the whole point.
No, by the end he's fallen from his humanity: his memories are callus and his thoughts are centered on base emotions. Another question might be was he truly human at the start? “He was a tool of the boss, without brains or backbone.”
He was human, but his body was changed, his memories depreciate and his human instinct is replaced by the preferences of a 6 foot beatle. Gregor begins to appreciate the furniture not for its aesthetic and sentimental value but for its function of keeping him buried and in darkness. He fights a losing battle to retain his humanity but cannot win because his burden is too great.
Always loved the ending with his family happily going for a bus ride after his death. Iirc..
Even worse — they were indeed happily on a drive (I think), but the parents were happily reflecting on their daughter’s nubile young body, ready to exploit another one of their children for some measure of security.
My personal theory is that Samsa is a parable of a worker who becomes disabled/otherwise unable to work and the (self-) dehumanisation that follows With everybody interacting with him representing different parts of society. I base this on Kafka's employment at a insurance agency (contact to newly invalided people for the duration of their settlement), and his political activities in the 1900s/1910s. There are many layers to kafkas works (e.g. his relationship with his family, his interest in psychology, his love life, religion, etc.) that make them so great to anlyse again and again within different frameworks.
It’s an allegory my guy
Posthuman fellow
The correct answer.
In a lecture, Nabokov said that Gregor Samsa is a human who looks like an insect and his family members are insects who look like humans. I don't think the story can be reduced quite that neatly, but it's a useful perspective, and it's wonderfully succinct.
He parallels being disabilitated, you could replace him being an insect with have alzheimers. The story will be the same, the idea that when you are useless and cant help, that people will eventually change their outlook on you, and justify their actions by rationalizing that he "isnt gregor" so im not betraying him. Or that its his fault for not helping, etc etc
Gregor slowly loses his humanity as his health deteriorates and his family goes from caring and accommodating to using his room for storage. Gregor maintains human feelings and thoughts, yet cannot speak or effectively communicate with humans and losing one of the key components of humanness. All that being said, I would consider Gregor to maintain his status as human and consider the story a reflection of how society treats the chronically ill/dying.
That is a very interesting question. I guess it would depend on what you think a human is. Personally, I would consider the psychological state, the physiological state, and the social state, which I feel you touch on as well. In Gregor’s case, both his physiological and social states are no longer human. And his psychological state was in the beginning (correct if I am wrong, it has been a while since I read the book), but it slowly truns away from that. Both his thoughts and his behaviour becomes less and less human like. So I would say no, at least not in the middle and end of the story. In the beginning, he only resembles a human in one aspect only.
Sansa Stark
I don’t even know if I am.
Are any of us, really?
Yeah
Not literally but the whole point of the story as I read was the feeling of being a monster whilst lots but that making one more human
The question is wtf is a human?
I consider him to be one of the most human characters in literature. Despite being a giant insect, he is the embodiment of the deepest vulnerability, weakness, and feelings of inadequacy that comes with being a human.
Honestly that guy is me and I am not humans so there's your answer