Comment on Veros Post

Vero I understand what you are basing this off of. I also am irritated by Joseph K. as a character. He is constantly changing his mind and now doing the actions that are in reality better for him in this current situation. Kafka made it so that in the beginning, the reader thinks K. is a business man of high intellect. However, through his actions we learn that he is actually the complete opposite.

The part of your post that also drew my attention was the comment on the government. After hearing Mr. Shapiro's lecture on Kafka's writing, I can not help putting some of my focus while reading on the three institutions: church, family, and state. In "The Trial", we see how state can control society and how it is corrupt.

Comment on Max's post

K.'s experience at Titorelli's house also seems like a landmark part of the plot progressions to me. The idea of connections in life being able to propel people into success is an idea that I've never truthfully wanted to believe, but know at heart is definitely true, and K.'s trip to Titorelli's house is one that exemplifies that.

I think Titorelli leads both K. and the reader on a bit to make it seem like Titorelli is K.'s only solution to getting out of his unfair quandary. Titorelli, to me, was put into the novel to show how screwed up K.'s society is at the core. Titorelli, an unsuccessful painter, symbolizes the only available person to give K. legal help, which is unusual, but anything is possible in a work by Kafka. Titorelli is also depicted as an unoriginal painter, and a painter who is a painter because he inherited the position, not because he wants to be a painter, which is also odd. Most people with jobs like painters do what they do because they love it, not because you inherited the position. Furthermore, Titorelli being unoriginal and just plain bad at creating art speaks volumes to the type of person K. is getting legal advice from. It's probably unoriginal advice, and it's probably useless advice. Regardless, K. buys into it and buys one of Titorelli's paintings as a favor.

Where is this story going?

After the first three or four chapters, The Trial has gotten significantly more stale. I honestly don't know where the novel is going at this point. At least after reading the first three chapters, the reader still has a lot of interest in where the novel is going to end up. But now, the novel just seems redundant and repeating itself over and over again. The sequence (to me) seems to be going like this: Lead the reader on, confuse the reader with some dense dream like setting and analytical b.s. that doesn't change the plot of the story, and then finally change the plot only a bit to keep the reader inclined to see what happens at the end. I continuously find myself re-reading the pages to get a firm grip on the message being displayed, but still usually fail at that simple goal.

My frustration aside, I'll attempt some analytical perspective of K:

K. has progressively become obsessed and addicted to thinking about his situation more than I usually become with homework assignments, which is very telling to the person that K. is turning into. He is slowly transforming into a lazy, obsessed, and useless human being compared to the person he once was. He initially was this hardworking, successful banker who now has turned into basically a shlub. Furthermore, K.'s visit to Titorelli's house seems to cement the idea presented in the lecture. K. is basically screwed, and there is no way of getting out of this situation. The biggest conundrum that his visit presents is that he cannot do anything in his power to get off as innocent, but that he is going to be guilty for something he doesn't even realize he's done. The idea of being born guilty, and not being able to change that idea no matter how much work you put into it, screams volumes in this novel, and seems like it will be even more evident as the conclusion unfolds itself.

Response to Max

Camille Kelleher

Max pointed out that it seems very unlikely that a court painter would be able to have a large influence over the court judges. The court painter is most likely the same status as the men who were told when to laugh during the initial inquiry. I am not surprised that Kafka would add this unusual component to the story because pretty much the majority of this story is quite absurd. The fact that there is literally no privacy and an individual can be arrested at any given moment by an underground judicial system makes this whole story hard to believe and accept. Since the painter is at a very low status in the court system, I think that the painter may rely on black mail or some form of threat to influence the judges.

Also, Max talked about the paintings that K. bought from Titorelli. I find it interesting that K’s main motive to hide the paintings is to prevent the vice president of the bank from seeing them. Maybe these particular set of landscapes are often associated with men who are under trial or K’s interest in them reveals too much about his personal tastes and current situation. Titorelli even said that many people find these portraits landscapes to be ugly because they are too somber; however, K still bought them because he is comfortable with the idea of gloom and life’s restraints.

12/7/13

            As the novel progresses, we see K. develop more and more as a character. He is starting to become more aware of the severity of the trial and the impact that a guilty verdict can have on his life. Because of this, K. goes to Titorelli’s house, a court painter. This part was very interesting to me. We constantly hear in society that connections can help you a lot in a situation. This is a clear example of this. However, I am wonder how someone that does not have a lot of power, such as a court painter, can influence a judges decision.  Also, when he was on the way to Titorelli’s house he saw people outside on the stairs that gave him directions. This is very parallel with the situation at the courthouse and I feel as if Kafka did this on purpose to create this connection.

            Personally, I would have become very discouraged after the information that Titorelli gave to K. He made it seem like there is no possible chance of K. being declared completely innocent. The best solution that he gave would make K. have the possibility of getting arrested at anytime, which is in my opinion worse then being engaged in the trial itself. It would make it so he would have to be in multiple trials for the same issue. This is the exact reason why the double jeopardy clause was included in the United State’s Constitution.  This law made it so a person can not be put on trial twice for the same crime. If this was the case for K. (it was not because Franz Kafka was not from the United States), then K. would be having a much easier time. He would be able to get the “temporary” acquittal for his crime, which would be an easy escape from the current situation.

            Finally, a very minor detail that caught my attention was the fact that K. purchases one of Tiorelli’s paintings as he was leaving the house. H probably does this as a sign of respect but it could also be seen as a bribe. He really didn’t care for the art, as shown by when he just threw it in the drawer when he got back to his house after the trial.

Apparent acquittal or protraction?

   Camille Kelleher

        

As I read further into this story, I am beginning to understand Kafka’s decisions on the plot progression and the interactions between K and other characters. The titles of each chapter are the names of the characters that K meets in each relative chapter. Kafka allows the readers to understand K.’s internal feelings and thoughts regarding the trial and its effects on his life via the conversations with each character. This reminds me of Ayn Rand’s introduction in Atlas Shrugged where she stated that, unlike The Fountainhead, this novel’s plotline and development of characters is based on the interaction and relationships between characters rather than the isolation of each character. I think Kafka decided to organize the plot this way because he wanted to emphasize the social aspect of the three pillars; the state, the family, and the church. Also, this style of writing emphasizes that court victims must socialize with people who have insight about the court and influence over lower court judges. This isolates the convention that only the written law can decide the judges’ decisions on trials and even diminishes its supremacy.

I consider the interaction between K and the painter as the most insightful so far because it provides a lot of information about the way that K can manipulate the lower courts and the extent that the court can strike destitute and poverty on people associated with its system. The painter tells K that his trial can reach an actual acquittal, apparent acquittal, and protraction; however, the painter can only influence the court on the grounds of the apparent acquittal and protraction. Although the apparent acquittal requires a concentrated and temporary effort while the protraction requires a modest and continuous effort, both are very similar because both decisions do not guarantee K as a free of the court.  K will be forever tormented by this trial and his life has already started to succumb to the pressure and stress from his trial. Given these two options, K now has to decide whether he wants to feel free even though the court can arrest him at any given time or create a schedule with his judge that plans the required meetings that K must have in order to stay in the lowest court. The former carries constant worry and fear of being arrested again while the latter carries routine interactions with his trial and his judge. Either way, I think K will begin to develop a guilty conscious and view himself as a criminal. If I were K, I would play it safe and have the painter help my trial reach a protraction so that my life will only be disturbed on those given days.

Response to Camille

I just read Camille's response and I can not help to think that her and I were thinking very similarity as we were reading the book. Before this weeks reading selection, I had constantly wrote in my blog posts that I constantly had to reread selections because they seemed obscure and very unrealistic. However, after reading Camille's post, I realized that this past week I did not find myself doing this. I think this occurred due to the lessons that we learned in class this week. When something weird came up in a passage this week, I just thought to myself "does this relate to one of the three pillars?" A great majority of the time, it did and I was able to understand the reading passage.
One thing that Camille pointed out that really caught my attention was the fact that they make it seem as the government fixes every case that goes into the court so they win. This shows that the pillar of "state" is controlling them. What is the point of following the rules that a group of individuals make if they can just accuse you and convict you if you are not actually guilty? There is no point in actually following the rules if you live in a society that is similar to K.'s.

Chapter 7 and the Lecture

           This past week Mr. Shapiro has been lecturing about Franz Kafka and the reoccurring elements that appear in all of his stories and books. Lucky enough for our group, we are able to apply this new information that we learned into our term paper book. The main premise of the lecture involved three pillars that control society as a whole: church, state, and family. We are seeing this occur in The Trial more and more as the book progresses.

            In Chapter 7 particularly, we see this happen with the state. K. is engulfed in a trial and it is in this chapter that he starts to become more and more obsessed with it. In my opinion, K. is starting to see that the system that we instill our trust into might not be as honest as everyone believes. In fact, he is debating whether or not to fire his lawyer but does not because the courts are somewhat corrupted due to lawyers having relationships with some of the judges in the court system.

            What has been most interesting for me in this chapter is that as a reader, we are able to see that giant impact that this trial is beginning to have on K.’s life. He is even starting to give up the one thing that he used to care about the most: work. Before the trial, K. would have never forgot what a client was saying to him or leave multiple clients in his waiting room without acknowledging them before suddenly leaving without any notice. In my opinion, this relates back to the gist of the lecture as a whole. We are now seeing that K.’s whole life is being dictated by one particular pillar: state. Because of that, all of the other pillars are going to start to be affected. I think that Kafka is going to show later on that his familial relationships are starting to take a toll as well. Due to the fact that we learned that K. is not a very religious guy, I do not think that we will see the church make an impact on his life.

Comment on Ben's post

Camille Kelleher

Ben and I both posted about similar topics, the presence of the three institutions from last week’s lecture in this weekend’s reading. The emphasis on being born into guilt is definitely highlighted in this story because K’s trial is so random and unanticipated. Also, K’s inability to get out of this situation, irrelevant to the skills he has gained over his lifetime, only supports Kafka’s emphasis on predetermination. It is like we all born and die equal under the haze of undeserving guilt. I think that the only way I can make my life well spent is by accomplishing tasks and goals in my life that are separate from societal boundaries. As long as I achieve happiness at the end of my life, then I won’t remorse on my regrets.

Along with Ben, I think the least addressed pillar is the Church because K does spend some time with his uncle. I don’t like the uncle because he is very rude, malicious, and a social climber. I think that if a person associates himself with other people to improve his status then it only reflects badly on his personality because he didn’t progress as a person and achieve goals like those other people. The pillar’s motivating factors are implicit in the story when the uncle brings K to the lawyer’s house; however, I am surprised that the uncle waited for K after he disappeared with Leni. I figured, in regards to the threats we discussed in class, that the uncle would leave K behind and let him fend for himself because K disgraced and embarrassed him in front of his “colleagues.”   

This weekend's reading in relation to last week's lectures

Camille Kelleher           

After last week’s lectures about Kafka and his opinion on society, I thought about this weekend’s reading in a different manner and tone. There were certain descriptions that seemed really odd; but as I accepted my reaction, I also accepted that my extreme and isolating perspective is developed by society. If I lived in another world where different values were average and tolerable, then I may have accepted the aforementioned odd descriptions as normal. One example of these odd descriptions is the interaction between the young nurse Leni and K. on page 108 when they are inside the lawyer’s office. K. caressed Leni’s “physical defect” or webbed fingers, which later caused Leni, who smelt like pepper according to K.,  make a move on him. I find this whole exchange very random and strange, especially K.’s choice of diction. Yet, after the lectures this week, I stretched the events in this story to my own external judgment developed by society. This tiny moment of bizarreness may have reflected Kafka’s step outside of the three societal pillars that we discussed in class. His innovation in norms and creativity led me to isolation because I was viewing the interaction between K. and Leni in accordance with societal tendencies. Now, I wonder if our developed societal standards are keeping us from progressing in certain sectors of life as if we were blindfolded from investments that would yield a high return in both monetary and nonmonetary success.

It was hard not to notice the connections between The Trial and the three societal pillars, especially the state pillar given the subject of this story. On page 112, Kafka describes the judicial system and its unfair procedures, and the irony of lawyers. I think that the inability of the defendants to find out their accusations is very unbalanced, especially when the influence of lawyers is trivial. This skews the opinion of the jury, if there is one in this particular judicial system, and favors their decision towards the accusers who I assume is the state, “They (the administration) want to eliminate the defense as far as possible; everything is to be laid upon the defendant himself.” This is almost like a handicap for the government to make sure that they are always right and win every case. It increases their authority and legitimacy in the face of its ignorant and adherent citizens. When the defendants become more attached to this system, they want to transform it and change its principles to make it more practical and fair; however, the administration prevents the changes to secure their own benefits. Kafka descriptively lashes out against society in a somewhat satiric tone. It will be interesting to see how he addresses the two other pillars, the family and the church.

Comment on Vero's post

I have to agree with you, Vero. It seems that Kafka is really trying to grind the reader into this idea that the government is corrupt and inevitably a negative factor in our lives. He hints at the idea at least twice per page, and it has been getting quite repetitive and annoying. I think Kafka gives us too much information at a time. He seems to write with so much volume, and every word seems to be chosen on purpose to create that 'Kafkaesque' feeling to his works.

I enjoyed reading The Metamorphosis the most, probably because of the immense amount of creativity and detail employed. I also like the Penal Colony, again because of the creativity. But even in those works, I seemed to get bogged down by a copious amount of details that it feels like Kafka is ultimately writing in circles. You can't take any word for granted, even if you think you can, you can't. If you don't pay attention to literally every single word in the text, then you're going to lose your place in the plot and idea being expressed. I have to re-read most of the pages in the novel because I naturally take some words for granted, leaving me confused and doubtful of what I've read.

I haven't read as far as Vero yet, but K.'s transformation as a person is clear, and I feel that Kafka has a habit of transforming all of his characters, either for good or bad. In The Trial, I feel like it's for the worst, and that K.'s new lackadaisical attitude will begin to drive his spirit down to the ground, something Kafka employed on purpose to emphasize the institution's power to destroy an individual's spirit.

Last week's lecture

After sitting through the Kafka lecture, I started thinking about where/how this idea is expressed in Kafka's Trial novel and even in the outside world. The idea of being born guilty, based on the contradictions present in society's three main institutions (Church, Family, and State), is easily identified in the first chapter, when K.'s character is initially 'born' into the plot as being arrested for some unknown reason, ultimately guilty. It's obvious that the state is playing the biggest role in his arrest, but there has to be some other institution with or against the state in K.'s trial.

Another idea spoken about in the lecture was that no matter how hard you worked for something, society doesn't always tend to give you what you've been working toward. In K.'s case, he has worked extremely hard to get where he is as a successful banker, yet is challenged with his whole situation, due to society's institutions imposing their natural contradictions onto the public. The institutions each seek as much power as they can get, and through that process they must create rules to regulate and organize the public to reap as much power possible.

It may be extremely obvious in the novel, but so far, I have not seen all three institutions supporting each other in The Trial. K.'s family has not been mentioned too often, and any religious aspects to society also seem to be subdued to a degree. So, I was watching the movie Independence Day on Friday, and it was immediately clear to me that in the work, all three institutions work together in the film to create a great deal of American propaganda. You have the state working to fight and find away to fend off the destructive aliens. Religion plays the role of emotional support, especially in the final third of the movie, and the same can be said about family, yet family is magnified much more. The three are combined and paired up with some pathetic American war music to create some of the greatest propaganda to the United States Army and Country that I've personally witnessed. I know that this blog is meant primarily for The Trial, but I thought that this link was relevant to Kafka's ideas and possible endings to The Trial.

Im currently on page 88 and finished up chapter 5. I'm sure that the three institutions will begin to reveal themselves more toward the second half of the book, when we finally start to find out the true details behind K.'s trial.

Chapter 7

K’s bipolarity strikes again. Suddenly he is obsessed with the trial, and I want to know what it is that makes him jump back and forth from such extremes. Out of no where, this trial that is so important to his life; that pretty much dictates his freedom, becomes important to him again, and the carelessness that consumed him about the whole situation earlier in the book has completely disappeared.

            Although K has progressed and is now more involved in his trial, his lawyer is not doing much to help the situation. Once again, I noticed the unprofessionalism of the systems. Despite the fact that K wants to improve his situation, there are other obstacles that hold him back from proving himself innocent. I realized just how oblivious and unobservant Huld is as a person when Leni and K are fooling around right in front of him and he doesn’t even notice. To be a good lawyer, it is important to pay attention to detail and be alert, amongst other things, and those are qualities that Huld lacks. K clearly made a bad choice in hiring him as a lawyer. When he finally realizes that he is better off taking care of the trial himself, he finds it hard to stay motivated, even though he quit his job and devoted all of his time to the trial. K is always confronted with obstacles, and he never truly gets anything done. Whether it is his fault or not, K is definitely not the same powerful, correct man that he was at the beginning of the novel and it is kind of a let down.

            I really don’t like this book. Though I respect Kafka and his views, I hate the way he mindf***s the readers 24/7. I cant focus on what I’m reading and am always doubting if what I understood is actually what happened or if I was supposed to understand it in a different way. This novel is too much; so much information is given with so little value. He uses so many situations and words to say so little and it isn’t pleasant to read. We are repeatedly demonstrated through his writing that the government is corrupt and that the only way to get anywhere is through corrections. It gets boring. Out of all of the stories I have read by Kafka, this is probably my least favorite.