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.