becoming-animal, ultimately, to escape the system. Because of the always-underneath

triangles of power, the becoming-animal method of escape is not enough. They write,

 There is always the danger of the return of Oedipal force. The amplifying
 perverse usage of Oedipus is not sufficient to guard against every new
 closure, every new reconstitution of the familial triangle that takes over
 other triangles such as the animal lines .... [But] [w]e would say that the
 process of Gregor's deterritorialization through his becoming-animal finds
 itself blocked for a moment. Is it the fault of Gregor who doesn't dare go
 all the way? (14)

In other words, they construct the failure of Gregor's becoming-animal (from "The

Metamorphosis") to his unwillingness to become completely animal. His lack of

gumption, if you will, gives the familial triangle a way to reterritorialize him, a way to

pull him back. The becoming-animal, then, becomes an all-or-nothing trap. Once again,

Kafka's unwillingness to take Gregor far enough to escape the system draws direct lines

to the Expressionist movement, which was ambivalent about its revolutionary purpose

too.

 So how does the becoming-animal help us understand the Expressionist /

 Primitivist movements better? By looking at the movements through the becoming-

 animal, we can see new approach to a seemingly two-sided argument.