planning for english

   

First I would make up mind map or web of the stranger with as little focus on a topic as possible. Look over the book at notes and annotations and expand and highlight important stuff and bookmark pages and then expand more on my mind map.  After I have made a developed web I would look at the ideas that I seemed to focus a lot on in my mind map, the parts that I made the most connections and what I think is most important. I would then put these ideas into a more organized but still incomplete outline, to get a general idea of structure and form a rough thesis. I would search for evidence to back up my argument and if I found any evidence that disagreed with my thesis or altered it in some way I would alter my thesis. I would do some analysis and interpretation of the quotes and see how this expands on my thesis and if ideas and perhaps reorganize the body paragraphs if I see some new connections. I “finalize” my thesis and write topic sentences. I will then start to write the essay. I will start based off the outline but it will probably diverge from the outline and I will let that happen. I will let my ideas developed more I will look for more quotes if I want or refer back to the mind map. I will also note down any questions that I feel are important but I don’t quite know what to do with them. My conclusion will be very disorganized with lots of last minute on tangential questions or interpretation. I will highlight quotes topic sentences and analysis interpretation to take note of the structure. I will not fuss too much about the structure yet but I will want to make sure that my analysis is more than my quotations this will help me with the next step. After this rough write I will compare the outline to the rough draft and see what Ideas could be cut or kept and verify that my thesis, I will look at the ideas in the conclusion but I wont do too much altering. I will rework the writing in the essay to make it cound clearer and concise, I will change ideas here if I feel the need but I will focus on the clarity of my writing. I wont edit or revise the conclusion yet. After this I will look in my conclusion and any extra questions I wrote when writing the essay also my mind map outline and the book to see I find or develop new ideas that are relevant to my thesis. I will try to link any relevant ideas to my body paragraphs, this will help me see if ideas are really relevant this will help me verify my conclusion and intro. I will organize the conclusion making sure all relevant ideas are clearly stated and it all relates back to my thesis. I will reread the essay checking for clarity, links between ideas and grammar spelling etc I will make sure everything is written in the clearest way and that it all links back to my thesis. The conclusion I will make sure that my thesis is not only argued but its importance is illustrated in the conclusion.

Kafkaesque Insignificance and Humour

Kafkaesque basically means anything relating to or reflecting an element of Kafka’s work. The Kafkaesque element I decided to focus on in the film was the sense of insignificance and Kafkaesque humor. As Gregor became an insignificant insect insignificance is reflected in the death of the friend, the suspicion of the police officer and the characters themselves. You can see this mostly through camera angles and the building of false suspense as well as some bizarre juxtapositions.

I noticed that the camera angles created a sense of insignificance of the characters. It was rare that the camera focused on the face of a character, it never gave the character any significance over the setting or other characters. You can see this especially when Gabriela and Kafka are talking on a bridge. You’ll notice in this scene that the camera is quite zoomed out and not focusing on the two characters, you can also see people just walking in front of the camera from time to time, which shows they really are part of the setting. Contrastingly, in most films and TV shows there are those standard alternating shots of faces, during a conversation. That draws attention to the person who is talking and also signifies the reaction of the listener and overall puts focus on the conversation. However in this film they didn’t do that which enhanced the sensation of the central characters being no more important than the setting.

Whilst they make the characters insignificant they often create a false suspense, which usually ends in a comically insignificant release. For example after the main investigator questions Kafka he shuts the door and there is that bizarre suspenseful music playing, we clearly think some important clue is going to be revealed there, and then he sneezes and the scene ends giving us nothing. This building of pressure with an insignificant release is funny, in a very Kafka way. They also do something similar with the man suspiciously walking to the bathroom except they twist it at the end. The office is empty and a suspicious looking man walks to the bathroom and Kafka follows him only to find him looking at pornography. It’s that same pressure and insignificant release structure except just after that is when the most startling event occurs. Just when we have been relieved of suspense and are unsuspecting the crazy laughing man attacks Kafka. That keeps us on our toes and gives us a sense of danger and uncertainty. Throughout the film we are very confused about the identity of this laughing guy. He is this scary ugly creature who attacks people, but he laughs and smiles while he does this. When he attacks people he seems to be in a sort of trance, possessed by his psychotic happiness and we later learn that he was brainwashed by the people in the castle. Is he a metaphor for something? How did he get those boils? If he is so happy and full of joy why does he feel the need to attack people? His so-called happiness seems false, sporadic and destructive, its manic and dependent on some modern substance. The man smiles and laughs a great deal, which would normally show happiness but his joy seems artificial and unstable, not genuine. I think the film urges us to question what it means to be happy through this mysterious character.

Also when transitioning between two scenes they often juxtapose tragic things with mundane things. At the end of the morgue scene there is a shot of a nurse pushing Eduardo’s corpse out of the room, which transfers to some one pushing a cart of papers in the office scene that follows. The juxtaposition of the corpse of a friend and an everyday cart of papers makes the death seem sort of mundane or insignificant but simulteaneously conveys that the boring office job is sort of tragic in its blandness.

The overall idea of insignificance is related to metamorphosis, because Gregor is a bug and there’s no reason anyone should try to find out why he changed. They simply ought to except that he changed. Just as Kafka searching for the cause of his friends death is pointless, and in the end he just accepts suicide and moves on with his life. This sense of uncertainty and confusion is related to metamorphosis. Reading the novella I was uncertain of how to interpret it, what was a metaphor what was simply literal etc. Kafka isn’t exactly vague in his writing he is just obscure. The way he describes the characters isn’t completely clear showing the complexity of the characters. For example, you can compare the sister to the devil and you have a point, but she doesn’t seem completely evil because she seems more ready to accept Gregor as a bug and is also the most resilient character and is quite understanding of Gregor.  Just as the parents may seem awful and lazy they are also understandable in their treatment of Gregor. The father beats Gregor with a stick, while this is awful he needs Gregor to stay in his room to bring stability to the household.  His attack of Gregor is sort of defensive, awful but understandable. The mother is weak physically and emotionally so she depended on her son but couldn’t face him in his bug state, she doesn’t seem like a good mother but we know that she truly loves Gregor, she just cant handle his change, she’s human. While Gregor changes into a bug and literally metamorphosizes he’s still the same because he is imprisoned by his relationship with his family. The characters of metamorphosis are complex and confusing just like the laughing guy in film. The film asks us to question the meaning of happiness the way the complex characters of metamorphosis urge us to question what it means to be human. The pressure and release is related to metamorphosis because the moment Gregor becomes a bug you can see his misery increasing and his relations with his family withering, the tension in the household and within Gregor becomes intolerable. It’s a relief when Gregor dies.

part 2 revison

The relationship between Gregor and his family is one of  dependence. Initially it appears that the family is falsely depending on Gregor financially but also Gregor could be falsely dependent on them for a sense of purpose. What he refered to as “fine times”, those were the times when his family was “amazed” when his family needed him when they were weak. When his family was better off  there was less glory there was less “out pour of warm feeling.” While this could be because the family had gotten used to getting money off him and became ungrateful it could also be because they didn’t need him as much but still had him work to give him a sense of purpose. Gregor does rely on others happiness for his own sense of purpose for example how he wants to send his sister to a conservatory, he’s living through her. While some may view Gregor as caring self sacrificing and generous a sort of Christ like figure why is he an insect? Were not really sure whose the needy one here, kaftka shrouds the truth. “his father had never said anything on the contrary and of course Gregor had never asked.” Both parties could be blamed here his father didn’t lie but he didn’t tell the truth and Gregor didn’t deny the truth but he didn’t question it . If kaftka wanted us to blame one over the other he would make either the father a liar or Gregor a deniar. It appears to be a mutaly false dependence as the family appears rely on Gregor financially but Gregor while providing for his family gains a purpose. The father doesn’t tell Gregor about his finacncial problems out of either greed or his need to feed his sons sense of purpose but both. Kaftka doesn’t want his readers to point fingers he wants them to understand this codependent relationship.

part 1 are the characters one?

Gregor is an insect. In his pre insect life he worked hard and a lousy job for his family who appears lazy and ungrateful fro his sacrifices. He has a better relationship with his sister though. His parents react badly to his insect state his mother cant seem to take it despite the fact that she does love Gregor his father herds him back into his room. The father is could be initially perceived as the stronger character because he chases him into his room while his mother panics but this isn’t necessarily the case, because he’s denying Gregor in his new state not accepting him. They want to fix Gregor and while they may genuinely care they don’t understand him they still hope that he can change but they have to accept that he is who he is now.

I’m not entirely sure how were supposed to view and analyze the characters and situation. Is each character supposed to be viewed as different aspects of an individual’s character or are they meant to be viewed separately as actual characters themselves. I think if we were to view the entire household as an individual Gregor would be fear and the desire to please others, the mother would be our emotional caring hopeful but weak side, the father our rational practical and order maintaining side, and the daughter our fiery passionate inner strength side.  When Gregor turns into an insect the desire to conform out of fear to please others becomes insignificant like an insect and creates disorder. The mother has a very emotional response to Gregor's transformation she feels turmoil as one would feel when they find they have no significance and she doesn’t really no what to do. The father is the rational side trying to deny this painful lack of significance in order to restore order that’s why he shoves Gregor back in his room. Grete is that inner brilliance and passion, she seems neither rational nor emotional but rather strength and resilience; she accepts Gregor's change as permanent and tries her best to understand his change rather than deny it or break emotionally from it. When Gregor who represents the need to please dies the family learns to support themselves and communicate. This is sort of like an individual finally being aware of one self and being responsible for all aspects of your character. I think a portrayal of characters as parts of a character portrays the exact emotion of existentialism. When Gregor dies a lot of positive comes out of it plus he was miserable so some happiness comes out of it but also when the character dies especially when he’s a pretty good guy its also sad. That’s sort of like existentialism it can hurt and you wont live in blissful ignorance but you can become free in its honesty.

part 2 Whose to blame?

When I first read this passage in part two I thought that his family was taking advantage of gregors income. However as I looked at the passage closer I began to consider the possibility that it is gregor needs to be helping them for his own sense of worth. It was interesting what he refered to as fine times, those were the times when his family were amazed when his family needed him when they were weak. When his family was better off  there was less glory there was less out pour of warm feeling. While this could be because the family had gotten used to mooching off him it could also be because he was sort patronizing them it could go both ways. If you think about it its something gregor would do he does rely on others happiness for his own sense of purpose like how he wants to send his sister to a conservatory, hes living thorugh her. While some may view gregor as caring self sacrificing and generous a sort of Christ like figure why is he an insect ? however I don’t think you can clearly say that either the family is selfish and mooching or gregor is denying his lack of purpose by patronizing his family. Were not really sure whose the needy one here, kaftka shrouds the truth. “his father had never said anything on the contrary and of course gregor had never asked.” Both parties could be blamed here his father didn’t lie but he didn’t tell the truth and gregor didn’t deny the truth but he didn’t question it . If kaftka wanted us to blame one over the other he would make either the father a liar or gregor a deniar. But I don’t think kaftka wants to really blame either of the parties because its not as simple as pointing a finger. I think he wants us to try to understand the complexities of their relationship and how they were all responsible and at the same time how their actions were understandable.

Im also wondering about the significance of the daughter and music why does gregor like this about her why did kaftka make her a musician and not lets say a prosective med school student? Music is something that requires passion it is an art and like most arts you have to struggle to survive its something that you may love very much but its not the easiest or most secure field to go into. I think it gives gregor hope that atleast he could give her the chance to live passionately and independently in a way he felt he could not do. He could do it but he doesn’t realize it because of either his need for purpose or his manipulative parents.