Context Between Metamorphosis And Subsoil Memories

Context between metamorphosis and subsoil memories

For this first analysis, two literary works are taken into account: the metamorphosis of the German author Franz Kafka that achieves the publication in the year of 1915 and the book Memories of the subsoil published 1864 by the Russian Fiódor Mijáilovich Dostoevski. Once the above is commented, you can directly enter the work as such, since this time it will be the protagonist of the analysis, it means that the context or the direct relationship with the life of the authors will not be taken into account, as well asthe contexts in which they were.

To begin in a man, it becomes necessary to take into account the ideas and the main themes of formalism, and as the main point it has that the work itself is what gives meaning to history;The form and structure they have will be key to achieving an analysis from this point. In other words, the text will be the agent who asks the questions and it will be this same text that can answer them. Therefore it becomes important to visualize the internal structure.

One of the most important aspects and that despite the passage of time continues in force, is the term of literariness: that characteristic that makes a concrete work a literary work. It means that for a work to be considered literary as such, it must comply with certain nuances of literariness that can occur with various structures. On this occasion, it becomes important to identify the literary language that will lead to the deautomatization that is sought in the aforementioned works.

Speaking from a merely superficial structure, the work is first of the subsoil, divided into two parts. The first of them entitled "The Subsoil", where throughout eleven chapters a seemingly unknown protagonist begins a kind of monologue, while in the second part called "About the Aguanieve", with ten chapters a narrative begins about certainMEMORIES OF THE CHARACTER.

Then you have the book Metamorphosis, which is divided into three parts or also considered three major chapters that will give a very specific structure to the narrative and that later the great intertextuality relationship that is generated in the two works will be explained in the two works.

Taking into account now the aspect of structuralism according to the vision of Roland Barthes, this is a method of analysis that allows generating an order or relationship between a series of situations that are apparently not connected to each other. Therefore, its object of study is based on the analysis of the relationships that arise almost systematically. The structure becomes itself, an interdependence of elements that interact reciprocally.

Another of the authors that is taken into account, Vladimir Propp, from it certain concepts that are present in the two structures are rescued. For example, the actantial model: where the characters that appear seek to fulfill a specific structure, for that reason they are imposed a certain role within the story. In turn, the morphology of the narration is also rescued, an important point, since it gives the pattern of the classification of what is a novel and what poetry is, which although they can share characteristics do not belong to the same literary group. Finally, the function of outcome in the work, vital for the analysis by the simple fact of being able to identify similar closures, which although other stories are told, the road leads to where itself. Means that these constant values will be the actions and functions within any work, and that although the characters change, these will not change.

Starting with the first of ten points, you have to observe what the relationship between the title and the rest of the work is, for example with memoirs of the subsoil, the fact of having a marginalized character stands out that from an invisible place begins to rememberand to tell certain situations that marked him, which probably took him to where he is. With metamorphosis, the title offers a preamble of what will happen to the protagonist, since it is understood as metamorphosis to the transformation that certain animals experience in its development and that affects not only its form, but also its function andyour way of life.

What is the beginning? Obviously, the beginning of the two works is sharp, it is direct, it is cold. At the beginning of both works, they offer a hostile atmosphere, something gloomy in a certain way. In other words, they begin by touching a delicate and vital point for the rest of the work, and this is important because it is often believed that the meaning or purpose of the story is at the end, in this case the meaning is in all pages. Another point to highlight are the characters, first instance, the protagonists, two characters that are not the heroes of history, show the negative, the ignorance, the repulsive, show suffering to a certain point a certain victimization. While the secondary characters surrounding the stories, in both works they are irrational, uncontrollable, little cooperative characters, and at the same time they are reflected dehumanized, a nuance that the rest of the pages will have.

Now directing the view towards the narrators of the story, in one we have that it is the protagonist himself, telling it from his point of view, from his pain, from his misery;In the other there is an omniscient narrator because he knows what the characters are happening, he knows what they are feeling, he knows what they think, and thus presents the tragic story of Gregorio Samsa.

Regarding the theme of time, in the work of the author Dostoevski, an analepsis game is generated, since it begins by narrating in a present mode and then creates a retrospective scene and heads to tell things that had already happened. On the other hand, in Kafka’s work, the situation is shown in a linear way, counting part of what happens every day since it dawned into a monstrous insect.

What relationship is there then between the development and title of each work? Simply that the titles already offer premises, of what will happen, they are not ambiguous, nor do they give space to interpretations. They are direct and reflect in a few words the destiny of the narration, it is as if each title fulfilled its role of prophecy given by the oracle. It generates from the beginning, the dye that the story will have, and it is considered that it achieves it in the two books.

The spaces between history, and are considered to fulfill in a great role, since these spaces are full of philosophical and existentialism issues, are characteristics that define the two works, try to tell how the natural state of the natural state of thehuman being among its pages, as is that every day the character is forced to continue being what despises to the breakdown of its integrity. That in history it is reflected in the same outcome, since both are concluded tragically for the protagonists. And this mentioned above, it becomes fundamental, because now the works have an unexpected purpose, the protagonist is no longer saved, on the contrary, he ends up sinking into a misery impossible to fight, it is here where the role of the avant -garde also enters, whichThey arrive with the intention of breaking the rules, of changing the known, of returning or rather, of showing the wild of the characters, which at some point is only the mere reflection of humanity in which the inspiration was found, however it isA separate point, since it diverts from the structure.

Another point and perhaps the most important, is related to the intertextuality elements present in the work, it cannot be denied that Samsa’s character is greatly inspired by the role of the official that reflects his fragile and sickly personality. Create a kind of duplicity in the characters, which at some times contradict themselves, and this actually returns the work even more interesting. There are then two protagonists subjected, for something that goes beyond what they are, it is here that a deautomatization is also generated, since the characters are martyred not because of what they are, but for what they can no longer do. «[…] Feel that he had reached the last extreme;that although it was disgusting, it could not be otherwise;that I had no way out and that I could never become another man;that even, being enough time and faith to become something else, nor myself, probably, will already want to change […] ». The end is tragic for both characters, plunged into their own reality, a reality that ends them by destroying them.