"These had been fine times"

Gregor is always giving his parents, and sister, everything he possibly can. He's always striving to provide everything for them, and always pretending to be content by this. In actuality, Gregor craves attention and appreciation from his parents. By using neutral language, Kafka portrays Gregor as nonchalant, yet in this neutral diction we can see Gregor's need for recognition: 

"...hard cash which he could lay  on the table before his amazed and happy family. These had been fine times, and they had never recurred, at least not with the same sense of glory, although later on Gregor had earned so much money that he was able to meet the expenses of the whole household and did so. They had simply gotten used to it, both the family and Gregor; the money was gratefully accepted and gladly given, but there was no special outpouring of warm feeling." (Kafka 78)

When Gregor's family was "amazed and happy", Gregor feels that this was a "fine time", however, now the family has "simply gotten used to it", no longer amazed, no longer considering it to be a great achievement of Gregor's. Even though Gregor "gladly" gives money to his family, its clear that he is disappointed because "there was no special outpouring of warm feeling", but never does he emphasize on this point. Yet we can also see that in the beginning of the passage, when the narrator is speaking about the problems that Gregor's father, and family have faced, Kafka uses very dramatic diction. Words like "imprisonment", "sole desire", "utmost", "catastrophe", "overwhelmed", and "despair" are all put together, in sentence after sentence. This shows us how much the fall of Gregor's father's business has effected Gregor, and how important it is to him. Even though Gregor doesn't get the attention he deserves for helping, he still feels as though it his his "sole desire" to help, regardless of the recognition. We can also see the relationship between Gregor and his father, when Gregor says "... and of course he had not asked him directly." (77). This shows that Gregor doesn't feel close enough to his father to discuss things about the old business. This however contrasts to how Gregor feels with his sister, a relationship which is directly characterized as "intimate", which is also shown through Gregor's high hopes and dreams for his sister. By wanting to send her to study at the Conservatory, Gregor is going against his father's wishes, yet he disregards this despite his obvious fear of his father, showing his obvious care for his sister. This is where the readers can see that because his affection for his sister is above his consideration for his father, Gregor doesn't always want to be submissive, a mask he wears for the sake of his family. 

"Gregor really felt quite well"...and was a bug.

     Something I thought was really strange in Part I of Metamorphosis (by Franz Kafka), was that Gregor, the protagonist, didn't seem very bothered by fact that he had turned into an insect overnight. Gregor wakes up with an "armor-plated back", a "domelike brown belly divided into stiff arched segments", and "numerous legs", and he even acknowledges that this change is not part of a dream. Yet strangely, he seems unconcerned.
     "What has happened to me? he thought. It was no dream" (Kafka 53) and yes, thats all that is said, never again in Part I does he wonder what is wrong with him. "Gregor really felt quite well, apart from a drowsiness that was quite inexcusable after such a long sleep, and he was even unusually hungry"(55)...uh, Gregor? FYI, You're a bug. So why does he feel "quite well"? I seriously cannot say.
     He describes his transformation as a "predicament", a "circumstance", or "morning delusions", but even when he realizes it isn't a delusion, he doesn't seem to be very disturbed by it. Frankly, Gregor is more worried about the fact that he's late for work than the fact that he's transformed into an insect. "Heavenly Father! he thought. It was half-past six and the hands were quietly moving on" (55). This honestly makes no sense to me whatsoever. Someone needs to go back and change this to: Heavenly Father! he thought. I AM NOT HUMAN ANYMORE, WHAAAAAAAT?!!!!
     "The next train went at seven o'clock; to catch that he would need to hurry like mad and his samples weren't even packed, and he himself wasn't feeling particularly fresh and energetic" (55). Yeah, Greg, I can't think of any reasons why you might not be fresh and energetic at the moment... Why is he even thinking about catching a train, doesn't he realize that he's not really a human being anymore? This is also whats strange, because he does realize, yet all he cares about is catching this seven o'clock train and going to work. "Before it strikes a quarter past seven I absolutely must be quite out of this bed, without fail" (58). It's sad that getting to work is so important to him. It shows how he's almost been "trained" to think this way, to go to work a job he doesn't even like. Gregor, is chained to his job by the debt of his parents, and because of that he must be obedient, almost like a dog, or any other pet. Gregor doesn't care that he's a bug, because he's become so docile and submissive, that his only goal is to work, to pay of his parents debt, everything else isn't considered.
     It's almost like as long he's alive, bug or no bug, he is expected to work. These expectations are not only made my others, but they're also made by himself.

Hunger

A Pastiche: Hunger by Knut Hamson

My legs ached. I wanted so badly to sit down, but I knew I couldn't. I took a quick glance around, no benches, chairs, nothing. I knew what people would think if I sat right here, on the side of the street. No that was not acceptable, I'm no begger. I was a writer, and I would act like one, but oh, my legs, how they pained me. Just for a couple of minutes, no just one, I needed to sit. Again looking around, searching for a seat, somewhere. And then I saw the cafe on the other side of the road. Immediately I felt my legs taking me there. I entered. Soon, a waiter was at my service, taking me to my own personal table. Smiling, I went a long with him, feeling my stomach rumble a little from the smell of good food, ''I am a very picky eater, there are many things I just won't eat, they are not to my taste,'' I said. He eagerly responded saying that they had lots of variety in their food, surely I would like some of them, and after giving me a menu, he turned and left. I checked my pockets subtly. Five øre. I skimmed through the menu, growing more hungry reading the choices, there was nothing available for five øre. I set the menu down on the table, and got up. Seeing this the waiter came back, ''Is there anything I can get you?'' he asked politely. ''No, nothing in your menu pleases me, I shall eat elsewhere,'' with that, I left quickly. Did he doubt me? Did he realize I had no money to pay for his food?

Forever Misunderstood.

The hunger artist starves himself willfully, for forty days in a cage for his living. In a sense, he is a professional at fasting, fasting has become his art. People from all over town come to see this man "perform", and he in return talks to them and answers their questions, he is content. Yet these people seem to think that the hunger artist is secretly eating, not believing in his fast is honest. This doubt of the people annoys the hunger artist more than anything else, his audience, his fans don't believe in him? He depends on his fans, needing them to believe him, to understand him, he needs them to applaud his performances, to be amazed by him, without that, what is the point of staying hungry? What is the point of fasting for so long, when it won't be acknowledged? Yet every artist, whether they're authors, visual artists, musicians, or hunger artists, starts out wanting to make his/her art for themselves, to express themselves. Here we see that the hunger artist is living in a paradox, making his art for himself, not conforming, not knowing how to express himself in any other way, yet if the art that is produced is not accepted or liked by the given audience then why create it, why make it your living, why create art, why starve? This paradox that essentially defines the hunger artist's life, is the reason for his unhappiness.

A Hunger Artist, is written by Franz Kafka, in 1922.

The story of the hunger artist is parallels the life of Jesus Christ. Like the hunger artist, Jesus "performs" miracles for his people, yet no one has faith, no one believes in this miracles, his followers hold suspicions. (Jesus also fasts for forty days, which Kafka mirrors in A Hunger Artist.) Both Jesus, and the hunger artist, want the belief of their fans, or followers, yet they do nothing to prove themselves to them because they want the belief to be genuine.

Kafka's story could also be an allegory to his own life as an artist, a writer. As any writer, or artist starts off writing for themselves, his writing keeps true to his own beliefs, he expresses himself through his writing. Now if one of his pieces is extraordinary, the writer has fame. But the next piece he creates may not be as great, now the writer must think of new ways to entertain his audience, but by having to "entertain" them, he is being ruled by them. The writer is no longer his own, his words, his pieces, aren't for him, but for unknown readers who will judge him in the harshest ways. This realization is not a happy one, yet if the writer wants writing to be his living, if he wants money, food, and other necessities, then the writer has to conform. Here we see an allusion with the hunger artist, living in somewhat of a paradox, the writer cannot be without his audience, or but strives to keep his individuality.

Here we can also see an a parallel to Hunger by Knut Hamsen. The protagonist also lives in this paradox, his pride does not allow him to comply with how the editors want him to write, he never lets himself be restricted, but realizes that without changing his writing, no one will take them, leaving him poor and extremely hungry. Yet this hunger and poverty is self inflicted, and could be easily changed, here we see how the protagonist in Hunger differs from the hunger artist, or Jesus, as he does not need his audience, because of his pride, he doesn't have fans, or followers but he never really wanted them either.

"How like human nature!"

           In Existentialism is a Humanism, Jean-Paul Sartre discusses what is considered the central claim of existentialism, the proposition that "existence comes before essence" (3/18).  He begins this piece by defending against the reproaches and criticisms made about  existentialism, trying to prove that it is not really as pessimistic as it seems.

          Essence is the attributes that make an object what it is, and without it's essence, the object loses its identity.  An essence is never predetermined in a person, its constituted by them and how they make their decisions. Existence precedes essence, a notion that basically means that even though a person exists, nothing can control a person's character, choices, and desires. No "Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills," (4/18). Sartre explains that this is the first principle of existentialism: that man is nothing but what he makes himself, saying that man is responsible for who he is and for his behavior. "Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards," (3/18). Sartre goes on to say that this responsibility extends further than over just the man, but also for all of mankind. Once the man fully recognizes this "profound responsibility" placed on his shoulders, he feels begins to feel anguish and despair. 

Blog Portfolio

Coverage:
We Were Meant to be Seen and Not Heard
Aesthetic Obsession
Female Liberation and Female Beauty
Duped by Feminism
Love? Said the Commander

Depth:

We Were Meant to be Seen and not Heard

In this post I reference ceremonies and traditions celebrated in Hinduism, and how many of these traditions could be considered somewhat sexist, but that no one seems to have a problem with this. 

Nina commented on my blog about Bell Hooks' piece on feminism. She wanted to know about my personal views on the topic Hooks discusses. She asks me about the importance of silence for the suppression of women, and how Atwood portrays it in The Handmaid's Tale. I responded telling Nina how I did feel that forced silence does play a large role in the suppression of women.

Interaction:
Talking Back and the Sins of Silence
Pooja and Monique had been talking about Monique's blog on the Sins of Silence, and Talking Back. We talked about the use of silence, and how it was either suppression or power. Pooja thought that silence created power, an idea from 1984, while Monique and I both thought that silence "gave men the upper-hand" in society.

Discussion:
Aesthetic Obsession
Jorina asked questions on my opinion towards the Barbie doll, whether I agreed with Gilman on her ideas about Barbie. Jorina argues that Barbie allows children to be creative and imaginative, whereas I respond saying that I thought this imagination was very limited, and restricted. Barbie molds the imagination of children, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

Xenoblogging:
A Rough Commentary: Falling Women
I had commented on Pooja's post with her commentary on the excerpt from The Handmaid's Tale. I really liked her commentary, and agreed with all her ideas. I asked a few questions regarding on of her paragraphs, because I found her take on "falling" and love as God, very interesting.

Wildcard:
Duped by Feminism
In this blog post I wrote about Susan Faludi's Blame It On Feminism. Faludi discusses how feminism has created unhappiness for women, even though women had become more successful. This was caused by the fact that women had lost men, they're one (biological) want. In all this newly achieved independence and "equality" women had, somewhere along the life, missed the feeling of needing someone, or having someone, being dependent--getting married, having kids.