Fraulein Burstner's Involvement

The many attempts that K. makes to fix his relationship with Fraulein Burstner suggests his desperate attraction towards her, and it also shows another side of K. that is affected by the situation regarding his judiciary case. He does everything he can to make things better between them, from waking up earlier to catch her alone, to sending multiple letters apologizing for his behavior, but she does not respond, leaving him uneasy about the whole situation. I also understood, from the reading, that the characters that K. encounters are trying to prevent him from talking to Fraulein Burstner, and that everything occurring seems a bit staged and false.

Though most characters that come across K. seem to be temporary and unimportant to the entirety of the novel, it seems as if Fraulein Burstner reappears and has more of an impact on Joseph K.’s actions and thoughts. Evidently, she is significant to him, and because of this it is obvious that she is an essential character in the novel as a whole.   The fact that Kafka takes his time to expand on K and Fraulein Burstner’s relationship foreshadows the fact that she may be involved in everything that is going on with K., and pushes me to wonder what her true and full association in the story is. 

Everytime I read this book I find my self very confused. The situations created by Kafka are puzzling to me as most of them are very unrealistic. For example, in this weeks passage Kafka describes how K. goes to the "courthouse" even though he was not summoned. What is peculiar about this situation is the condition the "courthouse" was in. Contrary to being a traditional courthouse as it was before, the room is transformed into a living room. We learn later on the the "women" and her husband live there. To me, this makes no sense. K, a prominent buissiness man should recognize that something is wrong and that it might not be a real "courthouse" after all.
Another thing that I found very interesting was the fact that as tension started in the courthouse, K began to feel dizzy and immediately seemed to want to exit. Maybe the true reason is that he didn't want to deal with the situation. Honestly, I cannot say that I am enjoying reading this novel.

Fraulein Burstner

K.'s continuous quest to meet up with Fraulein Burstner seems to be getting harder and harder as the novel progresses. After her quick appearance in the novel, she has only been mentioned in the plot by other characters, not actually appearing as much as she should. I personally believe that she is playing a bigger role than perceived in the actions and motives of K. His obsession of speaking to her and his obsession of seeing her all seem to make his rash decisions and irritable personality come alive even more. In the first chapter we are revealed that K. has some feelings for her, and needs her attention. We haven't really seen much since that chapter, and it does not seem to be affecting K.s attitude correctly.

It almost seems as if she is purposefully avoiding him. He goes to knock on her door and after no answer, he opens the door and walks in. Her not being there makes K. act irrationally, which is what happens here in chapter 4. Maybe she has something to do with K.s whole legal situation, but it seems unlikely. Either that or she simply thinks he's a creep.

Human depravity

Camille Kelleher

After reading the first 60 pages, I have realized that Kafka uses K.’s trial as an outlet to tell a completely separate story. Although K.’s trial is unjust and random, Kafka uses the trial to illicit a theme about human depravity. This theme becomes concrete during his hearing with the magistrate and the following Sunday with the woman. Through these two events, I have learned that Kafka views human society as fake, corrupt and unreasonable.

During K.’s hearing, the readers become aware that the crowd is composed of students who are acting to create a certain atmosphere. Everything that happens is all staged. This may be out of the desire to mentally derange K into his speech in front of everyone and to have him say something that could be used to base his arrest on. The whole hearing relies upon the magistrate and his signals to his students.

The following Sunday, K returns to the apartment and finds himself in an unplanned confrontation with one of the student’s wife. She is the same woman that was having sex during K.’s hearing; however, throughout his conversation with her, K. remains sensible and sensitive to reality.  K.’s conversation with the women tells us that she has leverage with every man in the organization via sexual endeavors. Kafka shows that the woman is willing to betray the organization to help Kafka through her insight. Both K.’s hearing and his conversation with the woman is the epitome of the fake, corrupt and unreasonable surrounding society.

Overall thoughts on the book so far

Honestly, I expected this book to be better after reading the first two chapters. The first two chapters left   a lot of freedom to the reader to sort of guess what would happen next and really kept the reader on his/her toes. I love some parts of the text when it comes to how Kafka 'manipulates' the plot, sort of what Camille alluded too in her blog. But overall I dont like it. The openings and freedom allowed by Kafka in the beginning was quite alright. But now it's just getting mundane and repetitive. The interpretations that the reader is forced to make (especially in the third chapter) makes the book difficult to read, and doesn't allow the reader to gain a sort of rhythm, especially when the reader has to reread a part of the text when they can't actually believe was serious (something Max alluded to in his comments to Vero's post).

Some of you guys express your praise for the novel, just like I did initially. But, after reading the third chapter, it frustrated me to keep reading.

K.'s Mindset

As the novel is continuing to progress, Kafka does a great job in revealing the innermost thoughts and concerns of K. This allows the reader to be able to characterize K. in a unique way. We see that K. is someone who does not like to be wrong, in face he cannot stand being under someone else. This is apparent in many different aspects: from with his friends to work to in the courtroom. He is always attempting to have the upper hand.

What was very interesting for me in this chapter was when K. has an argument with the student in court. It is described like the student defeats K. in a conversation like manner as he takes the women upstairs when K. wanted her to stay. This allows us to witness a time where K. looses. It is obvious that he is distraught and a little bit angry. He wanted to be the hero of the situation and save the women.

Kafka's Manipulation of Plot

Camille Kelleher

Response to Vero

9/15/13

Vero discusses the unrealistic, dreamy sequence of events in this story. It causes us to be indifferent to the plot because we can never fully relate to K. and his feelings.  I agree with Vero’s opinion on Kafka’s narrative style, it is frustrating and sometimes causes me anxiety to get through the assigned pages. Yet, this type of controlled and manipulated narrative is not uncommon to us; Ayn Rand uses the same amount of control over the events in Atlas Shrugged.

While reading both of these stories, I feel contempt for how we have to follow the unnatural rollercoaster of events that only help the authors reach their novel’s thesis. I hate having to accept the story for how the author wants it to unfold, instead of how it would actually happen in reality. It seems as if the author is cheating all dimensions and logical sequences of the universe! But, I guess that is only the definition of fiction. If I want to read a logical story, then I should read autobiographies or history textbooks.

My distaste for these kinds of narratives is so strong that I would choose unreliable narrators like Holden Caulfield in The Catcher in the Rye over Rand and Kafka. Caulfield leaves the readers wiggle room to question his narration instead of having to mindlessly abide to unchangeable events. As for K.’s unrealistic trial, it looks like we have to accept Kafka’s manipulation of plot and see what he has to say in the future of this story. 

Response to Camille's 9/15

          As Camille said, there is something confusing about the situation as a whole. The “trial” is disorderly and unusual, and there is no explanation as to why everything is occurring in this manner. In my previous blog I mentioned that the scenes were dream-like and far from realistic. In contrast, Camille doubts whether or not the trial is even an act of the government. Clearly, Kafka is suggesting a sense of fantasy that causes perplexity and doubts in the readers’ minds as they read through the pages of the novel. Nobody really knows why the arrest was so casual and mysterious, or why the judicial system appears to be so improper. Every aspect of the trial, whether it is the instructions concerning the hearings, or the people attending them, is unexplained and abnormal. 

The Disorganization of the Trial and the Greater Context of Early 20th Century Germany

 Camille Kelleher

Post #3

9/15/13

           

Franz Kafka describes the initial hearings of K.’s trial as confusing and disorganized. The unprofessionalism of this government’s bureaucracy and judicial system makes me wonder if this is even an act of the state’s government. For all I know, it may be an underground organization that has absolutely no political leverage. The dim-witted guards, casual arrest, and vague instructions for the initial inquiry have led this trial to be puzzling for both K. and the readers.

K.’s attempt to find the apartment was based on an inefficient plan that resembles his trial’s procedures. His gamble on finding the right apartment almost led him to abandoning his endeavor until a last moment spur of luck. This organization may just scan through the public until they find an easy target to waste their time on. 

However, through this chaos, there seems to be a common foundation or goal that this organization is based on, “ ‘You’re a house painter?’ ‘No,’ said K., ‘I’m the chief financial officer of a large bank.’ This reply was followed by such hearty laughter from the right-hand party below that K. had to join in” (pg. 44). This group seems to be divided, and one half has a common resentment against the figures of higher class. I think that this scene may be a microcosm for Germany in the early 20^th century. After doing some research, I found a PBS article that summarizes German society before World War I. Indeed there were distinct differences between the classes of citizens and large political movements. This may have influenced Kafka’s narration and his manipulation of K.’s interaction with this organization.

What the...

           As I read through chapters two and three, the main phrase that kept repeating itself in my head was “What the...?” In my opinion, the storyline is unrealistic and just plain bizarre. Although I wouldn’t say I was enjoying the novel at the beginning, I can admit that I was curious as to how it would turn out. But as K. went to the inquiry and proceeded with his insulting speech, I found it extremely odd and unlikely that these events would ever take place in real life. Why were all these people reunited in the hall? What is the purpose of this inquiry? These are all things we still have not learned, and there is a point where the readers have to be able to deduce something through the reading that will give them a clue as to what is going on.            

           The atmosphere during this part of the book is dream-like and peculiar, as the events that take place (such as the boy grabbing K.’s hand and leading him to the room) are inexplicable and would never happen in reality. I don’t quite know how to feel about it all; it is hard to determine whether this dreamy ambiance is a good or bad thing for the readers, and I feel as though I need an explanation. Then again, maybe that is too personal of an opinion, and maybe the book isn’t as bad as I perceive it to be.  Regardless, this is not a novel I would ever voluntarily read.