Dawkins didn’t mince his words when he tweeted his thoughts on The Metamorphosis
(Picture: Getty Images)Richard Dawkins is being ridiculed on Twitter for his opinion on literary classic, Franz Kafka’s novel, The Metamorphosis.
The 1915 fantasy fiction tells the story of a salesman, Gregor Samsa, who wakes one morning to find himself inexplicably transformed into a huge insect, and how Samsa adjusts to this condition.
It has received wide critical praise, with literary critics discussing the possible different interpretations of the plot.
However, evolutionary biologist, Dawkins tweeted his thoughts on the novel, and his review isn’t exactly glowing:
“Kafka’s Metamorphosis is called a major work of literature. Why? If it’s SF (science fiction) it’s bad SF.”
He also referenced George Orwell’s 1945 novel, Animal Farm, which equally received a bashing.
“If, like Animal Farm, it’s an allegory, an allegory of what? Scholarly answers range from pretentious Freudian to far-fetched feminist. I don’t get it. Where are the Emperor’s clothes?”
Kafka’s Metamorphosis is called a major work of literature. Why? If it’s SF it’s bad SF. If, like Animal Farm, it’s an allegory, an allegory of what? Scholarly answers range from pretentious Freudian to far-fetched feminist. I don’t get it. Where are the Emperor’s clothes?
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) June 5, 2021
Of course, Twitter wasn’t going to let Dawkins get away with this terrible literary hot take.
Someone responded Dawkins’ bizarre rant with a witty Metamorphisis joke.
Sounds like it really bugs you
— Hannah Jane Parkinson (@ladyhaja) June 5, 2021
While one person hilariously recommended a series more suited to Dawkins’ understanding of literature - the book series, Animorphs aimed at 8-12-year-olds.
Hi Richard, I'm a Literature PhD student and to really understand The Metamorphosis, you have to also read the entire series of Animorphs
— hk (@HKesvani) June 5, 2021
Another, also mocked Dawkins’ literary knowledge with a funny meme where the scientist questions how novels work.
Richard Dawkins, asking the questions of primary school children everywhere. pic.twitter.com/6QK1gIlrHE
— Matthew Sheffield (@mattsheffield) June 5, 2021
It appears that Dawkins is unaware that both The Metamorphosis and Animal Farm are not in fact science fiction novels.
The Metamorphosis is magical realism, while Animal Farm is a dystopian, political satire.
Fans of the novel were quick to point out this mistake to Dawkins.
Just imagine Richard Dawkins reading the first 30 pages of The Metamorphosis under the insane assumption it was science fiction. https://t.co/lVgenr8035
— Shalyn Claggett (@BadVictorianist) June 5, 2021
As Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis was opened one morning, it found itself transformed in Richard Dawkins' mind into a science fiction novel.
— Pickle Horse-Man, Ecumenical Meta-Heresiologist (@picklehomer) June 5, 2021
Metamorphosis was published in 1915. Most of the grand masters of science fiction hadn't even been born yet: Clarke (1917), Asimov (1920), Bradbury (1920), Anderson (1926), Le Guinn (1929), etc. Robert Heinlein was alive, but eight years old. So what are you comparing it to??
— dr J.T. Burman 🎓 (@BurmanPhD) June 5, 2021
I've read thousands of SF/ Fantasy books over the years and I would never have classified Kafka's metamorphosis as Science Fiction.
— No unity without accountability (@TheTruePooka) June 6, 2021
That's really strange that you think it is.
Elsewhere, people ridiculed Dawkins’ notion of what makes good literature.
the novella should have had a last page where it explained everything and broke it down in very simple black and white terms. to me this is what good literature is
— Wild Geerters (@classiclib3ral) June 5, 2021
For somebody, who is supposedly intelligent and well educated, you are mindbogglingly stupid
— Thony Christie (@rmathematicus) June 5, 2021
That’s an oddly utilitarian approach to art. What is the “purpose” of Romeo and Juliet - to teach about the dangers of drinking nightshade?
— FactsMatter (@davidgaliel) June 5, 2021
You might as well dismiss a tulip’s beauty because it is less efficient at attracting hummingbirds.
Nobody:
— The Flight of Thiccarus (@TheLotusYeeter) June 5, 2021
Richard Dawkins: if a story has more room for interpretation than a literal children's book, it's bad
Others noted that Dawkins seems to be filling the void Naomi Wolf left on Twitter, after she was banned for spreading myths about the pandemic.
Are you trying to fill the Naomi-Wolf-shaped hole in our collective twitter heart?
— Tabitha McIntosh (@TabitaSurge) June 5, 2021
I'm not saying that Richard Dawkins is gearing up to fill the void Naomi Wolf's ban has just created but I honestly wouldn't be fucking surprised, especially after the Kafka nonsense.
— Phil Hare's Ghost 💙🖤 (@PhilHaresGhost) June 6, 2021
With Naomi Wolf gone from Twitter, Richard Dawkins has stepped up to fill the “dumb public intellectual”-shaped hole she left behind.
— Paula Matzke (@PaulaMatzke) June 5, 2021
It’s very thoughtful of Richard Dawkins to step again into the role of Twitter Main Character, just when the moderators had taken Naomi Wolf away from us
— Alex von Tunzelmann (@alexvtunzelmann) June 5, 2021
Many concluded that Dawkins’ unpopular opinion is the reason that STEM students should also study literature too.
Richard Dawkins shredding literature is actual living proof of why STEM-only education is a bad idea, children.
— Angela, your Tampa Bae. ⚡ (@bitchyhistory) June 5, 2021
Richard Dawkins consistently serves as an excellent reminder of the need for people studying STEM subjects to have done at least one humanities class before they graduate pic.twitter.com/FPd7Y5zbI2
— dr alex (@thermoflynamics) June 6, 2021
you're a living example of why stem students should be forced to study humanities
— Izzy🏳️🌈🌹 (@bobothefooel) June 6, 2021
richard dawkins tweet asking about bare bones basics of literature is a grim reminder that STEM people really need to take humanities classes honestly
— sam 🌹 (@skull_moss) June 5, 2021
STEM brain can affect anyone. If you or someone you know is suffering from STEM brain, consider talking to an arts or humanities graduate and perhaps visit a gallery or something.
— hides his eyes (@AlexBro97829019) June 5, 2021
Maybe, Dawkins should stick to science, rather than sharing his odd literary reviews.
