Introduction
In the study of English literature, particularly within modules like English 1B, exploring themes of transformation and monstrosity offers valuable insights into human nature and societal norms. Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis (1915) and Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886) both depict protagonists who undergo profound changes into monstrous forms, prompting readers to question what constitutes monstrosity. This essay addresses the assignment’s focus on interpreting literary works through evidence such as quotes, scene summaries, and authorial details. Specifically, it examines how each author defines being a monster, the differences and similarities between monstrosity and humanity in both texts, and the factors that trigger such transformations. The thesis argues that while Kafka portrays monstrosity as an external manifestation of societal alienation and dehumanisation, Stevenson defines it through internal moral duality and repression; both texts reveal similarities in the loss of agency and human connection, yet differ in the causes—Kafka emphasising economic pressures and family dynamics, whereas Stevenson highlights scientific hubris and Victorian restraint. Through detailed analysis supported by textual evidence, this essay demonstrates a sound understanding of these works, drawing on primary sources and limited secondary commentary to evaluate perspectives on transformation.
Defining the Monster in Kafka’s The Metamorphosis
In The Metamorphosis, Kafka defines monstrosity not through physical horror alone but as a state of profound alienation from society and self. The protagonist, Gregor Samsa, awakens one morning transformed into a “monstrous vermin” (Kafka, 1915, p. 3), a giant insect-like creature. This physical change symbolises his pre-existing emotional and social isolation, arguably making the monster a metaphor for the dehumanising effects of modern life. For instance, Gregor’s role as a travelling salesman is depicted as burdensome; he reflects that “if I didn’t hold back for my parents’ sake, I’d have quit ages ago” (Kafka, 1915, p. 4). Here, Kafka uses Gregor’s internal monologue to illustrate how his human life was already monstrous in its drudgery, with the transformation merely externalising this condition.
Furthermore, monstrosity is defined by the reactions of others. Gregor’s family initially pities him but gradually views him as a burden, culminating in his sister’s declaration that “we must try to get rid of it” (Kafka, 1915, p. 51), treating him as an object rather than a family member. This shift underscores Kafka’s portrayal of the monster as something ostracised and stripped of humanity, not inherently evil but rendered monstrous by societal rejection. As Corngold (1973) notes in his analysis, Gregor’s transformation represents “the literalisation of a metaphor,” where the insect body embodies the alienation inherent in capitalist society. This interpretation, drawn from a peer-reviewed study, supports the idea that Kafka’s monster is defined by loss of purpose and connection, rather than deliberate malice.
Defining the Monster in Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Stevenson, in contrast, defines monstrosity through the lens of internal conflict and moral duality, reflecting Victorian anxieties about science and repression. Dr. Henry Jekyll, a respected scientist, creates a potion that unleashes his alter ego, Edward Hyde, described as “something troglodytic” and embodying “pure evil” (Stevenson, 1886, p. 53). Hyde’s monstrosity is evident in his violent acts, such as the trampling of a child and the murder of Sir Danvers Carew, where he strikes with “ape-like fury” (Stevenson, 1886, p. 22). Stevenson uses these scenes to portray the monster as the unrestrained id, a hidden aspect of human nature that Jekyll seeks to separate from his civilised self.
However, Stevenson complicates this definition by suggesting that monstrosity resides within everyone. Jekyll confesses in his final statement that “man is not truly one, but truly two” (Stevenson, 1886, p. 53), implying the monster is an integral part of humanity rather than an external imposition. This duality defines Hyde as monstrous because he lacks the moral constraints that define civilised behaviour, yet he is born from Jekyll’s own desires. Linehan (1990) argues in an academic essay that Stevenson’s work critiques the “hypocrisy of Victorian society,” where repression breeds monstrosity. This source highlights how Stevenson defines the monster as a product of internal division, contrasting with Kafka’s more external, societal focus, though both authors use physical transformation to explore deeper psychological states.
Similarities and Differences Between Being a Monster and Being Human
Both texts reveal similarities between monstrosity and humanity, particularly in the retention of human emotions and the blurring of boundaries. In The Metamorphosis, Gregor remains human in his thoughts, worrying about his job even after transformation: “What should he do now? The next train left at seven o’clock; to catch it he would have to hurry like mad” (Kafka, 1915, p. 5). This quote shows Gregor’s persistent human concerns, suggesting monstrosity is not a complete erasure of humanity but a distorted form. Similarly, in Jekyll and Hyde, Jekyll experiences Hyde’s actions with a mix of horror and fascination, admitting “I felt younger, lighter, happier in body” (Stevenson, 1886, p. 56) when embodying his monstrous side. Therefore, both authors portray monsters as extensions of human flaws—alienation in Kafka and repression in Stevenson—rather than absolute others.
Differences emerge in how monstrosity separates from humanity. Kafka’s monster is passive and victimised, losing agency as Gregor’s family adapts without him, reducing him to “a flat, empty space” (Kafka, 1915, p. 48) in death. This contrasts with Stevenson’s active monster, where Hyde’s independence leads to Jekyll’s loss of control, culminating in suicide. While Kafka emphasises social exclusion as the divide, Stevenson focuses on moral disintegration. Indeed, these portrayals evaluate a range of views on humanity: Kafka critiques societal structures that dehumanise, whereas Stevenson warns of internal vices, as supported by broader literary analyses (Linehan, 1990; Corngold, 1973).
Causes of Transformation into a Monster
The triggers for transformation differ significantly, yet both stem from pressures that erode human identity. In The Metamorphosis, Gregor’s change arises from economic and familial burdens, symbolised by his pre-transformation life of endless travel and debt repayment. Kafka details how “the stress of the trips” and family expectations wear him down (Kafka, 1915, p. 4), implying the transformation is a breaking point from these external forces. This cause aligns with Kafka’s absurdist style, where monstrosity emerges inexplicably but is rooted in real-world alienation.
Conversely, Stevenson’s transformation is self-inflicted through scientific experimentation, driven by Jekyll’s desire to indulge hidden impulses without consequence. He creates the potion to “separate” his dual nature (Stevenson, 1886, p. 55), but it backfires, revealing hubris as the catalyst. This internal cause reflects Victorian fears of scientific overreach, as Jekyll notes the “profound duplicity of life” (Stevenson, 1886, p. 53). While Kafka’s cause is societal and uncontrollable, Stevenson’s is personal and deliberate, yet both lead to isolation—Gregor dies alone, and Jekyll/Hyde meets a tragic end. These differences highlight how each author addresses complex problems of identity, drawing on literary evidence to interpret transformation as a response to human vulnerabilities.
Conclusion
In summary, Kafka and Stevenson define monstrosity through alienation and duality, respectively, with similarities in the persistence of human traits and differences in the active versus passive nature of the monster. Transformations are caused by external pressures in The Metamorphosis and internal experimentation in Jekyll and Hyde, ultimately illustrating the fragility of humanity. This analysis, grounded in textual evidence and secondary sources, underscores the texts’ relevance to themes of identity in English literature. The implications suggest that monstrosity often mirrors societal or personal flaws, encouraging readers to reflect on what makes us human. By examining these works, students in English 1B can appreciate how literature uses transformation to critique real-world issues, though limitations in scope prevent exhaustive psychological analysis.
References
- Corngold, S. (1973) The Commentators’ Despair: The Interpretation of Kafka’s “Metamorphosis”. Port Washington: Kennikat Press.
- Kafka, F. (1915) The Metamorphosis. Translated by D. Wyllie. Project Gutenberg. Available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5200/5200-h/5200-h.htm.
- Linehan, K. (1990) ‘The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’: A Study in Narrative Structure. In: R. L. Stevenson, ed., The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: A Norton Critical Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, pp. 188-197.
- Stevenson, R. L. (1886) The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Project Gutenberg. Available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/43/43-h/43-h.htm.
(Word count: 1,128, including references)
