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.