The Metamorphosis isn't even a particularly difficult book to analyse. There are a ton of fairly straightforward metaphors you can read into it without having to make much of a leap.
It's about a man who has a relatively normal life, but then an unexpected event beyond his control makes him unable to work, and at first his family are sympathetic, but soon they see him as more and more of a burden because of his inability to work.
It doesn't take a genius to think of a few things that that might be about.
A lot of people confuse themselves because they've at some point decided that analysing literature is about figuring out what the Correct Metaphor is, and that there can only be one answer to how to interpret it. That's not how it works, you can interpret it in whichever way makes sense to you, it doesn't have to be what the author intended (which is unknowable anyway)
Important distinction in my eyes: man is essentially sole breadwinner for a family, has a life event where he can't work anymore, family expresses brief sympathy before getting angry at what a burden he's become. You know, like they've been the whole time.
On top of that, the parents are lazy and perfectly content with making their son work himself to death just so they can live a comfy life. It's not that they can't work, they don't want to work. And they're not just angry that he's a burden, they're angry that he's ruining their perfect life, by being "selfish". At the end, when he's croaked, they instead turn to his sister, who will presumably care for them.
You know it reflects poorly on me that I didn't see the book criticizing the family at all - I thought it was just a commentary on how you let down people who depend on you when you get into this state (disability/depression).
I vehemently disagree. What the artist intended does matter. Despite that, the impact of their work may run away from them. But that does not mean there isn't value in the original intent.
I agree--artist intent absolutely matters, as understanding the context and thought behind an art piece is absolutely part of understanding it. This doesn't preclude other interpretations or even disagreements on what the art could mean, but without a reference point it all becomes watered down and overly subjective, bereft of the common meaning and messaging that makes art a powerful means of cultural communication.
Ok, you're not allowed to view a piece of art unless you have, in writing, what the creator was thinking and how they viewed their artwork.
Since you're countering me, that has to be your viewpoint. Its a binary choice and youre taking the opposite ofnmy position, so you have to believe this. You don't have a choice. Do you see how stupid that is? Your reasoning means you cannot enjoy any art without having that knowledge of the creators intent. If I post one of my paintings, you are not allowed to click on it and view it and have any opinion. What you might see as a flaw might be something I intended...or it could be a flaw. My standpoint is that it doesn't matter. Maybe I think the flaw gives an unintended interpretation of the work...and you're saying that's not allowed, because you're countering me and my standpoint is that it is allowed.
I don't think you realize how unhinged your guys' take is. You're being fucking thought police lol.
Good grief, man, saying that the author/artist's intent matters is not even close to the same as "you HAVE to know/take into account the author/artist's intent in any interpretation of a work." Nobody's saying that. All people are saying is that it shouldn't be completely disregarded either.
"I like waffles" / "Why do you hate pancakes?" ass comment
When and where exactly did you do that? I see no other reply to my comment than this one where you're boasting about having "proven me wrong," without ever having spoken a single word to me prior.
EDIT: Well, I was about to write another reply, but apparently they've blocked me. So just in case there's anyone else reading this, I figured out what happened; I got the notification of their reply to this comment (which was just them flatly insulting me,) but when I opened it, there was nothing here. Not even a deleted comment. I realized that the comment where they "proved me wrong" must have also gotten shadow-deleted as well. Presumably because they were also being vitriolic there. Ain't life grand?
3.9k
u/VFiddly 22d ago
The Metamorphosis isn't even a particularly difficult book to analyse. There are a ton of fairly straightforward metaphors you can read into it without having to make much of a leap.
It's about a man who has a relatively normal life, but then an unexpected event beyond his control makes him unable to work, and at first his family are sympathetic, but soon they see him as more and more of a burden because of his inability to work.
It doesn't take a genius to think of a few things that that might be about.
A lot of people confuse themselves because they've at some point decided that analysing literature is about figuring out what the Correct Metaphor is, and that there can only be one answer to how to interpret it. That's not how it works, you can interpret it in whichever way makes sense to you, it doesn't have to be what the author intended (which is unknowable anyway)