Vladimir nabokov argues that gregor, even in his insect form, is more human than his family: "gregor's dead, dry body is discovered the next morning by the charwoman and a great warm sense of relief permeates the insect world of his despicable family. Here is a point to be observed with care and love. Gregor is a human being in an insect's disguise; his family are insects disguised as people." do you agree that gregor is a sympathetic character and his family members deserve contempt? Support your opinion with at least two reasons and examples from the text.

One of the ironies that we find in the book "The Metamorphosis" by Kafka is that, while Gregor is the character that suffers the most and is most despised by his family throughout the book, he is actually the kindest and most sympathetic character in the story.

Gregor is a kind character who cares about the well-being of his family more than he cares about himself. He works very hard to give them a life that they can be happy with, even though he hates his job and his lifestyle. On the other hand, Gregor's family is extremely unkind, as they do not care about his unhappiness, or about adding more work to his life.

An example of how this is the case is the way Gregor's father behaves after Gregor's transformation. Gregor's father argued that he was too sick to work, which is why Gregor's family depended solely on him. However, after Gregor's transformation, we see that this was not the case. This implies that Gregor's father could always work, but he chose not to. Another example is the case of Gregor's sister. Even though Gregor was always kind and caring, she is unable to keep on loving him after his transformation. This shows that Gregor's family deserve contempt, and that he is a better person than all of them.

no,

explanation:

because they are likely to use their corrupted thought process to get what they want. not what is better for the another reason they shouldn't is since they abused their rights as a us citizen they should have certain rights stripped away from them as punishment, such as the right to vote. due to the lack of proper behavior exemplified   from their actions , it would be hard for people to trust them because of their criminal record.   either directly (in the case of a referendum or ballot initiative) or indirectly (by choosing lawmakers and law enforcers). in fact, we do have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws that we require people to meet before they are given a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. people who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don’t meet those standards. and those crimes can include such “non-violent felonies” as, say, treason and espionage, or voter fraud and public corruption, white-collar crime and felonies merely “concerning drugs” — like trafficking in fentanyl-laced heroin and selling it to minors, for example. if you’re not willing to follow the law, then you should not have a role in making the law for everyone else.

it should discride this whale so it shouldnt be that hard