Kaylee's 3rd 500

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 little guilt for leaving the men behind to face their torturer and goes about the rest of his day unbothered. 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. 

Ryan's 3rd 500

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. 

Maya's 3rd 500 words

       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. 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 explains details Kafka experiencing an “impossibility to sleep, impossibility to be awake, [and an] impossibility to endure life [or] life’s sequentiality”. 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. While K. waits to retrieve some documents, the air around him becomes heavy and unbreathable out of nowhere. This situation lacks realism and sustains 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”. 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. 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”. 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. 

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.

Natalies 3rd 500

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.” 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.”  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.

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?” 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.

Raoul Khouri's 1500 words

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, does it insure that the guilty man pays? Of course the answer is not so simple. The perfect recipe 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 most just system)?

         In The Trial we have a legal system that insures that the guilty man pays (literally there is no way of getting 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” too place in The United States of 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, can wrongfully accusing someone and killing him or her be justified? I would argue that, there is a ration of justification. But where is that ratios? 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 be an alpha of .5).

Unfortunately, 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.

In the end, what we find is that the only way to judge what the best legal system is, is to look at past legal systems. Now let us avoid turning this into a research paper. Let us talk about what we know about societies and human condition. The human is fundamental building block of society, so let us start there. As an individual, the most important person in the room 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 unfortunately again we are stuck somewhere between the infinite shades of gray.

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 socity.

Ryan 2nd 500 Words

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.

Kaylee's 2nd 500

           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. 

Natalie's Next 500 words

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. 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. 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. 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. In both cases the guards are following through with their orders without questioning exactly what they are doing. 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.