Samsa in Love and Metamorphosis

I was completely unprepared for reading Metamorphosis and I did not even realize that Gregor had become an actual bug (I thought it was just a metaphor) for the first few pages until I looked it up. I could actually believe this kind of story would be written by Murakami because of the seemingly randomness of the selection of the bug and the fact that it has somewhat of a connection to A Wild Sheep Chase and how the sheep enters different people's bodies (just based on the fact that an animal/bug is involved in transformation), so it also makes sense that Murakami would write a spin-off as well in Samsa in Love. 

The idea of consciousness also struck me in both of the stories and it kind of amazed me that both Gregor's were fully conscious during both their transitions to the bug and transition to human-ness. It is scary to think that one could still be conscious but people are not able to understand that they are. This isn't just in fiction though; it happens in real life when people go into coma's and then when they come out of it they say that they have actually been conscious and aware the whole time. I wonder if, when they come out of their coma, they have the same experiences as Gregor in Samsa in Love when he awakens from somewhere and has to re-learn how to be human. 

Probably, if Gregor Samsa's family in Kafka's story had really tried, they could have realized that he was able to communicate. But they completely isolated him and took pity on themselves for being in such a horrible situation, the first in their family for it to happen to. I'm not surprised that they were not smart enough to figure it out, because they seemed to always have things handed to them, as Gregor Samsa did when he was still working. Because no one explained to them that Gregor Samsa might still be a real person, they didn't realize it and went into a panic. This eventually lead to their son's death. I think this is a potential metaphor about how misunderstanding, panic, and ignorance can lead to unnecessary loss of life. 

-Audrey

Thoughts on the Historical Context of Soseki and Murakami

I would assume that Murasaki has read Kokoro and other Soseki works. After all, Soseki was one of the most prominent modern Japanese authors, who makes it to be featured on a Japanese yen note. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to think of Norwegian Wood as a response to Kokoro, whether Murakami had the thought in mind when writing his book or not. For one, Murakami writes "spontaneously", and his recollection of Kokoro could very well affect his writing subconsciously. In addition, there are just too many shared elements in both works for us to ignore the resemblance. The suicide of a friend. The weakness of the protagonist(s). Students going to college in Tokyo (and the rent, too). The list goes on. I am most interested in how Murakami responded to Soseki with his take. Sensei's Testament ends with hints that Sensei is going to commit suicide as well, which is very different from Watanabe moving on by calling Midori at the end of Norwegian Wood. 

I think the respective historical period the two authors were in had a stake in the trends of the stories. Kokoro was published in 1914, about the same time when WWI began. Japan was in its 大正 years, a rather peaceful and also prosperous time in between two turbulent eras. I personally find it a lot like the roaring 20s in the US, and in that sense, perhaps Soseki had a similar doubt towards his society just as Fitzgerald questioned the American dream in The Great Gatsby. Why did everyone in Kokoro (that we have learned about) end up in misery? Well, because the uncle took over Sensei's property and attempted to force Sensei into marrying his niece, and that traumatized Sensei, which caused him to not be able to express his affection to Ojosan. Sensei's uncle seems to represent a societal issue, i.e. he represents the flaws in heritage laws, minor protection laws, marriage laws, and the political system, etc. However, the uncle's fault aside, the rest of the problems were caused by Sensei alone, as he was unable to recover from the traumas, and subsequently allowed the effects to become a part of his personability. Therefore, Soseki may also have criticized the flaws of his people, their inwardness, their paradoxical complex of cultural norms and personal pursuit, etc. In a way, this criticism does resemble the criticism of Fitzgerald. 

On the other hand, Murakami finished Norwegian Wood in 1987. Japan had recovered from the war and had become a major economy, although before long the economy would enter a major recession. On the contrary to the whereabouts of his contemporary Japan, Murakami set the time of the story as 1968-1970. Considering that he wrote the whole novel while traveling in Europe, I guess we could say he was both physically and spiritually detached from his contemporary Japan. However, Murakami's detachment did not stop his work from becoming a hit in Japan. Perhaps the remote condition helped him in seeing clearly the essence of the Japanese society? In addition, the Communist movement appeared to me as the most major societal element in the story, and both in history and in plot it was a failed movement. I suppose this movement (that he would be recalling from his memory when writing it) would be the "historical context" for Murakami the college guy (or, Watanabe). Under this overarching context, we have Kizuki and Naoko's sister who found life meaningless, Naoko who was desperate, Nagasawa who was morally corrupt and did not "feel sorry" for himself, and Reiko who escaped the society for eight years. As Naoko once pointed out, Watanabe tended to hang out with problematic people, and I think each of their problems is also part of the movement's collective problem. Nevertheless, while some became the past along with the movement, others chose to/had to move on. In that way, I think this book contained some of Murakami's (subconscious) reflection, which later encouraged his readers to beat on against their own current. 

--Marshal

Redemption for Gregor Samsa

I read "Samsa in Love" for the first time a couple years ago in Murakami's short story collection "Men Without Women." I remember finding the story a bit confusing, but after reading Kafka's Metamorphosis, I enjoyed "Samsa in Love" much more. It seems that Murakami has taken Gregor Samsa from Metamorphosis and granted him a second shot at humanity. In Kafka's story, Gregor Samsa gave his life to a grueling career as a traveling salesman; because of this, he lost all those things that make us human, such as curiosity and love, and turned into a cockroach (metaphorically I suppose, but also literally?). Eventually, Gregor Samsa's family, who had depended on him for financial support, learn to rely on themselves. Samsa (the roach) becomes a burden to them; this burden is finally relieved at the end of the story when Samsa dies. Pretty depressing. 

I enjoyed Murakami's spin-off much better; while Murakami and Kafka are trying to convey similar messages, Kafka's story feels more like a terrifying warning of what happens when you take your humanity for granted while Murakami's story is more of a celebration of the things that make us human. I also felt that Gregor Samsa was a pitiful character in Kafka's story, but an endearing character in Murakami's story. It seemed that Murakami still had hope for this character after reading Metamorphosis even though everyone else in the character's life gave up on him. 

Perhaps I am just a romantic, but I enjoyed reading the story of a man learning how to be human much more than the story of a man losing all the things that made him human. 

Penny

 

Gregor Reborn in "Samsa in Love"

While reading “Metamorphosis” and “Samsa in Love,” I had initially thought that Murakami was simply rewriting Kafka’s original story but in reverse roles, where perhaps a bug had transformed into a human (Gregor). However, I soon came to believe that Murakami was writing a continuation of Kafka’s story where Gregor was able to change back to his human form, but only after his family had moved out. Gregor reawakens with no memory of what happened, except that he is unfamiliar with his human anatomy and has to relearn how to live in human society. There is no implication of him ever being in the form of a bug; it is almost like he is reborn in a way, with no memories of who he is, and enough language to communicate but no understanding of social cues. 

I also found it interesting how in “Metamorphosis,” Gregor and his family members mention several times that they hope Gregor will someday awaken and things will go back to normal, and Murakami grants this wish by changing Gregor back into a human but only after his family presumably has left. In “Samsa in Love,” all the furniture in Gregor’s room has been removed, and the window is boarded up. This echoes Gregor’s fear in “Metamorphosis,” since he had not wanted Grete to remove his furniture because it was his last semblance of his human life. Gregor had stated that: “Nothing should be removed; everything had to stay; he could not do without the beneficial influence of the furniture on his state of mind” (Kafka 32) and when his mother and Grete ultimately moved everything anyway, he said that they were “depriving him of everything that he loved” (Kafka 33). The absence of furniture and decoration in Gregor’s room when he wakes up in “Samsa in Love” suggests that Gregor’s fear came true, and that he has no way of remembering his past life because his possessions are gone. He asks himself: “who had he been before he became Gregor Samsa? What had he been?” (Murakami). Human Gregor examines the room and conclude that “all vestiges of human life had been stripped away” (Murakami), so he is essentially a blank slate with no clues to who he is. Despite the fact that human Gregor must relearn how to live as a human, I enjoyed the hopeful and optimistic ending. Rather than ending Gregor’s miserable bug life with a tragic death like Kafka did, Murakami gives Gregor the chance to be reborn and live again. Perhaps this is Murakami’s way of pointing out the innocence of humanity, the world of opportunity, and the importance of cherishing the simple things.

-Michelle

The Concept of Weakness

Something I noted (and something we touched upon briefly in class) while reading A Wild Sheep Chase, Norwegian Wood, and Kokoro was the characters’ takes on the concept of weakness. In some way, we are told that weakness is what led to each character’s demise. However, the relationship that each of these characters have with weakness is slightly different. (Note: I want to make it clear that I in no way believe that the decision to end one’s life comes about by weakness. I just wanted to point out how I feel each story frames the role of weakness in each of these characters’ lives and deaths.)

In A Wild Sheep Chase, the Rat describes his weakness as some kind of inevitable, incurable disease and the reason why he was chosen by the sheep. However, the Rat doesn’t resent this weakness. Rather, he seems rather fond of it. His decision to end his life can be framed as an act of strength in order to protect this weakness, and perhaps humanity. 

In Norwegian Wood, Naoko describes Kizuki’s weakness to Toru. However, this weakness is not something she despises. In fact, she says “I loved his weak side too. I loved it as much as I loved his good side” (Murakami 127). Again, weakness is not framed as a negative, but as a quality separate from good and evil.

However, in Kokoro, weakness takes on the characteristics we are likely more familiar with. It causes Sensei to hesitate and let his desires pass him by. Ultimately, this weakness drives him to engage in insidious acts and betray his friend. In this story, his weakness is framed as a definite evil and the source of negativity in Sensei’s life.

-Angela

Samsa in Love

     This was not my first time reading Samsa in Love. At first, I did not make the connection between Murakami's rendition and the Metamorphosis.  I think that Murakami did a very good job when he wrote this rebirth and continuation of Samsa's life as he turns back into a human during war-torn times in Prague. Though I do agree with what David wrote as the Metamorphosis seemed like it was going to focus on Gregor but it seems to focus more on his family and sister as they end up neglecting Gregor who has accepted his new form and continues to live out their lives. Especially once he had died his family had moved on with their lives with a sigh of relief that they would never have to deal with the hideous appearance of Gregor.

    For Murakami's take on the character Gregor, I would like to think that it takes some time soon after the events of the original as there is still food on the table when Gregor manages to make his way down to the kitchen. I would like to think that Gregor in this story is a completely different person than the one from the original, as it seems more of a swap than a rebirth. My main reason for this idea is the way Murakami describes the newly awakened Gregor as if he was never really human in the first place. Murakami takes time to go into detail about the way that Gregor is coming to comprehend his body and also question why he no longer has a shell for protection. So just as Gregor from the Metamopsis changed into an insect the Gregor in Samsa in Love probably started off as an insect before becoming Gregor Samsa. Gregor from the Metamoprhsis did not live as a human as he despised his life and surroundings thus becoming an insect and came to accept it easily; while Murakami's rendition learns about humans and wants to live as one.

 Michael

The human condition

     While the two metamorphoses in "Samsa in Love" and "The Metamorphosis" are different, they have a similar thread of humanity. Of course, the story cannot begin without a change, an inciting incident. In both stories, that change is the literal physical change of their bodies. In Kafka's story, the character changes into a hideous monster, and his family must figure out what to do with this new reality. In Murakami's story, the character mentally changes into an amnesiac, essentially. But in doing so, he physically changes into a human from, well, nothing. 

    Though the physical change is different, both stories revolve around how characters around them respond to this change. In both cases, their respective humanity is tested. The attitudes of Gregor's family in Kafka's story undergo their own metamorphoses, as his sister changes from taking care of him to deciding to let him die. Gregor's family chooses to abandon him, despite everything he's done for them. In fact, Gregor accepts his role in the end, and he chooses to sacrifice himself for his family one last time. Despite transforming into a monster, Gregor is the most human character in the entire story. In Murakami's story, a woman who's just there to fix a lock must cooperate with someone who knows nothing. Because she has been subject to ridicule on account of her hunchback, she has a jaded persona that meets Gregor's naivety with skepticism. Gregor, retaining his humanity from the last story, curiously asks her about all that's on his mind like a toddler. In both cases, that's what it means to be human: to endlessly strive despite the obstacles, to be curious, to be shunted away from the world yet vie to be accepted. 

    Another interpretation of "The Metamorphosis" claims that Gregor Sansa is an unreliable narrator. This idea says that Gregor never really turned into this hideous monster, but that Gregor becomes a victim of his own degeneration. This is shown through the two distinct versions of whatever is happening: Gregor's version, where he speaks clearly and his thoughts are clear, and where his family cannot understand him. Through this lens, then, Gregor begins to lose his humanity as he descends into madness. While this interpretation does have merit, I'd prefer to think of Gregor as the tragic hero who comes to terms with his family's inhumane treatment of him and decides to make his family happy rather than live himself.

    One final point I'd like to make is the use of pain in both stories. In both metamorphized cases, the main characters feel pain upon moving and aren't used to their bodies; learning how to move is hurting them. Both stories mention hunger. These characters are literally moving on instinct, in pain, wondering what their next move is. Existence is pain, I guess. The most melodramatic takeaway from these two stories is: to be human is to be in pain.

James

Norwegian Good (book)

     I believe Norwegian Wood is an exemplary book because, at least in my case, it has many moments that resonate with the reader despite its occasionally unusual trappings. Murakami is able to capture moments of tender humanity and communicate them through words, which is the sign of any great writer. Something that always sticks out to me, and I cannot know if this is a universal experience or not, as usually when I assume my experiences are universal I am very mistaken, is when a sentence in a book makes me stop reading completely because it feels as if it was taken straight from my thoughts or it presents something I thought I knew about in such a different way as to make me reconsider many things. Those are the best moments in reading for me, and I find them most in writers like Toni Morrison, Yukio Mishima, and now I feel I can say Haruki Murakami. 

    A rather innocuous passage in Norwegian Wood that gave me pause as I just described was when Toru is out on his journey mourning the death of Naoko. Right after a stranger helps him out by offering food and money, Toru suddenly, seemingly for the first time, thinks of the cruel treatment he gave his high school girlfriend, saying, "Chills ran through me as I realized how bad I treated her. I had hardly ever thought of her thoughts or feelings or the pain I caused her...What was she doing now? I wondered. And had she forgiven me?" (275). This self reflection is hardly the most important part of the book, but something about those last five words hit me like a cannonball. I think a young romance can be the first time that someone is forced to recognize that they are capable of deeply hurting someone they love, even if they don't wish to, and like it or not Toru definitely has to live with the fact he did something that hurt both this nameless girl and Naoko. Of course he wasn't the reason Naoko was in the sanatorium and of course she hurt him as well, but that knowledge is hardly enough to assuage the guilt of hurting someone you love. This is just my interpretation, but I think Toru is a rather caring guy despite what Nagasawa says, and that he does want good things for those close to him. The fact that he was the cause of suffering for these women is a lot for someone like him to live with, and it is clear that he is still affected by these events many years later. Recognizing the dangers that come with intimacy is part of growing up, and if he can learn from the pain he has caused, maybe he will be better prepared for a relationship with Midori.

    Unrelated thoughts: I felt stupid at how surprised I was when Toru told Midori he loved her because it was very obvious the two of them were in love the whole time, I just tend to write off certain things Murakami characters do as part of the weird character interactions he writes. That being said the two literally spooned and still I was surprised that they liked each other, so I don't get any points for my observation skills. Also I was pretty sure at the end Midori was going to break up with Toru because he kept going off and not contacting her for long periods after promising her he'd never let her go, but everyone in class talked like they were pretty much definitely ending up together. The ending line certainly strikes me as ominous. I think I corresponded Midori a bit too much with someone I know and that painted my perceptions of how she was, so perhaps this interpretation is simply my folly. 

-Luke

Norwegian Wood Movie

     I feel that the movie adaptation for the Norwegian Wood did not do the book justice. Unlike in the novel, where Murakami takes his time allowing the reader to get to know the character and builds complexity on them, I feel that the movie rushed through the character introduction, making it hard for the reader to get to know them better. The movie cut out a lot of the small talk the characters have with Watanabe which in my opinion, made them feel more real. I think this made the characters seem more one-dimensional and dramatic than being more realistic. They made Naoko seem like a dramatic cry baby and only showed one dimension of Midori. I think the movie didn't capture well how Midori may seem weird outwardly but is just a girl who wasn't loved growing up and wants to be loved. Overall, I wished the movie spent more time developing the characters and make them feel more real.

Zion

"Metamorphosis"

 I thoroughly enjoyed both readings "Samsa in Love" and "Metamorphosis." One thing I found interesting while reading "Metamorphosis" was how the family quickly accepts that Gregor had turned into a giant insect before thinking of a more rational conclusion. If I had been in that situation I would have assumed that Gregor somehow disappeared and maybe the giant insect got into his room through the window before accepting that that was my son or brother. It also surprises me that the family is so offended by Gregor's metamorphosis, and quickly shames him into isolation. If they are so quick to accept the giant insect as their son, why would their trust and love in him change so drastically when he enters a different form? Sure, the sister feeds him in the beginning and the mom wants to enter his room occasionally to help, but after a while, they quickly turn to either apathy or disgust. Greta abandons cleaning his room altogether, and the family gives up on him after only two or three months. The father seriously injures Gregor with the apple. Eventually, their neglect towards him leads to his death. Perhaps this story can be interpreted to shine light on the fact that as humans we base our judgments about a person (or in this case an insect) based on their physical properties. When Gregor was a human, his family loved and admired him. When he was an insect, they were so repulsed they couldn't even look at him. In our society, I have heard of the phenomenon "pretty privilege" which basically states that people who are conventionally attractive are treated better in general than people who are less conventionally attractive. Basically, people are nicer to "pretty people", and "pretty people" have better prospects in terms of job achievement or similar circumstances due to subconscious biases. I am not saying that Kafka wrote this story with the intention of illustrating people's subconscious biases based on looks, but instead that this is one interpretation of his story. Otherwise, Gregor's family should have treated him the same after his metamorphosis, especially since they accept that the insect is in fact Gregor.

Corrina Holcomb

Thoughts on Metamorphosis and Samsa in Love

When reading Fafka's Metamorphosis, I thought that the metamorphosis was going to be focused on Gregor, but I noticed that the title probably focuses more on Gregor's family rather than himself. Even though Gregor turns into a giant insect, he isn't really destroying the lives of his family. While it is true that he was supporting his family with his job and being an insect can't sustain a job, the rest of the family finds new work and can still support themselves. It's just his appearance that causes the family all sorts of grief, anxiety, and spite, and this is the metamorphosis that the family undergoes, especially with the sister, who was accommodating of Gregor at first but soon shifted to spite. And I think that the story is trying to show one of the darker sides of human nature, of sudden alienation, isolation, loneliness, all established in a rapid manner at times. I see this story being a clear inspiration for similar works that followed like The Fly or District 9, in terms of an appearance change into something shocking, especially insectoid, and the sense of isolation as persecution that follows from it. 

So with Murakami's Samsa in Love, it seems of almost a redemption of Gregor. Having no memories of his prior life with his sense of supporting his family through work, the confusion he had as an insect, and the spite he got from his family, it's almost like he was able to start his life over completely. I think this is a form of an optimistic take from Murakami to Kafka's more or less depressing story. That alienation, isolation, loneliness can happen to people, but there is also the possibility that someone can start anew and have a chance for an even better life. Gregor's previous working and family condition probably wasn't the best, with having him be the family's sole dependent and feeling constantly overwhelmed by his work, but now that his family is gone, he no longer has a sense to work, he can be himself in a true sense. So I believe that Murakami is acknowledging the dark aspects of human interaction and nature, but also that there's lighter and more positive aspects that can make life worth living for.

-David Barnes