Literary analysis of Kafka through Nietzschean lens

[Chinaski]

This is a short essay a wrote yesterday for my English class. The assignment was to analyze The Metamorphosis through a certain literary lens of my choice. I went with the "Will to power" and drew a parallel between the Samsas and Christians. I'd love it if you could tell me what you think, what to improve, either linguistically or analytically.


The great limitation of the human being is the fear of thinking for oneself, of relying on oneself, of abandoning all forms of support that one convinces oneself one needs. For Nietzsche, the great crutch of humanity is Christianity. In his 1888 book The Antichrist, he argued that as long as men feel the need to rely on religion to give them purpose, they will never reach their full potential. Pity is not a virtue, as it fosters weakness; religious lies distract people from the true purpose of living, that of self-empowerment and striving to the Superman ideal; and a people that need to have a God to ensure their good behaviour and a Satan to take the blame for their bad behaviour will never learn self-reliance or any form of responsibility. In many ways, the Samsa family finds itself just as attached to its crutch, in their case Gregor, and will never make their lives worth living unless they abandon what they imagine to be a necessary support.
Gregor is not quite an ideal parallel to Christianity, obviously, as he is a conscious entity capable of forethought and setting himself objectives, and not a belief system based on remodelled pagan myths and Platonic philosophy, but the effect that Christianity has on its believers and that Gregor has on his family can successfully be compared for psychosocial analysis. The relationship between the crutch and the cripple has a common function. For the Samsas, living in entreguerre Europe, filial duty and submission come as a natural way of life, and Gregor and his family never stop to question the financial arrangement of the household. It seems to be a natural product of their society that they all fit so easily and comfortably into this way of life. The harm that this blind acceptance has on Gregor is obvious, for it is he who bears the brunt of the work. But the obligation to maintain perceived social standards has a harmful effect on the family as well, although less noticeable than that on Gregor.
The family has become so used to Gregor working for them that their self-reliance has atrophied and withered away, like a hallucinogen user slipping further and further into his apparently sustaining lifestyle. They don’t even consider the possibility of any other working habit; they just assume that this is the best way for them. As such, they never attempt to engage in any activity necessary for their own survival. Gregor never does anything life-affirming because he is constantly working to bring in money for his family; his family never does anything life affirming because they never have to work to make their life possible in the first place. How can you give something value if you never have to struggle to have it in the first place?
Just as the Samsas unfalteringly accept the passive position on the receiving end of the bargain, so do many believers in Christianity unthinkingly accept the religious outlook on life as non-debatable fact. As Richard Dawkins so poignantly points out in the foreword to his book The God Delusion, the vast majority of people who live by Christian rules and Christian ideals do so only because it is the only thing they have ever known and because they didn’t know they could leave. This means that they are born and raised with belief in a certain set of moral perspectives, which condition not only their everyday actions, but their psychological makeup as well, and, according to Nietzsche, impede them from reaching happiness and their full potential as human beings. For Nietzsche (and many, many others, yours truly included) religion is a lie that detracts from human value, and that to be truly respected as a person and achieve any sort of independence and strength, it is necessary to free yourself from delusional beliefs. Are you more moral if you act morally out of fear of divine judgement, or if you act morally out of a sense of personal morality and decency? Are you stronger if you live for yourself or if you live for an imaginary friend?
The Samsas experience a similar form of enlightenment and liberation, which leads to their improvement as human beings once their crutch is taken away from them with Gregor’s metamorphosis. During Gregor’s period as an insect, the family undergoes a period of confusion and fear, not unlike a believer having a faith crisis. Once Gregor finally dies, however, the family emerges from their home with new life, having been struck by a sense of hope, not unlike a fresh atheist seeing the world as it truly is for the first time. The new life, nay, the very joie de vivre is characterized in Grete, who represents “the confirmation of their new dreams and good intentions when at the end of the ride their daughter got up first and stretched her young body.” (42)

[Trolldor]

The great limitation of the human being is the fear of thinking for oneself, of relying on oneself, of abandoning all forms of support that one convinces oneself one needs. For Nietzsche, the great crutch of humanity is Christianity.

>>>> Far too many 'one', like really. It's a word you've got to use quite sparingly.
"fear of acting for one's self, abandoning the forms of support that the individual is convinced he needs."
The text is more accessible.


In his 1888 book The Antichrist, he argued that as long as men

>>> Man feels, rather than men feel, edit grammar accordingly

feel the need to rely on religion to give them purpose, they will never reach their full potential. Pity is not a virtue, as it fosters weakness; religious lies distract people from the true purpose of living, that of self-empowerment and striving to the Superman

>>>> superhuman, not Superman. Superman is a colloquialism, not a good thing to put in a formal essay

ideal; and a people that need to have a God to ensure their good behaviour and a Satan to take the blame for their bad behaviour will never learn self-reliance or any form of responsibility. In many ways, the Samsa family finds itself just as attached to its crutch, in their case Gregor, and will never make their lives worth living unless they abandon what they imagine to be a necessary support.
Gregor is not quite an ideal parallel to Christianity, obviously, as he is a conscious entity capable of forethought and setting himself objectives, and not a belief system based on remodelled pagan myths and Platonic philosophy

>>>> Remodelled etc is superfluous, it doesn't add anything. If the marker knows what he's doing, he'll get pissed because it's more of a jab at Xtianity than any sort of valid point. Better to define it as a metaphysically based system of belief and ethics.

, but the effect that Christianity has on its believers and that Gregor has on his family can successfully be compared for

for a psychosocial analysis. You forgot the "a"... err but then again that's my irking, it's not really necessary.

psychosocial analysis. The relationship between the crutch and the cripple has a common function. For the Samsas, living in entreguerre Europe, filial duty and submission come as a natural way of life,

>>> Here you can probably get rid of the following 'and' before Gregor... in fact, change the "," after life to a ".", then change the "." after household to a "," otherwise you have an incomplete sentence with "It seems to be a natrual product..." there's no 'context' in which to frame what you're referring to, gramatically.

and Gregor and his family never stop to question the financial arrangement of the household. It seems to be a natural product of their society that they all fit so easily and comfortably into this way of life. The harm that this blind acceptance has on Gregor is obvious, for it is he who bears the brunt of the work. But the obligation to maintain perceived social standards has a harmful effect on the family as well, although less noticeable than that on Gregor.
The family has become so used to Gregor working for them that their self-reliance

>>> Indepedance, rather than self-reliance, not necessary but it flows better

has atrophied and withered away, like a hallucinogen user slipping further and further into his apparently sustaining lifestyle.


This 'hallucinogen' user part is clumsy. It's not wrong, but the metaphor would work better if it were more... flowing?

"Like an addict falling deeper in to his self-destructive lifestyle.


They don’t even consider the possibility of any other working habit; they just assume that this is the best way for them. As such, they never attempt to engage in any activity necessary for their own survival. Gregor never does anything life-affirming because he is constantly working to bring in money for his family; his family never does anything life affirming because they never have to work to make their life possible in the first place. How can you give something value if you never have to struggle to have it in the first place?

Ending on a rhetorical question... better phrased as "Is it possible?", the reader knows you have your own conclusion, but you're allowing them theirs.

Just as the Samsas unfalteringly accept the passive position on the receiving end of the bargain, so do many believers in Christianity unthinkingly accept the religious outlook on life as non-debatable fact. As Richard Dawkins so poignantly points out in the foreword to his book The God Delusion, the vast majority of people who live by Christian rules and Christian ideals do so only because it is the only thing they have ever known and because they didn’t know they could leave.


You've made an assertion, qualify. "Dawkins argued", "So might many believers"
It must be past-tense too, for that is the rule of the written word. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not, you always qualify your arguments.

This COULD mean that they are born and raised with belief in a certain set of moral perspectives, which condition not only their everyday actions, but their psychological makeup as well, and,

>>> Here, think about changin it to "psychological makeup as well. Nietzsche argued that this impedes them from reaching... etc

according to Nietzsche, impede them from reaching happiness and their full potential as human beings. For Nietzsche (and many, many others, yours truly included)

You are not a source, you are presenting an argument, remove your personal reference. Secondly, don't just say 'many others', name them, otherwise you're going to get your ass kicked by any respectable marker.


religion is a lie that detracts from human value, and that to be truly respected as a person and achieve any sort of independence and strength,

It can be argued that it is necessary. Qualify!

it is necessary to free yourself from delusional beliefs. Are you more moral if you act morally out of fear of divine judgement, or if you act morally out of a sense of personal morality and decency? Are you stronger if you live for yourself or if you live for an imaginary friend?
The Samsas experience a similar form of enlightenment and liberation, which leads to their improvement as human beings once their crutch is taken away from them with Gregor’s metamorphosis. During Gregor’s period as an insect, the family undergoes a period of confusion and fear, not unlike a believer having a faith crisis. Once Gregor finally dies, however, the family emerges from their home with new life, having been struck by a sense of hope, not unlike a fresh atheist

Fresh atheist? Bullshit. Phrase it as "Not unlike one who views the world without reference to his previous faith"

seeing the world as it truly is for the first time. The new life, nay, the very joie de vivre is characterized in Grete, who represents “the confirmation of their new dreams and good intentions when at the end of the ride their daughter got up first and stretched her young body.” (42)

I don't know the text, can't tell you whether you're stretching the comparison or not.



Veni Vidi Vici, bitches.

[Chinaski]

Thanks, I'll definitely take your more emphatic criticisms to heart. As for the stretch, my teacher wants us to be able to successfully back up far-fetched theories, it's an exercise in analytical writing.

[Trolldor]

Just my opinion, by-the-by. Don't take it personally, I picked up habits from my own English Tutor, she got me proof-reading things to help with my own writing.

[Chinaski]

No, I want people to kick my writing around, only way to get better. I pride myself on my writing, why shouldn't I want to improve it?

[Fanny]

This is a short essay a wrote yesterday for my English class. The assignment was to analyze The Metamorphosis through a certain literary lens of my choice. I went with the "Will to power" and drew a parallel between the Samsas and Christians. I'd love it if you could tell me what you think, what to improve, either linguistically or analytically.


The great limitation of the human being is the fear of thinking for oneself, of relying on oneself, of abandoning all forms of support that one convinces oneself one needs. For Nietzsche, the great crutch of humanity is Christianity. In his 1888 book The Antichrist, he argued that as long as men feel the need to rely on religion to give them purpose, they will never reach their full potential. Pity is not a virtue, as it fosters weakness; religious lies distract people from the true purpose of living, that of self-empowerment and striving to the Superman ideal; and a people that need to have a God to ensure their good behaviour and a Satan to take the blame for their bad behaviour will never learn self-reliance or any form of responsibility. In many ways, the Samsa family finds itself just as attached to its crutch, in their case Gregor, and will never make their lives worth living unless they abandon what they imagine to be a necessary support.
Gregor is not quite an ideal parallel to Christianity, obviously, as he is a conscious entity capable of forethought and setting himself objectives, and not a belief system based on remodelled pagan myths and Platonic philosophy, but the effect that Christianity has on its believers and that Gregor has on his family can successfully be compared for psychosocial analysis. The relationship between the crutch and the cripple has a common function. For the Samsas, living in entreguerre Europe, filial duty and submission come as a natural way of life, and Gregor and his family never stop to question the financial arrangement of the household. It seems to be a natural product of their society that they all fit so easily and comfortably into this way of life. The harm that this blind acceptance has on Gregor is obvious, for it is he who bears the brunt of the work. But the obligation to maintain perceived social standards has a harmful effect on the family as well, although less noticeable than that on Gregor.
The family has become so used to Gregor working for them that their self-reliance has atrophied and withered away, like a hallucinogen user slipping further and further into his apparently sustaining lifestyle. They don’t even consider the possibility of any other working habit; they just assume that this is the best way for them. As such, they never attempt to engage in any activity necessary for their own survival. Gregor never does anything life-affirming because he is constantly working to bring in money for his family; his family never does anything life affirming because they never have to work to make their life possible in the first place. How can you give something value if you never have to struggle to have it in the first place?
Just as the Samsas unfalteringly accept the passive position on the receiving end of the bargain, so do many believers in Christianity unthinkingly accept the religious outlook on life as non-debatable fact. As Richard Dawkins so poignantly points out in the foreword to his book The God Delusion, the vast majority of people who live by Christian rules and Christian ideals do so only because it is the only thing they have ever known and because they didn’t know they could leave. This means that they are born and raised with belief in a certain set of moral perspectives, which condition not only their everyday actions, but their psychological makeup as well, and, according to Nietzsche, impede them from reaching happiness and their full potential as human beings. For Nietzsche (and many, many others, yours truly included) religion is a lie that detracts from human value, and that to be truly respected as a person and achieve any sort of independence and strength, it is necessary to free yourself from delusional beliefs. Are you more moral if you act morally out of fear of divine judgement, or if you act morally out of a sense of personal morality and decency? Are you stronger if you live for yourself or if you live for an imaginary friend?
The Samsas experience a similar form of enlightenment and liberation, which leads to their improvement as human beings once their crutch is taken away from them with Gregor’s metamorphosis. During Gregor’s period as an insect, the family undergoes a period of confusion and fear, not unlike a believer having a faith crisis. Once Gregor finally dies, however, the family emerges from their home with new life, having been struck by a sense of hope, not unlike a fresh atheist seeing the world as it truly is for the first time. The new life, nay, the very joie de vivre is characterized in Grete, who represents “the confirmation of their new dreams and good intentions when at the end of the ride their daughter got up first and stretched her young body.” (42)

You could replace all this with 'religion schmeligion'. Guaranteed 100% on your essay.

[Chinaski]

Not exactly my point. I wasn't focusing on the inanity of religion, but on the debilitating effect it has on the people who believe in it.

[Fanny]

Not exactly my point. I wasn't focusing on the inanity of religion, but on the debilitating effect it has on the people who believe in it.

[Chinaski]

What does that mean? Care to elaborate?

[Trolldor]

I don't think mea really has a point to make.

[Existentialist1844]

He writes better than me

Good thing the universities Ive attended had writing centers.

[Chinaski]

I enjoy writing. Next up is existentialism in Kafka. Have any thoughts?

[charlou]

I enjoyed reading your article, FS, along with baa's comments.

No, I want people to kick my writing around, only way to get better. I pride myself on my writing, why shouldn't I want to improve it?

A most admirable and, more importantly, very useful attitude, FS. I appreciate constructive criticism, no matter how bluntly put; though the critic's demeanor may be difficult to overlook at times, it's worth the effort in order to glean the most value out of the criticism.


baa, you have a very astute mind and concise delivery. Good stuff.

[Chinaski]

Post your own stuff, people, this is a valuable academic tool for peer-review!

[Animavore]

You should download lectures by Robert Solomon. He touches on this subject.