Ryan Final term paper

       Most, if not all, of Kafka’s literary works depict the interaction between society and the individual, how they serve each other, and how they take advantage of one another. The Trial is no exception; the novel deals with Josef K. and his conflict with the society of the novel. Over the course of the book, the reader learns about both Josef K. and the society itself. One of the main vehicles of the depiction of K. and society is the women of the novel. K. meets several women through the book that affect him and his situation. Due to the novel’s nature, the women in the novel are all supporting characters and rarely appear for more than a few chapters at a time. The women in the book have several functions, some of them give K. advice about his trial, some are K.’s sexual partners, and others K. dismisses altogether. More than just being involved with K., Kafka also illustrates the status of women in society, which is almost exclusively low. Furthermore, women can be seen as an extension of the court system itself, as they are often associated with judges and courtrooms, such as Leni and the washerwoman. Although the women of The Trial, by Franz Kafka, are primarily secondary characters, as a whole they reveal a great deal of both Josef K. himself, the society of the time, and further critique the court systems.

            As K. takes steps to move his trial forward, he usually meets a new woman in every chapter; the interactions between K. and the several women reveal K.’s superiority complex and overbearing presence. K. develops interesting relationships with the women in the novel, he is involved with most of the women both casually and romantically. Beginning with Ms. Bürstner in the first few chapters, K. is involved romantically with Ms. Bürstner, and is preoccupied with Ms. Bürstner’s thoughts about K. He seeks to apologize to Ms. Bürstner for the actions of the police officers who took over her room, K.’s mission seemed rather odd since he was apologizing for the actions of other people. The only other woman K. is involved with for more than a few chapters is Leni, whom is also associated with Huld, K.’s lawyer. K. clearly wants a romantic relationship with Leni as she distracts him immensely form his trial. K.’s actions regarding the women of the novel reveal a considerable amount about the character that is K. For example, the women show K.’s possessive nature. When K. first meets the washerwoman, he quickly develops an attraction to her, after visiting her apartment and learns that she is basically the court official’s sex slave, K. becomes rather enraged, not because he thinks she is being taken advantage of, but because K. want the washerwoman to himself. The women also show K.’s general uninterest and nonchalant attitude about his trial, most clearly noticed with Leni. Rather than discuss his situation and options about his trial with Huld, K. walks around following Leni attempting to spark a relationship. Huld notices K.’s disinterest and questions why K. is not in the room discussing the trial. K. then becomes rather defensive and begins the train of thoughts to fire Huld. K.’s actions with Leni show that he is not taking the trial seriously and thinks everything will work itself out, revealing and external locus of control. Furthermore, K. is overly concerned with appearances and people’s perception of K., his action s with women show this. For example, K. visits the court offices and is approached by a man and a woman, despite becoming claustrophobic and having a minor panic attack, K. continues to declare that he does not need help because he is in the presence of a woman. The several minor roles gives the women of trial, may seem insignificant, but the encounters between K. and the women reveal a great deal about K.’s nature.

            More than just revealing K.’s characteristics, the women of The Trial also depict the status of women in this society and the role they play, more specifically a low status in society as well as a degrading role. Only two women that K. meets in the novel have somewhat respected occupations in society: Ms. Grubach, the landlord, and one of the officials K. meets in the court offices. Other than those two, none of the women have respected occupations or considerable influence in their situation. Moreover, Kafka depicts the low esteem that women are held in since they are easily taken advantage of in the novel. For example, the washerwoman’s home doubles as a court office and it is because it doubles as a court office that she can keep her apartment, furthermore, the washerwoman is basically a sex slave to the court officials as they can stop by whenever and take her. That particular situation the washerwoman is in upsets K., because he thinks she belongs to him, which not only shows K.’s character but shows how women were considered property to a certain extent. Moreover, K. is romantically involved with most of the women he knows or meets, who shows that the men of the novel only interact with women if something sexual is soon to follow. For example, one of the reason K. returns to Huld’s office is in hopes to form a connection with Leni, whom he finds desirable. Despite, their low status and degrading functions, the women of the novel do have a certain sphere of influence both in society and over K. himself. K. is preoccupied enough by the women in the novel to seemingly forget about his trial at some points. For example, after he is first arrested, K. drops his predicament and sets out to meet with Ms. Bürstner and apologize, implying that he does not want to be held in low esteem by her, demonstrating the influence she has over him. Kafka also implies that the women in the novel are aware of the status of their gender and are opportunistic. For example, when Leni and K. first meet each other, Leni takes K. to a private room and throws herself onto K.; Leni is aware that K. is a well-respected man with an admirable profession. Leni then asks if K. is single, to which K. shows a picture of woman, yet Leni does not flinch at this information and is keen to have K. to herself. Kafka is depicting the women of the trial as having low status in society, yet being both ambitious and aggressive.

            The entire novel is a critique of judicial systems in general and Kafka goes so far as to critique the court system of this society by having the court systems represented by women who have an explicitly low status in society. As the novel and K.’s trial advances, K. meets different women who hold various positions; most of the women he meets are connected to the judicial system in some way. For example, the washerwoman’s home is used as a court office and the officials and Leni works with Huld the lawyer who is in contact with the courts. Thus, the women of the novel can be seen as an extension of the court system itself and since women hold a low place in society, Kafka is critiquing the court system by associating the system with the women of the society. Furthermore, whenever K. meets a new woman, something unfortunate is bound to follow, the most clear exam[le is at the end of the novel. As the two men take K. away from the city, the last image K. sees is a woman, who K. is convinced is Ms. Bürstner, (Kafka 156) K. is then executed shortly after, thus associating women with death. The Trial as a whole is a clear critique of judicial systems around the world, and Kafka uses every opportunity to degrade the institution, even going so far as to critique the court system through association with women.

            The women of the novel have an explicitly low status in society and the outlook for social mobility is not positive; however, this does not reflect Kafka’s perception of women. Kafka does not believe that women should be kept at the bottom of society. Kafka recognizes the current predicament that women suffer and his novel reflects society itself. Maybe Kafka exaggerated the status of the women in the novel so readers would realize just how poorly women are treated in society. Kafka’s novel represents the gender roles of a society that needs to be changed immediately, rather than a reflection of Kafka’s view of ideal gender roles.

            Kafka uses the women of The Trial as a vehicle to reveal more about the main foundations of the novel, K., the court system, and the society in general. Despite centering around K., a man, the women in the novel offer great insight into the society that Kafka creates. The women serve as an excellent foil towards K. himself and the court system. Although it is easy to disregard the women, because they hold such low status, a closer look revels just how important they are to the novel. Just how The Trial serves as a assertion and critique of the court system, the novel also serves as a dictator of social change, in terms of gender roles.

           

Works Cited

Kafka, Franz. The Trial. New York: Schocken Books Inc., 1998. Print.

Natalie's Final Term Paper

The Trial recounts the story of a man, Joseph K., convicted of a crime he knows nothing about in a country whose legal proceedings are mediocre at best. Nearing the end of the novel K. is met by a priest who tells him the story of “Before The Law”. In this story the protagonist attempts to seek knowledge and access to the law, but is denied access by the gatekeeper. The story “Before The Law” mimics and draws parallel comparisons between itself and K.’s situation. This parable was added by Kafka in order to draw attention to the greater meaning in the novel. The story of “Before The Law” mimics what occurs to K. in The Trial by Franz Kafka. The gatekeeper symbolizes K.’s arrestors and the low ranking court officials, the countryman symbolizes K, and the door, along with whatever is behind it, represents the law and K.’s trial.

The story “Before the Law” recounts the story of a man who wishes to enter the law through a doorway. The door sits open with a guard at the door. The man learns that no one has ever attempted to enter the Law, and therefore curious to learn what is behind it he attempts to enter. As the man tries to enter the doorway the guard stops him and lets him know that he cannot enter just yet. The man waits many years outside the doorway, but each of his attempts is dismissed by the guard who states that he cannot let the man in. Eventually the guard reveals that he himself does not know what is behind the door, but that his orders say he must not let this man in. Before the man is about to die he asks the guard why no one else has attempted to enter the doorway even though all men are curious about the Law. The guard tells him it is because no one else would have been able to enter since it was specifically made for him and now that he is dying the guard must close it.

The story of The Law is introduced in the final chapters of The Trial and is essentially a story within a story. K. learns of this story through the priest near the ending of the novel. The story of “Before the Law” acts as a commentary on the idea of truth and existentialism. Moreover, the parable draws attention to the greater meaning found in The Trial, and therefore in many instances draws parallels with the novel itself.

The gatekeeper guarding the doorway acts as a parallel to K.’s arresting guards and all the judges K. encounters. When the countryman encounters the gatekeeper he tells him he cannot enter, but he has no reason behind this refusal. The guard is standing by the door, which although is open, he will not let the countryman enter. Later in the story it is revealed by the gatekeeper that he is a low ranking official, and that the higher officials are the one’s who gave him these orders. In fact the gatekeeper states that he does not know what is behind the doorway. Similarly when K. is first arrested his arresting officers cannot tell him the reason for his arrest because they do not know it. And later K. walks into both his arresting officers beating beaten for no particular reason. In both cases the guards are following through with their orders without questioning exactly what they are doing. they are blindly accepting their orders. Another similarity between the gatekeeper and the judges and arresting officers is that neither K. nor the countryman ever come in contact with higher officials. Although they are mentioned they never truly meet them. The countryman learns of these higher ranking officials by the gatekeeper who tells him that he cannot let him in because there are even higher ranking officials whom he's never met behind the door and that they are very intimidating. K. learns of these higher ranking officials through his arresting officers and through the judges he meet. Similarly Leni tells him of the higher ranking judges. Despite everyone knowing of them, they keep themselves hidden. 

Another similarity between the gatekeeper and the judges and arresting officers is that neither K. nor the countryman, ever come in contact with higher officials. Although they are mentioned they never truly meet them. In one instant K. encounters a judge, and hoping that he has met someone of higher rank asks Leni “What rank is he”, to which she replies “He is an examining judge”. He then states “”just an examining judge one again” said K in disappointment, “the senior officials keep themselves hidden. But here he is sitting on a throne.” (Kafka 84) This exchange of words with Leni shows not only K.’s struggles, but the struggles of most citizens which is the fact that they only ever meet low ranking officials and therefore have no way to further advance their cases. When the Priest finishes telling K. the story of the law he also addresses this fact. He says that it is the doorman who has been cheated because he has been guarding something he doesn’t even know, blindly following orders. Similarly the simple-minded individuals who arrest K. do not know why he is being arrested, nor do they question it. They simply act with the instructions they are given. It also shows how it ends up negatively since they both end up being whipped even though it is not really their fault.

In a conversation between the gatekeeper and the countryman, the countryman attempts to bribe the gatekeeper into letting him through the doorway. The gatekeeper respond’s “I’ll only accept this so that you don’t think there’s anything you’ve failed to do.” (Kafka 151) In many ways this phrase parallels the courts treatment towards K. and all others who have been arrested. K. is given a court hearing, but soon after K. realizes that he was set up to fail. Instead of a just trial, K. is meant to stand up and defend himself in a front of a room filled with people whose mind’s are already made up. It takes K. a while to realize that each person in that room is wearing a similar pin, meaning they are all affiliated with the court. Although some are yelling in favor of K., they are not impartial, they already have made up their minds and sided with the court. This also ties into the corrupt mature of the courts. When k. Is arrested his arresting officers take some of his stuff, even though they aren't meant to do that they justify their actions by stating that everyone does it. Similarly the courts are in shabby, run down  apartments. Despite this the judges are rich. Meaning that they are probably taking the money from the courts for their own personal use. 

Parallels can also be drawn between the countryman and K. The countryman and K. differ from other people in their societies. When the countryman asks the gatekeeper: “Everyone wants access to the law, says the man, how come, over all these years, no-one but me has asked to be let in?” (Kafka 147) It seems from this comment that throughout the many years the countryman has been waiting outside of the doorway, nobody else has been asked to be let in even though he knows everyone wonders about this. This parallels K.’s own situation. Throughout his trial he meets many other arrested people and it seems that they have succumbed to their fate instead of attempting to fight for their freedom. In both instances K. and the countryman are anomalies within their societies, these examples are seen in Block and other characters. K. and the countryman are two individuals who go against the general masses. They are the only two that by doing so question the laws in their societies which can be why they both end in similar ways. 
Another similarity exists between K. and the countryman in the way that they act.  The story of the law also states: “Over the first few years he curses his unhappy condition out loud, but later, as he becomes old, he just grumbles to himself.” (Kafka 150) The countryman waited for many years outside of the door even though he was not allowed in. At first he is very loud and keeps asking the doorman questions, and is very loud and outspoken. He questions why the guard will not let him in and tried varies different things to be allowed in. Later in the novel he just sits quietly on his stool and does not say anything. Similarly K. was first very loudly opposed. He tells everyone about his ranking in his bank and how important he is. He questions the validity and importance of the court and attemps to change his cases status.  Later he becomes less and less loud, and begins to accept what happens to him. The ending of both characters are also similar K and the countryman both end while waiting to get something accomplished.

The final similarity is between the door, along with whatever is behind it, and the law in K.’s society. In the story of the law the priest states that “the law was supposed to be accessible for anyone at any time.” (Kafka 147). Yet despite this no one knew what was behind the doorway, not even the guards at the door. The countryman waits many years outside the door yet he is also not allowed to know. The door is also open, but the countryman is not allowed to enter. Simbolizing that the law appears to be open and easily accesible, but is actually closed. This is similar to K. At the beginning of the novel K. is discussing how he thought he knew the laws, yet once he becomes arrested he realizes that he actually has no clue what they are. Similarly, it is not just K. it is also the rest of the accused people. During K.’s first hearing with the judge he attempts to see the book on his desk, but when he does the judge says that he cannot because it is the book of laws. This seems strange because in most places the law is easily accessible for everyone, yet hear the person whom is meant to uphold the law is the one who hides it from him.

The Trial recounts the story of a man who has an encounter with the law. He is one day arrested for a reason he is never told. This man’s struggles with the court system and the lawyers represent the similar struggles that the countryman experiences in the story of the law. In the story of the law, the countryman attempts to gain entry into the law by entering the doorway, but despite his efforts he is not able to enter. Even though he is not able to enter, it is stated that the law is meant to be accessible for everyone. Similarities exist between the gatekeeper in the story of the law and the judges and policemen in the trial. In both cases these officials seems to be following orders blindly. None of them really know what is happening, for example what is behind the door or why K. is arrested, yet they still follow their orders blindly. Another similarity exists between the countryman and K. Both are stuck in similar positions with their attempt of learning the law, and they both end in similar ways. The are also parallels between the door and the law in K.’s society which should be open to everyone but are closed off.

Works Cited:

Kafka, Franz. The Trial . New York: Schocken Books Inc. , 1998. Print.

Final Term Paper

Kaylee Fantis

Throughout literature, history and religion the notion of predestination is explored time and time again. Predestination is the divine foreordaining of all that will happen especially with regard to salvation of some and not others. With the major influence that religion has on life today, salvation and life after death is in constant question in discussion. While the rules of destiny and predestination state that every action and reaction is predetermined, many choose to believe otherwise. Shakespeare once said, “ It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.”

  Franz Kafka, author of The Trial, challenges the notion of destiny and an individual’s ability to alter their course of action as he recounts the trial of Joseph K.. Within the novel, Joseph K. endures a series of tests and trials that lead him on the path to his final judgment at the end of the novel.  Through his journey, K. battles the judicial system in which he has been convicted, the power of his free will and his overall level of consciousness.

As The Trial commences Joseph K. is suddenly arrested one morning for unnamed charges. At the thought of possibly losing his freedom and social status, K. is overcome with bewilderment and anxiety, as any individual would. Unsure of his fate, K. also impulsively contemplates suicide, however discards the idea as irrational. As a result, he immediately begins his search for answers and defense system. Although it is just the beginning of Kafka’s tale of salivation, K.’s reaction to his arrest declares a prominent psychological human tendency that presents itself in times of stress, a response known as fight or flight. The fight or flight response is a decision made to either stay and fight off a posed threat or flee to safety. In the moment of K.’s arrest he considers death as a way to avoid inconvenience, restriction and possible danger, however K. soon replaces this thought with the belief that he has the power to fight for survival and alter his fate as a convicted criminal. By this decision, K. arranges the mood for the remainder of his trial. Little does he know that the political system and the power of God have predetermined his fate, resulting in the ultimate test of K.’s resilience and persistence.

            Following his arrest K. is permitted to go about his daily life until his court hearing is called. The next Sunday K. is vaguely asked to meet at the Court Offices. After a series of peculiar events K. finds himself in front of a council of men and the magistrate. During the meeting, K. sustains an aura of arrogance as he continues to mock the officials and call the government a farce. At this point in the novel, K.’s will and psychological health is still in tact. He is just at the beginning and is experiencing the first interaction with the government regarding his trial. In a way it is his first test in the game of his independence. In response to his insulting speeches, the magistrate ensures K. he has lost any advantages he may have gained from the interrogation. It is implied through the bizarre, tyrannical nature of the government and judicial system that Joseph K. had no chance of justification in his alleged crime, however could this incident been the defying moment in K.’s trial? Is this where things took a turn for the worse? If he responded differently, could his path have been readjusted? The answer is unclear, however one thing is evident, Joseph K. proved unsuccessful in the first test to amend his fate.

In the chapters following this first incident, K. begins to realize how unusual the government truly is. From pornography found in their law books to the smothering air of the court offices, K. finds that proving his innocence will be more difficult than expected and that the government prefers it that way. Thus slowly dimming the future of K.’s freedom.

            In Chapter 5, K. is tested yet again as he stumbles across an unlikely scene in the junk room of the bank. As he is walking by his attention is interrupted by a moaning noise from inside the junk closet. When he opens the door he finds three men, two of which are about to be flogged and happen to be K.’s former guards. They claim that they are being punished as a result of K.’s complain of their “corruption” and plea for their salvation. Confused by the entire situation, K. attempts to bribe the flogger. He is unsuccessful and the guards are beaten. As one of them begins to scream, K. withdraws from the room to make sure that none of his coworkers hear or see what is occurring. When outside, one woman asks where the yelling came from and K. claims it was merely a dog. Reluctant to go back inside the room, K. leaves the bank and returns home, abandoning the pleading guards.  In doing so, Joseph K. feels guilt for leaving the men behind to face their torturer, however he justifies his abandonment as his only choice. “It tormented him that he have been unable to prevent the flogging, but it wasn’t his fault; if Franz hadn’t screamed- of course it must have hurt terribly, but at critical moments you have to control yourself – if he hadn’t screamed, K. could very probably have still found some way to convince the flogger.” (Kafka 5), by placing the blame onto Franz, K. walks away feeling better, as though he could have nothing else to improve the situation. The next day he returns and in order to fulfill his curiosity, not his conscious, he checks the junk room once again. To his surprise the men are still there. K. slams the door and requests that his assistant cleans out the room immediately. K.’s inability to fight for the guards could possibly be an act of revenge from their previous meeting when they had arrested him or a vow to remain inactive in order to prevent further trouble.  The incident could also be solely a fragment of K.’s imagination, revealing information of his unconscious. Even in this senseless occurrence K. reacts in a negative way, failing to succeed yet another trial of his absolution, further crystallizing his cruel and unfortunate fate.

            Following the incident with the guards, K.’s Uncle Karl pays him a visit. During the visit, Karl is dismayed by K.’s nonchalance and becomes increasing worried for him. As he reaches the middle of his criminal trial and his perspective on his future has barely been tainted by the unjust legal system. His arrogance that was so prominent in the beginning of the novel continues on just as his lust for the ladies, as he continues to have relations with the women involving his trial, not worried of the possible consequences or diverted attention. At the start of chapter 7 things take a turn as Kafka writes, “The thought of his trial never left him now, He had often considered whether it might not be advisable to prepare a written defense and submit it to the court. ” (Kafka 7) K. is now consumed with his case and is unhappy with the progress being made. As a result, he begins to think about writing his own defense to appeal to the court and dismissing his lawyer – taking things into his own hands. By deciding to take control of his trial, K. believes he has the abilities to advance things and work things out with system. However, K. soon learns that a successful case has nothing to do with the defense presented, but the court’s first impression on you and the connections you may have. “Nevertheless, the most important factor is still the lawyer’s personal contacts; they are the most valuable aspect of a defense.” (Kafka 7) Once K. comes to this realization he is overcome with dismay and disbelief, as he continues on it is apparent that the court system is unjust and unpredictable. Despite what Huld tells him, K. believes that representing himself will pull his trial from idle and give him more a connection to the trial. This decision shows K.’s inability to realize his decreasing control or lack of control altogether and sends him further into the void.

            In the following chapter things seem to take a turn for the better as K. meets Titorelli, a middle-class artist. After his meeting with Huld, he sends K. to meet Titorelli because he is believed to have connections with the higher courts and could possibly help K. with his case.  After a lot of small talk, the two get down to business and Titorelli ensures K. that he will be fine as he claims he is innocent. However, just as K. appears hopeful, Titorelli explains K. his only remaining options for the trial – actual acquittal, apparent acquittal and protraction – all of which further delay the trial and produce no results. So K. is left once again with nowhere to go.

            Then as the end of the novel nears, K. is sent to the cathedral to meet an Italian client. Once there it becomes clear that he was sent to meet a priest who is also the prison chaplain. The priest has been waiting for him. He alerts K. that his trial is not going well and he must start to take things more seriously because he is deceiving himself from the truth. He asks K., “How do you imagine it will end, ” (Kafka 9) adding that the court thinks he is guilty. K. responds, “But I’m not guilty. It’s a mistake. How can any person in general be guilty? We’re all human after all, each and every one of us.” (Kafka 9) The priest exclaims that only guilty people talk like that, adding, “You misunderstand the facts of the matter. The judgment isn’t simply delivered at some point; the proceedings gradually merge into the judgment.” (Kafka 9) This moment outlines one of the major themes of the novel, which K. is being taken on a journey to his judgment that the trials of his case and his life preceding his case will gradually merge into his final sentence. The priest then proceeds address one of K.’s biggest problems, “you seek too much outside help.” (Kafka 9), suggesting that K. needs to search within and find the answers to his problem.

Then the priest tells K. the story of The Law. The Law involves a countryman who approaches the gate of The Law and asks to enter; however the guard at the gate denies him because it is “not the right time”.  The countryman decides to wait it out constantly asking for admission until he has waited so long that he is approaching death. The guard says, “What do you want to know now, ‘you’re insatiable’. And the man answers in question as to why no one else has ever asked for admission. “No one else could gain admittance here, because this entrance was meant solely for you. I’m going to go and shut it now.” (Kafka 9) In many ways this parable is a parallel to K.’s situation in regards to his criminal trial and his journey to salvation. The story of The Law explains that the gate assigned to a subject is solely for them and can only be entered when it has been earned, when the time is right. The priest tells this story to K. to enlighten him of his situation, to give him one last chance to recognize that these are his defying moments and to notify him of his potential fate.  And unfortunately, his attempt to emphasize that the “gate” will open and his trial will end only when he has proven himself falls short. Because at the end of the story K. is only more puzzled of the meaning of the story and his trial altogether. At this point, the priest recognizes that like the countryman, K. is ‘insatiable’ and his fate will pursue.

In following pages of the The Trial, it is K.’s birthday and two men escort him on a walk into the country. Here his fate is satisfied as one man grabs him by the throat, while the other stabs him in the heart. Although Franz Kafka did not personally write the final chapter of the novel, it is clear from the very beginning of Kafka’s cynical path for K. As a reader, it seems that Kafka strategically presented K. with opportunities to alter his predestination, however his human qualities disappointed these efforts. He remained disconnected and oblivious to the reasoning of the trial. And in the end he failed in the fight for his life, accepting the brutal conclusion.  After reading and analyzing The Trial, it is apparent that Kafka chose to uncover the bleak reality of our destiny through K.’s story. And that is that the individual’s fate can be altered through salvation, however in many cases our innate human characteristics of greed, arrogance, misunderstanding and selfish justification restrains us from accepting the opportunities for redemption, therefore rejecting any alteration of our demise. Kafka foregrounds this theme through K.’s journey, stressing his inability to save himself from his tragic fate as a result of his natural disposition, making clear that K. was damned from the start. Consequently, Kafka reveals that our judgment in the end is determined at our origination.

Works Cited:

Kafka, Franz. The Trial . New York: Schocken Books Inc. , 1998. Print.

FInal paper

In order to defeat evil, a society must sometimes become an even greater evil. Eventually we find that every thing comes at a price, especially justice. Ironically, becoming unjust is the price that haunts societies quest for justice. It is a vicious cycle that has left every society to date in complete corruption. Consequently, the problem lies in society’s need for a guilty man. So, inevitably society must make a choice. Does it protect the innocent man or does it insure that the guilty man pays? Of course the answer is not so black and white. The right answer lands somewhere in the infinite shades of gray between the two. The true question is “where?”

In Kafka’s novel The Trial, we find that our main character is wrongly accused of a crime, which he has not committed. However, the government finds him to be guilty and in the end condemns him to death. In order to insure that no guilty men go free, sadly many innocent men will be condemned (this is an unavoidable fact). On the other hand, in order to insure that no innocent men are condemned many guilty men will go free (this too is an unavoidable fact).

Unlike the current United States of America’s legal system’s principle “innocent until proven guilty”, the justice system in The Trial works on a principle of “guilty until proven innocent”. In this sense, these justice systems are polar opposites.

Kafka put this type of legal system in The Trial in order to show how it fails the individual (in his case Joseph K.).  Unfortunately Kafka fails to present a better option. The other type of system often fails to insure justice, and in an extreme scenario creates chaos. In Kafka’s damnation of the current society, he offers nothing better. Maybe the legal system we have sucks, but is there anything better? Inevitably we have to ask, where is the perfect balance of a legal system? Or is there even a perfect balance (is anarchy the best possible system)?

         In The Trial we have a legal system that insures that the guilty man pays (literally there is no way to get a verdict of “not guilty” or “innocent”. If we look at this type of system, we see that it deters criminals from committing crimes. In fact, if we look into the statistics, we find that countries with a legal system that insures that the guilty man pays have a significantly lower crime rate. So we must unavoidably accept that this system helps keep order in society. Truly the goal of society is to protect the masses, so by keeping order the strict legal system accomplishes the goal. However, in The Trial this system failed the individual. And in the real world this is also true. In fact, we find that on top of having significantly lower crime rates, countries with strict legal systems also have more innocent men (proven innocent after put to death) wrongly put to death (Just like Joseph K.). So Kafka was right, a system like this would inevitably fail the individual, but it would also protect the masses. But a problem like this raises another question. What is the price of justice? How many guilty men must be convicted in order to justify wrongly accusing one man or is it ever justifiable to accuse one innocent man?

         There are also positives and negatives of a society that purely protects the innocent man. It is impossible for a society to have a perfectly protective system because that would mean that no one would ever be punished (which defeats the title of a justice system). But, we find that in a protective society, guilty men get away. This does not insure that justice in society is served; therefore, it fails the basic goal of a justice system. However, it protects the individual. The United States of America is a good example of a protective justice system. The United States of America is not a perfectly protective society (some innocent men are still convicted), but it is based off of “innocent until proven guilty”.  But we often have guilty men walking away free. For example, O. J. Simpson, Zimmerman, Ernesto Miranda, and many more. With a good enough lawyer anyone can go free, meaning that justice is not served (especially to those with money). But, a system like this protects people like Joseph K. from The Trial.  As a citizen of the United States of America, I do not have to worry about being arrested tomorrow morning for almost no reason. This means that I feel safe, so society is doing something correct there. But, should people like Zimmerman and O. J. and Miranda go free? No! They should have paid for their crimes. But I believe it is safe to say, that if the “The Trial” took place in The United States of America, Joseph K. would not have been condemned to death, in fact I am quite sure he would have been declared not guilty.

Some people (like myself) believe that an innocent man that pays the price is just collateral damage, which is necessary in order to sustain a better society for the masses. Some would ask, could wrongfully accusing someone and killing him or her be justified? I would argue that, there is a ratio of justification. But where is that ratio? Is it justifiable, to convict one innocent man for every twenty guilty men (this is what would be referred to as an alpha=.05 in statistics). It comes down to where we value to life of an innocent man vs. “highly needed justice” to be served.

In a purely Darwinian society, the alpha value would be quite high. This means that if we were trying to be the most efficient society (what is best for survival and keeping order), a justice system like the one in The Trial would work very well.  This goes with saying that, without the morality installed by religious institutions like the Catholic Church, the value of life would be much less.  For society to be most efficient it should ignore morality or emotions. Once morality and emotions have been removed from the calculation, it is easy to say, “yes, get rid of anyone who even appears to be a virus to society” (this would result an alpha of .5 (meaning that any suspicion would lead to conviction)).

Unfortunately (or fortunately), it will never be that easy, society will never be able to let go of morality and emotions. Without morality and emotions, the structure of society would fall apart. So morality and emotions cannot be ignored. Consequently, human emotions and moralities are one of the hardest things to calculate for. This is because they are clearly un-quantifiable unless we go into the organic chemistry/biology of human emotion or we go into endless amounts of discussion about human morality (and we begin to question if whether or not choice is a thing).

As we proceed, what we find is that there is no way of judging what the best society is clearly. But, what we can do are extrapolations from theoretical situations. Now let us avoid turning this into a research paper. Let us talk about what we know about societies and the human condition. The human is fundamental building block of society, so let us start there. As an individual, the most important person in the world is “your self”. So from that, we can derive that what benefits “your self” the most is what is most important. Extrapolating this assumption directly to society, we get the conclusion that what benefits the individual the most is what is best for society. So with this “view (so to say)” society should protect the individual; therefore, a protective society would be the best. This is what Kafka would most likely agree with. Sorry to say, that there are inescapable errors when doing such a large extrapolation. In this case, society is not just a large group of individuals. When calculating for society, what is best for the masses (collective individual) must also be calculated. So what is best for the masses? Well that is a hard question to answer, but we can go try to approach this from the view of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The most important human need in Maslow’s hierarchy is physiological needs. This means that man needs water, food, and shelter. Once the government has covered this for the mass it can focus on the next human need, which is safety. Safety is the need that concerns us. The masses need to feel safe. So then, a strict justice system would give them the most amount of safety. But trying to approach the solution with human psychology brings us to the same problem as before. We again find that the answer is not clear. There are simply too many factors to take into consideration. Human choice is the achilles heal of our attempts to calculate for what is best for society.

In the end, In order to defeat evil, a society must sometimes become an even greater evil. Evil is unavoidable, given the human condition. Therefore, in order to create a justice system that defeats evil it must commit evil. Sadly, this evil that society must commit can corrupt society. But, we search with anticipation for the perfect balance that will deem a perfect justice system. Unfortunately it is in vain. In order to protect the individual we must screw over the masses, and vice versa. So society could never please every one. That is the unfortunate reality of society.

Work Cited:

Kafka, Franz, and Breon Mitchell. The Trial. New York: Schocken Books :, 1998. Print.

Maya's Full Term Paper Blog Post

Maya Siman
May 4, 2014
Period 5

The Trial by Franz Kafka
Term Paper

“Every author in some way portrays himself in his works, even if it be against his will,” (Johann, 1). This quote by German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe reveals what many may not know about writers; more often than not, little pieces of themselves are woven into the fabric of their writing. In the Breon Mitchell’s translation of Franz Kafka’s The Trial, a few extra pages in the back of the book were added. These pages detail the events in Kafka’s life from 1883 to 1924. With a quick glance at said timeline of Franz Kafka’s life, it can be observed that a number of events overlap with what happens in his short stories. Whether this happened consciously or unconsciously is unknown. Nonetheless, given that the mentioned overlapping is present, one can speculate that some of the events from Kafka’s life were not only “transferred” into his short stories, but his novel, The Trial, as well.

The first overlap that can be identified between Franz Kafka’s life and his work occurs in the year 1912. After meeting his future fiancé, Felice Bauer, he writes the two short stories “The Judgement” and “The Metamorphosis” during the month of August. In October of that same year, Kafka is asked to take over of his family’s asbestos factory. During Kafka’s lifetime, asbestos was a cheap, durable, fireproof material used for insulation. Also, at this point in time, the industry was not aware of its carcinogenic effects. When Kafka was asked to take charge, he became so distraught and overwhelmed that he considers suicide. Kafka opts to not take his own life and gives a public reading of “The Judgement” later on (Kafka, 269). As anyone who has read this short story knows, the protagonist, Georg Bendemann, commits suicide because his surly, almost tyrannical father convinces him that he is incapable of being a man of any worth (Kafka). Much like Georg, Kafka also had a father who was ill-tempered and oppressive. Already, there are obvious parallels. Since Kafka wrote “The Judgement” months before any of the mentioned events in his life transpired, it seems as though Kafka was the one who was inspired by his work and not the other way around. However, Kafka’s relationship with his father was already prevalent, even before “The Judgement” was written. This makes Kafka’s writing of “The Judgement” seem more like a prediction, or even a “testimonial” of unspoken thoughts, based off of elements from his life that he chose to incorporate. 

     In “The Metamorphosis”, Gregor, a traveling salesman, is transformed into a giant insect.  The father is disgusted by the sight of his son. One by one, the rest of the family begins to share the father’s sentiments towards Gregor. This persists until he succumbs to the effects of self-starvation and dies (Kafka). Many Kafka biographies discuss the fact that both his father and mother avoided their son because they were not supportive of Kafka’s love for literature in any way. Gregor’s transformation into an insect can be compared to Kafka’s feeling of dwindling self worth because of his parents’, particularly his father’s, behavior. In fact, in a letter to his father that Kafka wrote himself, he says, “My writing was all about you; all I did there, after all, was to bemoan what I could not bemoan upon your breast,” (Triska, 1).

Aside from said overlaps between Kafka’s life and his short stories, it can be argued that the inspiration for The Trial began long before any of his writing was published. Kafka’s family lived in a German speaking part of Prague, a country which, at the time, predominantly spoke Czech. Because of this alone, his family faced isolation and discrimination. In the year 1897, year and a half after his bar-mitzvah, Kafka and his family lived through anti-Semitic riots in Prague. The riots lasted for three days and became known as the “December Storm”. The Czech speaking citizens were protesting against new language laws being formed to accommodate the German-speaking Jewish population of Prague (Kafka, 267). Much like Josef K., the German-Jews of Prague were being persecuted for an offense they did not know they committed.

To make a more obvious connection, it seems as though Kafka had a pre-existing fascination with the law and the judicial system. In 1901, Kafka enrolled in the German University in Prague. There, he studied chemistry for two weeks before moving on to law. In the year 1906, he applied his studies and became a clerk in his uncle’s law office. In June of that same year, Kafka received his Doctor of Law degree. He then begins his legal practice in the landesgericht, provincial high court, and strafgericht, criminal court. It is more than likely that Kafka encountered certain events in his time in both courts that inspired his writing of The Trial (Kafka, 268). After working the landesgericht and strafgericht, Kafka went to work at The Institute, a government agency that dealt with workmen’s compensation laws in Prague. Like Josef K., Kafka worked in a high position at the company. His superiors valued him and trusted him with many assignments (Kafka, 268). Kafka’s work within the Bohemian bureaucracy is said to have inspired his work with The Trial. Bureaucracy, mainly its shortcomings and failure to actually get anything done, is a major part of The Trial. Josef K. struggles to make it through a sea of “red tape” that inhibits him throughout the entire story from finding out what he is being accused of and how he can clear his name. Every time K. attempts to understand the court system and begin working towards asserting his innocence, some sort of obstacle presents itself. At a certain point, a physical obstacle presents itself and K. has to leave the law office he is in because the air circulating inside of it has become heavy and unbreathable. Apart from this, it seems as though the only people who actually know how the judicial system works in K’s society are the people working within it. When K. goes to meet the painter named Titorelli, many of his “solutions” are just ways to prolong his trial further and further so that he is never sentenced to anything. Kafka’s experience within institutions comparable to the courts in The Trial more than likely had a good deal of influence over him. 

In 1922, just a couple of years before he was rendered incapable of finishing The Trial, Kafka suffered a nervous breakdown. Though he had already experienced something similar to this when he was asked to take over his family’s asbestos factory ten years earlier, this second “breakdown” occured while Kafka was writing The Trial (Kafka, 270). Therefore, this incident might have had a more direct correlation and greater influence over Kafka as he wrote the novel. In a diary entry he wrote on January 16, 1922, he delineates the nature of his breakdown. Kafka writes, “One can interpret the event in two ways, and both are probably correct simultaneously”. The first “interpretation” he gives details Kafka experiencing an “impossibility to sleep, impossibility to be awake, [and an] impossibility to endure life [or] life’s sequentiality” (Struc, 146). This sensation that Kafka describes as being in some form of limbo can be compared to the style The Trial is written in. Many times, the situations within the novel are presented in a manner that resembles a dream, or like Josef K. is also experiencing an inability to discern whether he is awake or asleep. This particular style is implemented right from the beginning. When Josef K. is first arrested, the officers sent to arrest him barge into his house and essentially hold him hostage. They do not tell him the crime he supposedly has committed; all they tell him is that he is under arrest and they refuse to answer any other questions. This scene, at least to a reader who lives in a country with a developed judicial system, seems unrealistic and almost like a bad dream. Every time K. visits the court house, the descriptions of his surroundings are almost surreal. When K. first arrives at the court houses, people seem to appear out of nowhere as he makes his way to the court room where his trial is being held. Once he gets inside, the spectators watching his trial appear to be moving all at once as a single entity; when they “boo” or cheer, they do so simultaneously and in the same fashion. Both situations lack realism and sustain the “limbo-esque” atmosphere that Kafka illustrates in his diary entry. 

       The second “interpretation” that Kafka offers is the more existential of the two. Kafka describes an ongoing “chase” between himself and his “inner clock” that “rushes in a ... demonic [manner]”. Kafka discloses that racing against his internal clock will more than likely lead to his going insane. He says, “The chase goes through me and tears me apart” (Struc, 146). What Kafka is describing in his second interpretation creates a certain tension, a tension that arises when chasing after an intangible object such as time. The tension only builds because “the chase” will persist and never resolve. It can be argued that Kafka expressed these sentiments further through The Trial. Josef K. spends the entire story chasing after a concept: his innocence. He had entered “the chase”. Eventually this consumes him; K.’s “chase” after his innocence devours all of his time and energy. In his diary entry, Kafka says that the “chase takes the direction away from human-kind,” (Struc, 146). K., since he is completely devoted to proving his innocence, travels in this direction away from society. His professional and social life suffers, as does his sanity. 

Within the larger work of The Trial, there is a “short story” titled “Before the Law”. In the final chapter that Kafka himself was able to write, Josef K. meets with a priest. He tells him the story of the man who sought the Law. Essentially, the man in the story, after facing a ring of gatekeepers, comes across the gate where one enters in order to find the Law. The man is deterred from entering by the gatekeeper who tells him he is unable to go in at the moment. He waits all his life to go inside. As he lays dying, the gatekeeper tells him, “[No] one else could gain admittance here, [this] entrance was meant solely for you,” and he closes the gate (Kafka, 217). The man then dies at the foot of the gate, never being able to enter. The story’s extreme depth has given rise to many different readings and analyses. However, from the more general and broad opinions that others have given, more specific conclusions may be drawn in relation to Franz Kafka’s life. K. believes that the gatekeeper has deceived the man, that he allowed him to sit and wait for years knowing that the man would ultimately not be able to go inside. The priest tells Kafka that the gatekeeper telling the man that he “can’t grant him admittance now” implies that the entrance “was mean solely for [him],” (Kafka, 218). If the Law is analogous to some sort of purpose for the man in “Before the Law”, then it seems as though Kafka aims to tell his reader that whatever “door” holds our purpose will not be available to us even when we most need it, even though the door is meant just for us. If one were to have access to this door at any given time, “the chase” Kafka mentioned in his diary entry which caused him to become a nervous wreck would cease. It would become unnecessary to continue “running”. One can speculate that this particular scene is Kafka transferring his sentiments towards “the chase” into a literary medium, maybe even coming to an understanding that he must “consider it necessary,” (Kafka, 223).

One quote in the chapter containing “Before the Law” that is particularly interesting is the very last quote. The priest, after revealing that he in fact works for the court, says, “The court wants nothing from you. It receives you when you come and dismisses you when you go,” (Kafka, 224). To take a metaphorical point of view, the court almost symbolizes Kafka’s father in this instance. Kafka’s father always viewed him as a failure, even abused him at times, because Kafka never wanted to be a business man, he wanted to be a writer (SP, 1). As Kafka veered away from the path that his father set for him, the more distant he grew and the less willing he became to “receive” him. 

Considering all of this, it is more than likely that Kafka did “[portray] himself in his work”. The Trial, at first glance, is simply the story of a young business man making an attempt to careen through the inner workings of his oppressive government. Taking a closer look, though, it is much more than that. Seeing all these connections has also made it clearer that their inclusion in Kafka’s work was most likely a conscious decision rather than an unconscious one.

Works Cited

"(SP:) Franz Kafka’s personal life reflected in the Metamorphosis." The Kafka Project. N.p., n.d.
        Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.kafka.org/index.php?aid=218>.

"Johann Wolfgang von Goethe quote."BrainyQuote. Xplore, n.d. Web. 4 May 2014. <http://

           www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/j

Kafka, Franz, and A. L. Lloyd.Metamorphosis. New York: Vanguard Press, 1946. Print. Kafka,

         Franz, and Nahum N. Glatzer. The complete stories. New York: Schocken Books, 1971.

         Print.

Kafka, Franz, and Breon Mitchell. The Trial. New York: Schocken Books :, 1998. Print.

Triska, Zoë. "Kafka Birthday: A Letter From Franz Kafka To His Father." The Huffington Post.
       TheHuffingtonPost.com, 3 July 2013. Web. 2 May 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com
       2013/07/03/kafka-birthday-_n_3540923.html>.

Struc, Roman, John Yardley, and Charles Bernheimer. Franz Kafka (1883-1983): his craft and
       thought. Waterloo, Ont., Canada: Published by Wilfrid Laurier University Press for the
       Calgary Institute for the Humanities, 1986. Print.