Full Paper

Franz Kafka’s drive to highlight the corruption of government, as well as the lack of professionalism in modern Russian society is exceptionally portrayed through the characters and situations that prevail in "The Trial." The implications of his belief system are cleverly interlaced in the novel to express his dissatisfaction in the unofficial, unethical customs of the modern Russian government. Josef K.’s first arrest was certainly unprofessional; that is something that immediately stands out to the readers and establishes a precedent for the way the rest of the novel carries out. The first scenes instantly produce a sense of confusion and inquiry as to why something that is supposed to run in an official, political way is being handled so unethically.

K.’s arrest is inarguably one of the most important scenes in the story. Two clearly inexperienced agents from an undetermined source visit Josef K. to detain him, however they do not inform him of his charge. From these details it is clear that Franz Kafka intends to make a certain claim about the Russian government, and the scene marks the beginning of what turns into a comment on that society. The agents that visit K. show no professionalism; by their actions it is reasonable to deduce that they are simply doing their job without knowledge of the situation. During the first arrest, one of the guards says, “After all, our department, as far as I know, and I know only the lowest level, doesn't seek out guilt among the general population, but, as the Law states, is attracted by guilt and has to send us guards out. That's the Law. What mistake could there be?” (Kafka 78). It is evident from this statement that the agents are simply following directions and could be perceived as mindless individuals. Not only are they doing their job without questioning its justice, but also, they do not even consider asking themselves if the assignment is sensible. It is clear that they are uneducated by the question they pose at the end of the quote. At this point, the readers are given the idea that these guards live by the law and enforce it with no personal opinions or judgments. They one-track-mindedly do their job and do not care if it is not ethical. For them, if the law says it should be done this way, then there is no reason for it to be done differently. Now the reader asks him or herself: Why are unqualified individuals being assigned to official positions that are essential for a successful government?

The first court hearing of the novel is yet another instance in which K’s comment on modern society is blatantly underlined. The fact that the accused is notified of this hearing by telephone is already a sign that the judicial system lacks professionalism. He is given an address, but no time and no specifications. This court hearing is supposed to be something formal; something that is taken seriously by the system. However, this seriousness is entirely eliminated by the way the summoning is conducted. The lack of formality is prominent during K.’s arrival to the address he was given. He walks into the building, cannot find the courtroom, and is unable to find someone that can help him get to where he needs to be. After K. finally finds the unkempt, congested courtroom, he gives a speech addressing the unofficial way in which the entire event was conducted. K. is the controversial individual in this unsystematic government that charged him with an unspecified authorization, and in a way he personifies Franz Kafka. The author uses the protagonist to transmit his critique of the way the world functions.  

One of the main critiques that Kafka brings to light in his novel, “The Trial,” is the idea that innocence has little to no importance in the outcome of a trial in modern Russian society. Many characters such as Huld and Titorelli serve to demonstrate this lack of justice that is very perceptible in the system. The prolonging of the trial also alludes to the fact that no matter how innocent or guilty one may be, the trial’s results are not determined by what actually occurred in the cause, but rather by which party has stronger or more important connections.

When Josef K. is lured into Huld’s appealing yet unsupported convictions that innocence plays no role in the court, he finds it difficult to pull himself away from the lawyer. Besides Huld’s incompetence in professionalism and formality regarding his job and where he meets his clients, he delays K.’s trial and places insufficient attention on the case. There are many reasons as to why Josef K. postpones his separation from Huld; one being Leni, and the other being that he would not have found a better alternative. Huld’s justification for this theory that innocence is insignificant is that the only way to find positive results in a trial is to have connections in the judiciary system. Although Huld is supposed to be working for his clients, the way his character is presented shows that his clients end up as his slaves because they find themselves with no other alternative. Kafka believes that individuals in society always windup as slaves to the very systems that contradict themselves in their lack of order and justice that they claim to provide. Block, another of Huld’s clients, is the perfect example of an individual forced to work for the system. Huld is theoretically his lawyer, but because he has absolute control over his clients due to his hypnotizing claims, Huld is able to essentially abuse Block but still keep him coming back.

The reliability on connections in the system that Kafka criticizes in his novel is portrayed through Titorelli’s character. This painter, clearly unqualified and commonplace, is surprisingly an important figure in the court system. The readers ask themselves why such a seemingly trivial, mediocre individual holds so much power in the system, and they find that his high classification is a merit of the portraits of judges that he paints. Here is yet another character that represents the inadequacies of the judiciary system. Titorelli represents the placement of unskilled, mindless people in fundamental and critical positions in society. The people that are supposed to lead and sustain order are simply mindless fools that lack originality and innovative minds.

This system in which the government possesses complete power over the people is referred to as totalitarianism. From the substance of the novel, it is clear that Franz Kafka wrote it to critique this form of government in modern Russian society. The people in power are capable of doing almost anything they wish and the law does not play a role in these decisions. It all comes down to the scanty and unofficial bureaucracy that Kafka comments on. Given by the content of the novel, it is evident that it takes place in a European setting representing an oppressive government in modern society. Different characters such as Titorelli, Huld, and Block demonstrate the shortcomings of this system and exemplify what it is to be a part of an authoritarian government that handles important dilemmas unjustly.

The parallelism between K’s arrest and his death is an essential part of the novel as a whole. Through the arrests at the beginning and the end of the novel, the inaptness of the government system, corrupt officials, and under qualified people taking on important roles is clearly visible and one is able to sum up the main themes that Kafka so cleverly emphasizes.

Josef K is captured and killed on his birthday, in the same way that he was arrested on his thirtieth birthday some time before. The guards that drive him to his execution are clearly just doing their job with no knowledge of the allegations. K. is killed with no justification; after all of the deviations in his trial, the biased politics, and the inadequate judicial issues that he undergoes, he is executed arbitrarily and with no explanation. Besides highlighting the haphazard actions of the government, this parallelism also evokes the idea that the totalitarian ways of the system are unchanging and challenging to escape. After everything K. goes through, it is somewhat shown that the law is not on his side, and that he is bound to have negative results. The analogous arrests at the beginning and end of the novel serve to demonstrate that this form of government is not progressive, and that it is difficult to come out of these unreasonable structures. This incident and closure to the novel not only underlines Kafka’s critique on the abuse of power occurring in Europe during these times, but also sums up the novel and confirms Kafka’s idea that there is no way of evading or overcoming these sorts of issues in a totalitarian government such as the one presented in the novel.

Kafka’s omission of the details of the trial also encourage the readers to understand that the book is not about Josef K.’s crime, (whether he committed it or not), but rather about the way it is handled by the government and the unscrupulous, inexpert officials that abuse their power and lead K. to his death. The public is left questioning whether or not K. deserved this undocumented punishment. Was it implemented in the right way, had he committed the crime he was accused of? We are never certain that K. is innocent, but regardless of this detail, we are confident that the legal affairs regarding this trial are never carried out professionally, and in the exclusion of these seemingly important details, Kafka achieves his goal of presenting modern Russian society as one that lacks principals of justice and professionalism.

From the moment of Josef K.’s arrest, the critique on totalitarianism and an inadequate government is surfaced, and the readers are acquainted with the main idea that Kafka promotes in his novel. It is through this event that the readers begin to grasp the fact that this world that K. lives in is not privy to professional and formal structures. The guards that first arrest him are mindless workers that not only arbitrarily, but also lightly, detain K. for an unspecified crime, yet allow him to go about his daily life. They resemble the defects of the totalitarian government that Kafka attempts to satirically characterize, and serve to mark the initiation of K.’s process in the court. From this point, the unorganized court hearing, incompetence of Huld’s job as K.’s lawyer, and the inexplicable assignments of undeserving people to high official positions are only supplements to this prefaced theme. The multiple situations in “The Trial” embody characteristics of a chaotic, informal, and partial bureaucracy. They collectively delineate Kafka’s perception of what modern society consists of, and by the end of the novel, (though unfinished), the readers wholly understand his commentary on how a totalitarian government brings society to its demise.