It has been discussed by many members of the scientific and literary communities that man follows a path of existence.  Darwinian thought states that man evolved from the earliest forms of primates and progressed through several prehistoric stages before becoming the entity he is today.  There has been an almost universal acknowledgment by evolutionists and writers that man's quest is for the prize of knowledge and fulfillment.  That being said, then it is an inescapable conclusion that man's journey will come to an end at some point.  And since the advent of the Orwellian writers, many representations of man's end contain a negative connotation.  I have always been fascinated by this point of view.  My first encounter with the theme of man's decay came with Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 and later with Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.  In these works, man's future is painted as a dark, dismal approximation of what it is now.  After reading Franz Kafka's "The Metamorphosis", I am firmly convinced that this work of fiction exudes a metaphorical representation for that same theme of decay.  Through the use of excellent imagery (contributed to, no doubt, by Kafka's own dismal upbringing), Kafka portrays a society on the verge of destruction and a situation where father betrays son, sister betrays brother.
     From the beginning of the story, Kafka paints a realistic picture of the average downtrodden citizen.  Gregor Samsa is a man of circumstance: He puts in extraordinary work weeks in order to put up money for his family which he understands cannot support themselves.  Kafka himself came from a broken home where money was scarce and the totalitarian government about them had created an impossible situation for any citizen who was not in their employ.  Gregor says at one point while locked in his room by himself, "[my] window gives upon a desert waste where gray sky and gray land blend indistinguishably."  Kafka seems to add a slight bit of mystique to the story by never mentioning the city or country the Samsas live in.  This facet makes the story more accessible to an audience; the more universal, the better accepted.  By portraying Gregor's environment as one of filth and hopelessness, Kafka silently builds the familiar decayed setting that we have seen in Brave New World and 1984.  From the onset, we are shown a miserable, uncomfortable place where things just aren't as great as they are here in the United States of the 1990s.  Man has milked Gregor's country for all it is worth, and the citizens are the unlucky victims.
     However, some victims are in more peril than others.  Gregor works as a traveling salesman, something is quite proud of and does well.  Kafka characterizes Gregor as the hardworking man who dreams of greater prospects but is somewhat satisfied with this position as it is.  Gregor's impetus for work proceeds from the debts that his father owes to his employer, "the chief."  As the story progresses, we learn more and more about how Mr. Samsa once had a fortune and was a wealthy man with a promising future.  But somehow, things went downhill, and the Samsas ended up in the proverbial money pit.  So now, Mr. Samsa has forced his boy Gregor to go to work for the man to whom he owes money.  The situation is one of profound misery.  Mr. Samsa's personal fall from grace came to include Gregor because of the simple fact that Mr. Samsa could take advantage of his son to support the family while he wallowed in despair.  His health degraded and instead of working his way back up the ladder, he unloaded the responsibility upon his son.  What's more, Gregor seems to have no problem with this, indicating that Mr. Samsa has possibly misled his son and brainwashed him into taking care of the despicable legacy he has left.  Personally, I believe this follows the decay symbolism I mentioned earlier.  Mr. Samsa is the twisted, dying ember that attempts to rekindle a flame by dousing Gregor in lighter fluid.  Gregor is the poor unfortunate fellow who is at the mercy of a force that he cannot identify as malign.
     Kafka's grammatical syntax can also indicate his underlying metaphor for decay.  Throughout "The Metamorphosis" he uses words such as "broken," "misery," and "fall."  There is even one point that, in an almost blinding flash of insight, Gregor says that "[his family] oppressed him."  Once again, writers are products of their environments, and because of Kafka's dysfunctional upbringing, he is obsessed with negative signposts.  One cannot say for an absolute certainty that Kafka wrote "The Metamorphosis" with this technique in mind, but you have to admit, it fits.
     Gregor's transformation into the giant insect has always been a focal topic of discussion in "The Metamorphosis".  However, I think Kafka's decision to alienate Gregor from his loved ones in such a way was intended only as a subtle indication of Gregor's identification as the supreme, tragic victim of the story.  One may argue that this could have been a bit drastic for that purpose, but in the context of a dying society, it works.  Besides, a "dung beetle" is one of the most extremely disgusting things you see today.  Not only did Kafka use the insect imagery in that way, but perhaps he also did so to illustrate Gregor's position in that disconsolate place.  His abuse stemmed from his father's hatred of his past failures, from the chief clerk's dislike of Mr. Samsa because of his debts, and from his mother's embarrassment of the entire situation.  Only little Grete found value in Gregor's existence, but after the metamorphosis, she too turned away from him.  Grete's betrayal appears to be the most vile of them all in that instance.  How can one you love so much, with whom you share all your secrets and troubles, how can that one forsake you in the face of a situation just as untenable as the former?  I have a very close rapport with my family despite the fact that my parents are divorced and live so far apart from each other.  But because of that fact, our relationship has become all the more stronger in the face of adversity.  There is nothing that we cannot overcome together.  That is why I find Grete's abandonment of Gregor so distasteful.  Mr. Samsa's violations are horrendous, but at least they stem from material losses, not matters of the heart.  This particular scenario supports how Kafka's story mirrors the decay of man.  Al Pacino put it best in Scent of a Woman: "It's fuck your buddy; cheat on your wife; call your mother on Mother's Day...  It's all shit."
     The Samsas' perfidy of their one and only son is further propagated by their denial of his existence at all.  They take his furniture out of his room, leaving nothing but a couch for him to hide under when they come in just so that they do not have to see his disgusting form.  Slowly, Gregor starts to understand the depths of this hypocrisy.  The turning point for the reader begins when Gregor discovers from eavesdropping on the family that his father had sequestered a good amount of funds from Gregor's earnings in case of an emergency.  At the time, Gregor praises Mr. Samsa for his ingenuity, but to the audience, the message is disturbingly clear: Trust no longer has a place in mankind's society.  Gregor has lived too long in the shadow of his father and cannot understand the depths of Mr. Samsa's treachery.  He even proceeds from the false assumption that everything is his fault when he makes the decision to die, not acknowledging his loved ones' hypocrisy.  It is a dreary picture of life, and Kafka knows it.
     Kafka's works undertake an existential approach to life.  In essence, man is always alone, and there is nothing that supports the theory of "human nature."  The French philosopher Sartre believed that no man could be labeled as "good" or "bad" until he made a choice, and that it was from these choices that the man's character was built upon.  Continuing the decay metaphor in "The Metamorphosis", it is apparent that Kafka too follows the existential portrait of characterization.  Gregor becomes the prime existential tragedy because of his decisions to remain loyal to his family and hide his new body from them.  In living outside of society, Gregor becomes a victim of it.  In that case, the rest of the Samsa family must be the existential antagonists which proliferate the victimization of society.  Gregor (society) follows a downward spiral that is instigated and nurtured by the Samsas (decay) up until the point where Gregor proclaims that he has had enough.  This climax taken in the context of society exudes two choices: Allow the decay to continue and follow the downward spiral into death, or stand up to the decay and take your chances fighting a seemingly unstoppable evil.  History is replete with such turning points: The French Revolution came about only after years of aristocratic oppression towards the French peasantry; the Northern states' policies of Southern taxation and abolition of slavery led to the Civil War; even Coach Jeff Bowers came right down to it this past weekend when the USM Golden Eagles were fourth down and goal, and his decision kept Southern in the lead for a sixteen point shutout against Memphis.
     The trend of existentialism may even lead to a case of nihilism.  Mr. Samsa's actions and deeds result in the complete destruction of everything that can be termed "good" in "The Metamorphosis."  The classic bond between father and son is the first thing to go and is even the basis for a good part of Gregor's back story.  And after Gregor's transformation, Mr. Samsa's attitude toward Gregor's disposition as a cockroach becomes physical, but the overall mental stance is not far off from his original bearing toward his son.  When he bombards Gregor with apples, Mr. Samsa demands that he get back in his room, therefore acknowledging his existence as Gregor.  And once he has taken control of the family again, he is only stopped from taking drastic action against Gregor when Gregor inadvertently dies in his room.  Look at the Hitler parallel: Mr. Samsa is willing to break down any barrier, force any tradition to get back on top of things.  Gregor is nothing more than the fabled bug in his way, and that is where Kafka's metaphor makes its most obvious statement.
     I think the major factor in Gregor determining his time of death occurs when the charwoman sees him for the first time.  Not only is she unafraid of Gregor's insectoid appearance, but she goes as far as to threaten him with a chair if he does not move out of the way of her chores.  To Gregor, this represents his complete understanding of the situation: His family despises him and has turned their backs on him.  He is nothing more now than a common roach, the most disgusting, repugnant creature on the planet.  In that, the metaphorical analysis must also take a turn.  Here, man comes to the realization of the decay that surrounds him and understands that it is this decay which has made his life such a mess.  Before, Gregor was blind to what his father had been using him for, but at the end-- in those precious seconds when all attention fades away from Gregor-- he understands his whole predicament, and in his decision to fight the decay, he dies.  He cannot overcome the odds, cannot rise above the situation.  And of course to support the "all-for-me-and-none-for-all" mentality that Mr. Samsa exudes and passes onto his family, the Samsas do nothing more than breathe a sigh of relief when Gregor is dead.  Not even Grete sends words of protest when the charwoman is told to throw out the corpse.  Kafka's use of light imagery in the last few paragraphs gives rise to his depiction of the Samsas as the winners or the new protagonists.  This is but an ironic twist to my entire take on the decay metaphor.  The Samsas are rewarded with salvation after committing those horrendous deeds of neglect and abuse toward Gregor.
     Is man any different?  Do we not see every day evidence of some human being abusing or taking advantage of another?  What about in Kafka's time and environment?  Kafka himself was never granted more than a peasant's treatment from his own father.  So we ask ourselves in dark corners or over petite glasses of wine, "Are we any different from the Samsas?  Are we the Samsas?  Are we products of what Orwell, Huxley and Bradbury prophesied in their novels?"  I wonder...
     In conclusion, I only wish to emphasize the importance of the metaphor that Kafka has introduced.  Man decays, dies, degrades.  He always has been and undoubtedly always will until it comes time for him to become extinct altogether.  "The Metamorphosis" was one of Kafka's most prolific achievements in his running commentary on the human condition.  As apparent by the fate of Gregor and the actions of Mr. Samsa, it is not a very optimistic viewpoint.  But when we are treated to scenes of celebrities getting away with murder, rapists glorified as experts on sexual matters, and preachers charging fees for faith every morning during coffee and bagels, you have to wonder if Kafka's point of view is all the more and all the more frightening.

C.Du4
10-22-96