Term Paper: the Trial

John Hoffman

World Literature, Period 2

April 26, 2012

As history repeats itself, it gradually reveals bewildering aspects of the human condition. The fall of emperors, Pharos, and Kings sprouted the seeds for the upcoming generation of following dictatorships. It's a predictable circle that is unstoppable because of human nature's thirst for power. Franz Kafka, author of The Trial, noticed countless similar trends in human nature and intertwined the ideas in to the themes of his books. In The Trial, an oppressive government plays an antagonist role in gloomy European city fighting against Joseph K., the protagonist, for he symbolizes certain aspects of human nature that cannot coexist with such a government. For the first time Joseph K. has to succumb to the power of another; this unpreventable shift of sovereignty reveals Josephs helplessness and overwhelming madness.
            Kafka's was born and lived for many years in the city of Prague. Through the years of 1883 to 1924, Kafka’s life, Prague bared suffered. Until the year 1918 the city of Prague was under the Austro-Hungarian Empire which suits the unique setting in the novel. Joseph is a manager of a bank and it is blatant that he is well off and a successful man. Through the trial he seems to have supporters and family with power to contribute in this case. This leads to the assumption that throughout his life he has had power, control. The opening scene of the novel sparks the fire the Joseph K. never broke free from. Joseph was arrested for unknown reasons, by unknown people and his fate undecided (unknown). “He realized at once that he shouldn't have spoken aloud, and that by doing so he had, in a sense, acknowledged the stranger's right to oversee his actions (Kafka, 1)”. Already it is seen that in this era life’s are being watched and sentences a phrased for safety. K is in disbelief that this could happen. He is not told who would do this and it is so absurd that he believes it to be a joke, yet the bigger part of the quote is how K is disappointed because he allowed the other man power. The frustration and anger portrayed in his reactions only show how more and more he is becoming mad with just such little rebellion.

The ending of the novel is a mystery to all. Joseph’s actions are suicidal. Suicide because he was mad and the madness started the day of his arrest. Being the wealthy man that he is he worked hard at the bank. The majority of K’s life revolves around the success of the bank. “But instead of working, he … without being aware of it, left his arm outstretched on the desktop and remained sitting motionless with bowed head (Kafka, 112)”. The trial has now become an obsession. This obsession restrains him from working successfully and edges him further on a path of insanity. Thought out the novel K’s rival is the assistant manager at the bank because K feels threatened by him. With K being busy with the trial and having a wondering mind it is clear that K needs time off and the assistant manager seems to be the only replacement. The fact that K. is sent off to do easy work out of the office such as accompanying a client through the city is unbearable for him. Ordered out of the office, leaving important clients waiting and left to be dealt with his nemesis at work is piled on to K to a point where he cannot handle any more. For a power hungry man to be stripped from all the control he has in the matter of months will devastate anyone.

In every time period there are the romantics that are driven mad because of love. In other cases the loves drives men mad. The dual companionship between two people means the sharing of power. It is obvious that Joseph’s characteristics prevent him from this task. In this unfinished novel Joseph has his unfinished relationship (affair) with Fraulin Burstner. Burstner leaving with no explanation, which appears to be a repeating theme, enraged Joseph. He comes home and she is not there. He frustration is seen when he repeatedly tries to contact her and waits up for her but no sign. Later finding out that she thought it would be best to end it this way. Though K and Burstner play mind bobbling games as shown when “K. … rushed out, seized her, kissed her on the mouth, then all over her face, like a thirsty animal lapping greedily at a spring it had found at last (Kafka, 176). These situations when Burstner allows Joseph to take control to have the power he ultimately desires only toils with him more for when she snaps back in to reality and takes back what is rightfully hers he doesn’t understand. Joseph believes he should have all the control in every situation and for the most part he has but when taken away along goes his sanity.

Uniforms are forced upon countless people. It is believed that they keep control, order and express superiority while suppressing creativity. Schools, businesses, and even the government officials wear uniform. The uniforms seem to keep people in control, containing rebellion while riding of creative (antagonizing) ideas. In the corrupt government in The Trial, all of the members of the court not only wore uniforms but also had a symbol that joseph noticed. Joseph thinking has figure out there secret and master plan realizing that they are a group of corrupt official fails to understand that he desires to be a part of them. Noticing there power because of what he has been through he wants what they have. He wants a uniform and a symbol of his own. He wants power. “You can't defend yourself against this court, all you can do is confess. Confess the first chance you get. That's the only chance you have to escape, the only one. However, even that is impossible without help from others, but you needn't worry about that, I'll help you myself (Kafka, 97)” Joseph is unable to defend himself because there is no one to defend himself to. When he speaks he is not being listened to but judged instead. There is nothing to benefit him there is only that can hurt his case.

The novel The Trial is interlocked with eerie settings, buildings, and even the people themselves. In several different occasions Joseph finds himself in the government buildings, and each time has its own peculiar reaction. He seems to fall ill or hurt his case in some way. In the example when he follows the one official in the beginning of the novel to the offices in the attic he becomes so weak and helpless that he is escorted out by the help of the officials. This is the ultimate sign of weakness when it is of the graciousness of the enemy to help oneself. Joseph aware of this tries with all his might to do what he can on his own but the offices are a black hole to Josephs power. For a second incident when he sees the painter of the portraits he leaves his place through the back attics in which the air is so thick he falls ill again. This is a clear representation of what the court is doing to Joseph. The courts take him down and drive him mad.  When Joseph visits the lawyer with the help of his uncle, his in once again placed amongst others in a room that he fails to think and wonders off for hours with the lawyers mistress. These actions are detrimental to his case and is obvious that he should have not done what he had done but yet he fails to realize that and has to be shunned by his uncle. He loses his power to his family and is criticized like a child to a childish affair he started.

It is in every human to make mistakes. In Josephs case his poor choices become more than mistakes. It becomes sabotage. Joseph realizes the loss of control and power and it appears that he dwindles down to reality that he cannot live without it. ‘Try to realize that this vast judicial organism remains, so to speak, in a state of eternal equilibrium, and that if you change something on your own where you are, you can cut the ground out from under your own feel and fall, while the vast organism easily compensates for the minor disturbance at some other spot – after all, everything is interconnected – and remains unchanged, if not, which is likely, even more resolute, more vigilant, more severe, more malicious (Kafka, 112). Joseph faces the fact that this is out of his control. There is a society and for once he has met a force that he cannot beat. He goes out of his way to fire his lawyer who is doing all that he can to slow down his verdict (which is all one can do) which Joseph is aware of but he is not satisfied. He wants for the end to come. He wants to face his maker and finally accept his fate because living in this helpless state isn’t living at all for him.                    

            Facing defeat can be the hardest thing for a man. To accept and understand what is to come can be unbearable and especially when unpreventable. "Both methods have this in common: they prevent the accused from being convicted." "But they also prevent an actual acquittal," said K. softly, as if ashamed of the realization (Kafka, 169). K understands that there is not chance of being released form the charges that are brought against him because he does not even know what the charges are. He is still in the same place he was in the beginning. While the court has come closer and closer to their verdict Joseph has gone nowhere. Even block for states it when he says that every ones facial expressions says their own verdict and Josephs face says GUILTY. When talking to block they talk about “Great Lawyers” and how they are a “dream”. These lawyers are the ones that can get a man off a case but these “great Lawyers” are inaccessible because they don’t exhist.

            To conclude this case Joseph is to be found guilty. Joseph without being heard a verdict knows he is to be found guilty. Through the process of this trail Joseph has changed. By then end of his case he has accepted his fate and not only that but agrees with it. As the two man carry Joseph away his struggle is that of a show. He doesn’t want to accept his defeat but knows there is no other choice. He doesn’t want to be portrayed as a failure but when the opportunity comes to escape with the police officer he leads the chase the opposite was. Not seizing the opportunity settles the case. He is to be stabbed for what he has done and accepts this because there isn’t anything more he could want than to be the head of this corrupt government. To control his to be killed and who is to live is the power of god. The ultimate power. Josephs ultimate goal.

Works Cited

Kafka, Franz. The trial. Definitive ed. New York: Knopf, 19571956. Print.

"The Trial Justice and Judgment Quotes Page 3." Shmoop: Homework Help, Teacher Resources, Test Prep. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2012. <http://www.shmoop.com/the-trial-kafka/justice-judgment-quotes-3.html>.

MLA formatting by BibMe.org.

My Paper

Shelby Wolofsky

Mr. Shapiro

World Literature H

25 March 2012

Kafka’s Trial: A Criticism of Society and Punishment

Kafka’s The Trial is a psychological account of a man who is accused and arrested for an unknown offense. This book takes the reader through a series of events that slowly take away all of his personal rights and his actual existence. Kafka was born during the late 1800’s in Prague Germany in a traditional and conventional Jewish household (qtd. in Kafka vii). As a modernist, Kafka was very cynical about the government and the legal system after WWI (Shmoop editorial team). When he wrote The Trial he dealt with the darker side of humanity battling an untouchable totalitarian court. Many of the characters portrayed throughout the story parallel his personal life. His domineering father and his emotionally withdrawn mother caused problems for him throughout his childhood (qtd. in Kafka viii). Many of his inner thoughts were taken from letters and diaries because he desired solitude and was not open with his emotions. The Trial exposes the psychological effect of being arrested and accused for an unknown crime and paradoxically creates Joseph K’s, the protagonists; own personal self-destruction revealing Kafka’s criticism about society and punishment.  

 Kafka’s protagonist in The Trial becomes part of the negative side of humanity thus fulfilling the prophecy of an innocent man being drawn into being what society wants him to be. There is a whole psychological effect of punishment where a person entering the legal system becomes what they are accused of. In The Trial Joseph K. slowly becomes corrupt, violent, and amoral. Before he entered the court K was a very successful man who enjoyed what he did, he held a high position at a bank, and was extremely motivated. When he was arrested he becomes desperate and obsessed with trying to prove himself innocent. As a result of K. becoming obsessed with his trial he becomes aggressive and frustrated. The reader is unclear as to K’s psychological state as shown when he causes fear and a screaming response from another defendant that he meets. K. Grabs a man’s arm when he wants him to believe that he is innocent and, “ the man cried out as if K touched his arm not with two fingers but with red hot pincers.” (Kafka 51). K’s reaction to the man’s screaming is to push him down on the bench and become even more aggressive in his behavior trying to prove his innocence. K has now become a loud and violent man. In addition, as part of a way to deal his terrible fate and avoid thinking about his trial, K sleeps with the women of the court. K sleeps with his defense lawyers nurse, the court ushers wife, and Fraulein Burstner who is a tenant in his lodging house. As K. becomes more desperate, his behavior becomes more distracted.

The book The Trial deals with issues of guilt, lack of responsibility, and conformity in society. It is interesting that this novel was written before WWII and Nazi Germany. It is as if Kafka predicted the future for the German society during WWII.  When K gets arrested in the beginning of the book and is agitated and clueless as to his charge, the guard’s response is interesting because he openly acknowledges that he is blindly following orders and doing his job to get paid, “We are minor officials who hardly know what proof of identity looks like, and have nothing to do with your case apart from standing guard ten hours a day in your apartment and getting paid for it. That’s all we are but we are still able to understand that.”(Kafka 8). It is interesting the guards are comfortable with being minor guards and do not care that they do not understand the whole picture of what is happening to K. who they are arresting. They are happy with being given orders even though they do not realize that the punishment is going to be death. Kafka criticizes modern society’s view of the court system and its way of persecuting people. The guards show lack of responsibility because they are just taking orders and do not care about the outcome just as the German guards in WWII took orders to exterminate thousands of individuals who were German citizens and like K. did not know why they were even being persecuted.

As part of K’s psychological reality, K. never quiet knows if the arrest is a joke and whether or not he should take it seriously. At first K. thinks the guards are actors and therefore makes a bad decision to behave very dramatically when he is being arrested. Because he feels that this trial is somewhat of a mockery he gradually gets himself in a hole, this is part of the concept of self-destruction. K. gets involved in defiant speeches during his initial inquiry. In addition there is an unrealistic almost comic situation when K.  Examines the magistrate law books and finds out that they are actually pornographic novels. The prison chaplain refuses to council him personally about the case and is more interested in his stories than about K. This absurd situation continues to put him at psychological disadvantage where his behavior is inappropriate for the seriousness of his crime. He is not taking the reality of life seriously. Even at the end when he is going to be executed he refers to the executioners as supporting actors. K. becomes paranoid that the court is everywhere watching every move that he makes, which makes K. confused because no one is willing to really take up his case and he is not even sure if the whole situation is real.

The arrest of K. gives the reader a better understanding of how the court system is confusing and illogical. K. is never properly given any options for his trial. He is told without discussion that he is being arrested, and all he is getting is a lawyer who works at the court house. Because the law is so abstract no one is clear as to what the law even means. Therefore the court interprets the law and the court is made up of corrupt judges and clueless guards. Because humans are running the system they are able to corrupt the law to their own preferences. Society cannot run without the courts and the courts depend on the law but yet when the courts are corrupt than society becomes dysfunctional.  What’s even more absurd in The Trial is that even though K. is being “arrested” he is told to carry on with his normal routine of life, “you’ve misunderstood me; you’re under arrest, certainly, but that is not meant to keep you from caring on your profession. Nor are you to hindered in the course of your ordinary life” (Kafka 14). He will not be thrown in jail or prison because the law is so powerful that it extends throughout society, making society a prison. K. becomes psychologically imprisoned without actually being in prison. Even though K is not given any options for his trial, he still ends up choosing the direction his life will go, “from start to finish, K., like the Rabbis' Balaam, is "led down the path he chooses to tread”( Lasine 35). Not fully believing the severity of his situation, when K has to choose between life and death he picks the wrong path and ends up being executed.  

K. lives in a society where success and individualization is nonexistent. The society that K. is accustomed to is an impoverished society that does not take care of the citizens. The society that K. lives in has a huge gap between the way the wealthy and the poor live. K. is part of the elite as a banker. When he becomes charged at court by people he thinks of as inferior, he “realized that this was the first clear defeat he had suffered at the hands of these people. Of course there were no reasons to let that worry him; he had suffered defeat only because he had sought to do battle. “If he stayed home and led his normal life he was infinitely superior to any of these people, and could kick any one of them out of his path” (kafka 42). Kafka uses K’s elitism to show the power of the masses and those he considers inferior to him to actually punish and kill him. It is his thinking that these people are not important that ends up being self-destructive. Kafka criticizes society by using those that were inferior to without real cause execute a man of higher social status.

The Trial exposes the psychological effect of being arrested and being accused for an unknown crime. It paradoxically creates Joseph K’s own personal self-destruction revealing Kafka’s criticism about society and punishment. It is interesting to note that the protagonist name is Joseph K. and often referred to in the book as K. which is Kafka’s last name. Was Kafka’s issue of guilt and responsibility something that he himself struggled with? In addition many of the characters in this book go through issues of guilt because of their conformity to society. The guards conform to how they are told to act and have a total lack of responsibility or knowledge when it comes to arresting the people who are being tried. Even the way in which K. is arrested gives him the opportunity to act in a way that makes his trial appear unreal or like a joke. Because K. is never put in jail until the end of the book, and is allowed to resume his everyday activity, he never really believes that he has been arrested nor does he know what charge he is accused of committing. The reader also gets this unreal and comical feel with K’s arrest and does not realize the seriousness of K’s behavior until the end when he executed. Throughout the book Kafka exposes a corrupt and illogical court system that displays power without accountability. The law that the citizens like K. are expected to abide by is so abstract, no one knows how to act. This lack of communication allows for corruption among the citizens. Because the average citizen is being told how to act individual thought is not allowed. This story is a great lesson in corrupt and repressive political power that ended up happening during WWII in Nazi Germany ironically to Jews like Franz Kafka.

my paper

The majority of dominant religious institutions found in the modern world have little in common with what they were originally intended to be.  Ironically enough, nearly all of these modifications made over time were influenced by corruption from the followers themselves.  This concept extends far beyond just religious tradition, however.  After meaningful examination, one can see that there is actually a plethora of incongruity between several aspects of human nature, surpassing those that deal strictly with religion.

Twentieth century German author Franz Kafka was considerably familiar with this theme and utilized the idea in several of his novels.  One of his narratives in particular, The Trial, bares quite a repertoire of his thoughts that illustrate what happens when the institutions of church, society, and state cross paths.  Kafka understood this idea so clearly that he passionately criticizes divine authority and human imitation for conflicting each other on several accounts.  In The Trial specifically, examples of his understanding are abundantly found within the thoughts and actions of the outstandingly ordinary main character, Joseph K.  Kafka’s choice to utilize a main character that holds an average occupation and a run of the mill lifestyle enables the book to be universally applicable.  His use of a broadly germane main character also implies his thoughts regarding society as a whole; he felt that society is nearly incapable of seeing all of these major incongruities of human existence, and if one does understand (specifically in case of Joseph K.), it is almost always too late in the process to rescue oneself.

Kafka’s primary route for showing the inconsistencies in human existence deal with governmental procedures and the paradoxes that transpire when compared to the basis upon which they were built.  Joseph K., who is simply referred to as “K.” throughout the novel, is charged, put on trial, convicted, and eventually sentenced to death, all for reasons never revealed to him.  K. is initially skeptical and plans to battle in court with his lawyer of an uncle, but after extensive discouragement from almost everyone he encounters, he loses hope.  One character in particular, Titorelli the painter, dejects K. so much so that he causes him to rethink his whole case.  The painter tells him:

Judges on the lowest level, and those are the only ones I know, don’t have the power to grant a final acquittal, that power resides only in the highest court, which is totally inaccessible to you and me and everyone else.  We don’t want to know what things look like up there, and incidentally, we don’t want to know.  (Kafka, 167)

Not long after his discussion with Titorelli, K. wholeheartedly entrusts his life in the hands of authority, convinced he has actually done something to deserve his conviction.  He no longer attempts to fight his court-ordered sentence and relinquishes his life. 

His willingness to allow the government to do whatever they please with his inalienable rights as a human being – and, had the novel taken place in the United States, his Sixth Amendment rights as well – seems to parallel a man who is surrendering his life on behalf of a greater being; a man who is leaving his life in the hands of God.  Incongruously, however, the hands in which he leaves his life are in no way holy or mighty; he instead leaves his life in the hands of corruption and distortion.

The outstanding irony here is basically that the government’s job is to create and enforce just and appropriate laws.  If they fail to do so, it is up to the people of that region to take the necessary action to appeal those laws or to even overthrow that government if the case calls for it.  Though it claims to be working with the interest of God at its core – “In God We Trust”, the authority in The Trial is in no way carrying out any divine duties.  The government in this novel shows no mercy or compliance to even listen to the testimony of one of its citizens, going along with typical procedure of countries today.

K.’s death sentence is another illustration of this idea.  Though it is still an aspect of many cultures throughout plenty of countries including the United States of America, ironically it is completely against the religious and moralistic foundations of practically all current establishments.  And even as citizens of most nations are increasingly voicing opinions in objection to this fateful sentence, it seems to stand the test of time and continues to be a means of punishment in various civilizations, including the once-Catholic Germany, where the book originated.

Another interesting paradox lies physically within the words themselves.  Each time Kafka refers to the law, he capitalizes the L to write “Law”.  This is similar to the fact that the Bible receives a capital letter; both fall under the category of important legislation for human guidance.  Additionally, as seen above, Titorelli the painter even refers to the location of the higher courts as being “up there”, corresponding to Heaven.  Kafka uses both of these techniques in efforts to depict a broadly significant issue people face today: national authorities constantly overstepping their boundaries and acting in an all-encompassing manner, almost as though they can do whatever they please.

Kafka shows the reader several struggles where a helpless man is fighting against an unspecified law and an unjust government, and naturally the reader feels irritation or maybe as though the book is entirely fiction.  Sadly, though, this sort of thing happens all the time in the real world.  Millions of people have unjustly died in the past, domestic examples including the Salem Witch Trials during the seventeenth century and the McCarthy Trials that occurred a mere sixty years ago.  It was years after both of those instances that the American people finally realized the severity of the injustice that took place.  These cases will not cease as humans continue to avoid taking action against the injustice that is happening in their respective governments, and Kafka strongly recognizes that fact in this profound novel.

Kafka draws further contrast in The Trial relating to this theme of incongruity within the human society when he discusses the two institutions of society and the state.  Rather than design a society where average citizens can achieve the same status in court and equality in general, the reader initially feels as though Kafka has created a society of inequality.  The fact of the matter is, however, that these situations are actually incredibly realistic; Kafka did not make it up.  Though everyone is supposed to be equally represented in court, rarely does this occur.  If K. had held a more lucrative stance in society, the outcome of his trial would be entirely different – most definitely to the point where K. would not be sentenced to death.

Kafka also criticizes society for its constant modernization that resultantly seems to ignore the middle class, and by utilizing a universally applicable main character, the majority of readers can relate to his words.  He also shows the reader, however, that the majority of the people that are taken advantage of do not care to notice the inequality that truly exists between the classes.  One character that illustrates this idea particularly well is Frau Gruber, Joseph K.’s landlady.  When K. informs her of his situation, she responds by saying:

You’re under arrest all right, but not the way a thief would be.  If you’re arrested like a thief, that’s bad, but this arrest – no.  It seems like something scholarly, I’m sorry if that sounds stupid, but it seems like something scholarly that I don’t understand, but that I don’t need to understand either. (Kafka, 47)

Frau Gruber fills the position of the textbook stereotype of a lower-class citizen who pays no attention to the injustice that takes place in her government.  She makes absolutely no attempt to understand, declaring that the case is above her level of knowledge, and clearly has already decided that, like many, she has faith in the government.  K., on the other hand, is the complete opposite.  He contests all the way throughout the novel to right before the end to comprehend his case and find answers.  By showing two extremes of society, one could say that Kafka’s intent is to show the depressingly inactive, lackadaisical, and apathetic medium of the always modernizing society.

Throughout his lifetime, this author made it a point to enlighten as many uninformed people as he could about the injustices that occur on a day-to-day basis.  His novel, The Trial, is his primary route for doing so.  These patterns of incongruity continue throughout the entire novel, where Kafka also makes minor references to contradictions between the institutions of religion and society.  He makes even more of a mention concerning the seemingly large increase of totalitarianism in governments that are authority in the present day.  In opposition to what many critics have claimed in the past, The Trial does not only refer to Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Communist Soviet Union; it was designed to pass judgment on all of the governments in existence.

The original text, entitled Der Prozess, presages both “trial” as well as “process”.  This creates a sort of feeling of lunacy for the reader, especially when he finds that the inevitable is inescapable for Joseph K.  Kafka’s aptitude for creating a lasting impression – one that describes a positively unbeatable authority – in addition to his skill for slowly releasing information to the reader makes the outcome that much more interesting.  He creates such an internal frenzy in the mind of Joseph K. that it makes the reader start to examine the rest of the institutions of his own life, realizing especially the injustices that essentially occur on a day-by-day basis.

Thesis

So for my turn paper I decided to write that Joseph for what ever reasons ( which I'll discuss in the paper) wanted to be apart of the magistrate or do called court. Not so much wanted to be a part of the court but believed that the court was right. Throughout the novel Joseph Harley fights or puts any effort in to his case and appears to be sabotaging his own defense. What do you guys think? Only positive criticism!

All I have............

How do you guys feel about this so far?

The majority of dominant religious institutions found in our modern world have very little in common with what they were originally intended to be. Ironically enough, nearly all of these modifications made over time were influenced by corruption from the followers themselves. This concept tends to confuse people, especially those who were strictly raised to wholeheartedly follow a religion, and can often lead to one’s self-contradiction of his or her original beliefs. 20^th Century German author Franz Kafka was extremely familiar with this idea and wrote about it in many of his novels. One of his narratives in particular, The Trial, bares an extensive repertoire of his thoughts that describe what happens when the institutions of religion and humanism cross paths. Kafka’s constant focus of criticizing both divine authority and the human institution for contradicting each other suggest that perhaps he himself had a struggle with his own personal enlightenment.

Themes???

I have no idea what theme to use for my paper..

Do you guys have any thoughts for yours?

I guess I could address some of the unfair parts about government.... just an idea.

Seriously though.. respond to this. Idk what to write my thesis about

The End

After finishing the book I can honestly say I did not like it. Continuing on what Graham said, In what do people get executed with out knowing what they did wrong.

Oh, also... What was the climax of this? When he hired his uncle as a lawyer? If that was it, then it was pretty weak - didn't catch my interest at all. Or maybe the climax was when the two men came to get him.. but can a climax be at the end? ahhhh I'm confused.

I will admit one thing that I liked about it: the courtesy that the two gentlemen show towards K. when they're taking him to the execution. It makes the execution itself all the more creepy and gruesome. The fact that the two gentlemen were actually even able to take him to his death with such kind-heartedness is amazing to me... it's pretty wild if you think about it.

And not only that, but there were so many pointless characters... Like Huld? All the random women he becomes "involved" with?

Utterly dissatisfied

Ok guys, I just finished the book finally.

These are basically my initial thoughts:

HOW THE HELL IS THIS BOOK FAIR! In what world is someone killed with no reasoning behind it????? I mean I originally didn't really like the book.. but now I really don't like it. If the book is trying to criticize our modern system of government or something.... it's not succeeding. I'm pissed.

Themes

So after reading the story I have thought of some ideas about the themes.

1. Power- K. doesn't really have a say it is all what the court says, totalitarian government.

2. Justice- the legal system and how it works is very corrupt

3. sex- he sleeps with a lot of women who are affiliated with the court

4. isolation- K. seems very isolated and alone most of the time.

I have thought about all of these topics and the two that makes the most sense to me is Justice, and isolation.

the end

okay! is it just me or did the ending of the book piss anyone else off. I really dont want to spoil the ending for everyone so I am going to wait to comment on it. so tell me when you guys are done so we can talk about it.

In the Cathedral

I find it pretty interesting that even though K. is on trial he is still allowed to keep his job. when he is asked to give a tour around the city to these two italian guys he is not so thrilled. he end up working his but off over night to learn some italian to come to work the next day and not even understand what these two guys are saying. I felt really bad when they didnt even show up at the cathedral for their appointment. While K. is in the cathedral he runs into a preist who warns him that his trial is really not going well. I feel so bad for K. I just feel like he should know what he has done and that he should know what is going to happen to him.

Block the Merchant, Dismissal of the Lawyer

I really enjoyed this chapter. I felt that this chapter gave more depth into the trial. we see that Huld has many other clients and that he is very lazy when it comes to informing his clients. he can go days without telling his clients anything. If I had Huld as my lawyer I would freak out. I feel really bad for block he is just informed that his trial hasn't even begun yet. after all this time, nothing has begun. I also find it pretty funny how Leni is having an affair with both of Hulds clients.

I cant wait to finish the book and see what happens with K's outcome!.

The Whipper

Hey Shelby, I have not reached your point in the book yet but I am catching up. I just finished the Whipper which was an interesting chapter. Not much happened besides K. running in two the Whipper punishing the two man twice. K. constantly makes up excuses for his actions of not being able to save the two man but in reality he sounded as if he was afraid of the whole situation. It seems as if K. is getting himself more and more caught up in the situation by not allowing the clerks to run in and see what is happening for themselves. K fears everything. What did you guys think?

lawyer/manufacture/painter

This chapter was very interesting. I fell really bad for K because it seems as if his trial is getting absolutely nowhere. he feels that it would be getting somewhere if he took matters into his own hands, i agree with that but i do not see how that is possible.

I did not fully understand how this titorelli guy gets in the picture, or how he is supposed to help K. Just because he paints portraits of the judges dosent necessarily mean that he knows what is going on with K's trial.

I am really looking forward to reading the end of this book!

End

So I just started reading the last chapters of the book and I am excited to finish.

Not pleased

So I'm pretty dissappointed so far by the book. Everything always remains so unclear. It's past the point of suspense, at least for me, it just seems dragged out. I don't know if this makes sense but I feel like all the characters we are being introduced to are just distracting. Some of them aren't relevant to the trial and when the book goes in to detail about them I get frustrated that it's a waste of time.

Ok, I think I thought of a possible theme. Throughout the past couple chapters I've definitely noticed one thing for sure: K. has 0 friends. Literally...no mention of even a distant friend has been made. I'm wondering if K. has a hard time forming and keeping relationships with others? I mean, he said that he hadn't seen or talked to his uncle for awhile. He also said that he felt regret for not having spoken to his cousin (his uncle's daughter) for quite some time. In addition to the distances found within he and his family members, the only person he seems to actually want to have a relationship with is nowhere to be found [Fraulein Burstner].

This is already a start for a topic like that, so I'm sure that there will be more examples I can use throughout the rest of the story. Any thoughts?

HELP!

What are you guys doing for your themes for the paper? I'm having a hard time developing a topic that I feel that I'll be able to sufficiently write about.

The Randomness of Kafka

All of the sudden after K. is accompanied by the Usher he finds himself not being able to breathe properly in the midst of the mustiness and damp air found in the dreadful law offices. I literally have no idea why this would be in the book.. Many things he writes I feel like there will be a reason for putting them in, but this part just seems like a waste of space. Maybe we'll find out later.

Also.. I'm wondering if this [the title that I made for this post] could be a possible topic for the paper we're writing later on. Does anybody have any feedback or suggestions about this? Maybe there is not a sufficient amount of information from the book to support the idea, idk. Someone help!

Fräulein Burstner's Friend

So after reading this chapter, it only brought me further away from making a conclusion on where the stories plot is going. I do agree somewhat with Gram on understanding the importance of several roles in the story. For instance I still am not sure what is Fraulin Burstner's importance other that to bug Joseph. Also did k. and Burstner have an affair or relationship not mentioned yet or that I never picked up on. This whole chapter was just about Burstner's friend, Montag, explaining why Burstner felt no need for a meetin between the two of them. Also I am guessing that the captain and Montag maybe have a role to play in the trial and that they have been moved there for an extra eye on k. or something amongst those lines.

There are a few things that I'm extremely confused about right now:

One, when is the Fraulein Montag going to come back into the story? Was she just to show that K. is young or is she supposed to be a vital part of the story?

I keep forgetting that the main character is supposed to be young. Kafka makes so many references that K. is either moving with a limp or is somehow having a hard time doing a seemingly effortless task.... I wonder why Kafka does this?

It worries me that the usher says that most of the cases are "foregone conclusions" and that his wife will most likely be of little help to him. The case is seeming to become more and more of a big deal... at first I thought it was nothing. But since both his uncle and the usher are saying these things that hint at a bigger problem are worrying me. I'm also afraid that K. is going play it too low and not prepare enough for the actual trial.

In general I thought I had a pretty good hold over the book but now I'm a little less confident :/

His Uncle. Leni

WOW.. I found this chapter to be very interesting and surprising. I was happy to know that K's. Uncle gives K. shit about how he is not really reacting to his trial. K. shows no emotion about why he is being put on trial and I find it appropriate that the uncle tries to put him in his place.

It seems to me that Huld, the lawyer, really cant do anything about K's. case if he is lying in a hospital bed the whole entire time. So I guess we will have to see what ever happens with that.

The end of the chapter really confused me. Leni, the Lawyers nurse, awkwardly and unexpectedly throws herself at K. I really do not understand where that came from.

The Offices

              In this chapter, the Offices, K. is lead but the Usher into the Offices of the magistrate. The purpose of this chapter bewildered me. First off, why is that everyone working in the offices are those who are also under the same circumstances as of Joseph. Why are they also having to go to trial? Then why is this the first time Joseph has heard of these people. He is told that any questions of his case can be answered by the man that chuckles at him when he is fainting (The man that dresses nicely to make a good first impression). This seems like information that would be given in the beginning of any case and especially some one like Joseph who appears to be well educated should be aware of this.   Also every one seems to be playing a role to set up Joseph. For instance the Users wife leads him on by sexually attracting him and then is taking off by the student. Moments later The Usher himself appears and seems to try to relate with K's. passion to hurt or get even with the student (seems to be set up). Then spontaneously this leads to K. following the Usher up the stairs into the offices in which he feels sick and nothing that the Usher said is true. For example the Usher said that no one would notice him or ask any questions of Josephs.

The Thrasher

So I do not know if you guys remember this, but at the beginning of our blog I mentioned that Kafka wrote an extra chapter for this book and did not know where to place it, so in everyone of his copies he randomly places it somewhere.

I think that the Thrasher, the chapter we just read was the extra chapter. I found it to be somewhat irrelevant to the story. I get that he goes back to the bank and is working a late night, he runs into two men and the guards that actually arrested him. I was confused about one thing though... did the guards come back to beat up K. because of what K. said in his testimony about the corruptness of the guards.. that is what it says but I do not understand why the guards would get in trouble for doing their job.. i must be missing something....

The Empty Courtroom

Hey guys! so I just realized that I have yet to read the empty courtroom. I do not see it anywhere on our blog so I am going to post my thoughts about it.

So. I found it really interesting that K. goes back the next morning even though he was really upset the other day. It shows that he is extremely curious about what he is there for... I mean I would be to. when he gets back to the courthouse, he finds things out that he would of never before imagined. for example, he found out that the courthouse was partially a courthouse and partially a house where they all live. He also found out that their is some pornography to this courthouse.. what kind of courthouse is he in? I did not understand why Bertold was trying to get with that women right in front of K. Did he not care? I appreciated that K. tried to help this women, but his efforts did not succeed.

As of right now I have no idea where the story is going to go.. I guess I will just have to wait and see.

The Student/The offices

                   So I just started reading again and read the following chapter (the Student). I found this chapters to be off the topic of K. case and a little more revealing of whats actually going on. For instance the Ushers wife has a whole story of her own. She seems to be frisky with all of the men in the offices and K. who she seems to know nothing about except that the magistrate is found in his case. Joseph has an attraction to this girl which especially irritates him when the student carries her off. I feel that this irritation is cause because of Josephs job and how he is not used to not getting exactly what he wants and a student not obeying him. Throughout the reading Joseph is portrayed as having a superior complex and looks and talks down to the people that surround him.