Money in Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard” and Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis”

Introduction

In the contemporary society, scholars question the usefulness of the concept of money in the realms of wealth and riches in a bid to understand social justice and morality in human life. It is in this respect that studies seek to examine whether money should be the only measure of individual capability as far as measuring what people can do or not do is concerned. Despite the many notions about money in the modern society, it is apparently clear that wealth and poverty concerns create a social disconnect between individuals in a given society making it a key determinant in how people are viewed and judged. It is worth acknowledging that money brings about individual freedoms, relevance and justifies the way of living for many. This debate has attracted a number of scholars including literary playwrights, poets and novelists since time immemorial, who contribute in enriching the available literature on the significance of money in human life. The theme of money in a broad spectrum is depicted in both Chekhov’s “ The Cherry Orchard” and Kafka’s “ The Metamorphosis” whereby the authors discuss how money gives and deprives social relevance, human dignity, happiness and unity within family levels and societal heights. 

Brief summaries of both Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard” and Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis”

In a broad spectrum, Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard” describes the lives of a group of Russians during the emancipation of the Surfs. The play is centered on the lives of Madame Ranevsky, her family and neighbors. It is evident from the play that the family of Ranevsky is in humongous debts due to her extravagance and they in the verge of losing their estate because they are unable to pay for the debts, “Oh, my sins! I’ve always thrown my money away recklessly like a lunatic. I married a man who made nothing but debts...” (Chekhov, 2016, p. 28). Surprisingly, the estate is bought by Lopakhin who is a former peasant to the dismay of Ranevsky and her family marking the end of the sufferings for the Serfs a new start to life for all. Money, wealth and poverty attributes define the social statuses of individual characters in the play. On the other hand, Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis” describes the lives of a united family which stays together until the eldest son by the name Gregor Samsa is transformed into a big insect; a "monstrous vermin and rendered inactive to such an extent that he cannot attend to his roles and responsibilities at work (Kafka, 1915). Although Gregor never enjoyed working as a salesman, he was obliged to work because his entire extended family depended on his income. His transformation marks the end of a happy life and the family is affected by poverty because of lack of an alternative income. They begin to view Gregor Samsa as a burden to their family and even rejoice his death as almost all of them feel relieved. Just as it is in the Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard”, Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis” is centered on the cruel cycle of money and poverty.

Similarities between the economic situations both authors depict

In both, characters are doing everything to make money. Some are borrowing money, begging for it, planning to make more of it while others are working tirelessly to make money and become relevant in their respective societies. This is evident in Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis” whereby Gregor Samsa does everything in his disposal to work as a salesman in a bid to salvage his family from poverty although he dislikes the job, “‘O God,’ he thought, ‘what a demanding job I’ve chosen! … I have to deal with the problems of traveling, the worries about train connections, irregular bad food…To hell with it all!’” (Kafka, 1915, p. 4). When Gregor transforms into a big insect, his turn to borders to try and earn an income while his father finds a Job to satisfy the needs of the family. In Chekhov’s “ The Cherry Orchard” Ranevsky uses the family wealth in France where she squanders everything with his new-found lover after the death of her husband. She even goes an extra mile to incur huge debts which renders the family bankrupt. She later goes back home where she witnesses the auctioning of the family estate to pay for the debts. She renders the family hopeless and institute poverty in the family a fact that denies them the much enjoyed relevance and status in the society which is taken away by the Serfs after Lopakhin buys the estate ( Chekhov, 2016 ). All these efforts are meant to make money which is in a broad scale the medium of living whereby lack of it leads to misery and poverty while having it is a sign of alliance wealth and prosperity. 

In both, money brings happiness and individual respect within their respective societies. It is money which in both literary works brings families together. In Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis” , for the long that Gregor worked, he was a respected person both in the family and the society because of his contribution in making the lives of his family better (Kafka, 1915). However he is disregarded and disrespected when he is rendered useless by his transformation. The same happens in Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard” when the estate is sold every member of Ranevsky family goes their own way and the unity they initially had is taken away ( Chekhov, 2016 ). This is clear evidence that money is what defines individuals in the family level and in the societal level. 

In both, money contributes to the nightmare of bureaucracy and the dehumanizing effects of social class. Both authors depict how the wealthy in the society exploit the poor and the desperate. For instance, in Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard” , Lopakhin who is wealthy but a former peasant in that specific Russian society offers to lend Madame Ranevsky some funds to pay for her debts in a bid to save the estate but the unfortunate issue is that all this comes at a cost; the family should accept the subdivision of the estate to accommodate tourists which will involve cutting down the trees which literary symbolize the Serfs ( Chekhov, 2016 ). The most interesting aspect of this idea is that it was meant to clear the past memories of the sufferings experienced by the Serfs at the hands of Madame Ranevsky and others. In the Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis” a similar scenario occurs although to the negative extreme when the office manager who should be purportedly wealthy visits Gregor to threaten him of dire consequences if he fails to report to work without necessarily sympathizing with him for his undesirable transformation. It is worth acknowledging that in both incidences, it can be deduced that those who have money do not understand the challenges that affect the poor. 

Differences

There are key differences in both literary works which also revolve around the subject of money, wealth and poverty. In the Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard”, characters such as Madame Ranevsky accrue a lot of debts to cater for her needs and remain relevant in the society as far as money is concerned while in the Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis”, characters such as Gregor Samsa remain focused after their financial statuses change to struggle and make it in life. In the Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard”,, the idea of investment is paramount in a bid to fight poverty and pay the augmenting debts as the family strives to invest in real estate while in the Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis” the major source of money is employment which almost ends when Gregor’s changes from being human to an insect. Both works can be used comparatively to influence human beings to consider diversifying their sources of income to ensure that their social status remains even when one source of income fails to materialize. 

What can be said about the Modernist treatment of money? 

Although money is generally the focus of realist poetics, Kafka addresses it as well. It is apparently clear that there is a changing perspective about money which gives riches and wealth more significance that the attributes of ethics and morality. Many people in the modern world value money more than the general societal wellbeing. From both literary works, it can be deduced that the modernist treatment of money contributes to almost all the absurdities in life. Money forces Gregor to venture into working in career he is not interested in. It is money which forces the office manager to value official duties more that human suffering and it is money that makes Gregor’s family feel the burden of helping him through his challenging stint. This is clear representation of the absurdity which comes into human life when money is valued more than human life. However, money restores dignity and creates relevance. This is depicted through the life of Lopakhin who is a former peasant. His wealth helps buy the estate which included the Cherry Orchard and cuts down the trees to restore the dignity of the Serfs. 

Conclusion

In both “Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard” and Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis” it is precisely evident that money is the source of most immoralities in a quest to become or remain relevant in the society. Because she had money initially, Madame Ranevsky won the love his Lover in France where she squandered everything, “ Then last year, when the villa had to be sold to pay my debts, I left for Paris where he robbed me, deserted me and took up with another woman...” . It is also because of the love for money that Gregor’s family rejoices his death because they feel relieved of the responsibilities they had to take care of him. Conclusively, the modernist view of money creates an avenue where lack of money leads to poverty hence rendering once relevant and highly rated people in the society deprived off their status and alienated from the social spheres. 

References

Chekhov, A. (2016).  The cherry orchard: a comedy in four acts . Bloomsbury Publishing.

Kafka, F. (1915). The metamorphosis . A translation from the German by Ian Johnston, Malaspina University-College Nanaimo, BC.