Relating Kafka and Dostoyevsky

I haven't finished reading The Trial, so I dont really have a 'reaction' on the end of the book yet. But, I have seen a couple of similarities between what we have spoken about in class and what I have been reading in The Trial. To me, one of the most important ideas of the novel is how a screwed up society and a screwed up bureaucracy can literally tear down the soul and character of a person. K. in the beginning is described as a character with strong character, he's successful, and is willful. Towards the end, he realizes that he is helpless, accepts that idea, and now is described as being submissive and pretty indifferent/nonplussed about his situation. In Notes From the Underground, Dostoyevsky uses the wall to parallel what we want to accept in our society. The wall is the boundary we accept to help appease our thoughts that we are alone in the universe, and that in reality, we are nothing. We accept the limitation with open arms, and it ultimately changes our life. K. in The Trial, after a corrupt and ugly process, accepts the way his society was built, and ultimately accepts his limitation (the wall) and it changes him for the worse.

The way I have grown up, and in the society that I have lived in has taught me that if you put in some hard work, you can always find a solution to a question. It's clear through the reading of Notes From the Underground and The Trial that this really is not the case. Notes From the Underground taught me (so far) how to accept the fact that we are indeed insignificant in this universe, and that it's ok to accept that idea. The Trial has shown me that the idea in the first sentence of this paragraph is indeed extremely false. It's obvious that K. was in zero control of his situation, and therefore refutes my previous belief system. The two books paired up together have created a new ideology in me that basically life is defined by how you do what you do, and the opportunities you take. We live in an individual's world. Our societies are built on helping others, but they contradict themselves.

Reaction

Chapter 9 of "The Trial" introduces the third institution that is prevalent in the novel for the first time: church. After completing a business meeting with K.'s boss and an Italian business man, K. is ordered to meet this man at a cathedral. This cathedral is very dark, having little light and ominous paintings around it. K. makes note that it has a very erie feeling.

Anyways, a church ceremony starts even though there was barely anyone in the church. Then, the craziest thing happens: the priest knows who K. is and tells him that his trial is going badly! How could the priest know about his trial?! This is ridiculous! This tells the reader that maybe the church does in fact have a role in controlling K.'s life in the actual trial as well. All three Kafka institutions are clearly displayed in this book.

However, what is extremely unique about the situation is what is told to K. and the other people in the church by the Priest. This parable is very ironic due to the fact that it has to do with the law and K. himself is currently engulfed in a never ending trial. Then we see K.'s interpretation on the parable. It appears to me like he does not really care about it. In my opinion, he should have paid attention more and really thought about it. It is not out of coincidence that the priest knew K. was in a trial. Someone most have told him, being the owner of the bank, the Italian, or someone in the court system. K. really needs to start paying attention to the little things as it may actually come to benefit him later on.

Chapter 9

Chapter 9 takes a shift with the way things have been going during the novel for a while, however it keeps the main idea that K.’s trial is going to shit. He has established to meet at the cathedral with an Italian client to show him around the city, and yet again there are weird twists and confusions planted by Kafka that perplex the reader in that “Kafkaesque” manner that we should all be used to by now.

When K. is in the cathedral, he speaks to a priest who also seems to know a lot about his case. The priest tells Joseph K. information that he already knows; his case will not end well, though K. tries to convince him that his relationships with the different women he has been with will help him to succeed. Yet another small implication that in the screwed-up, corrupt judicial system, connections are everything. Is this K.’s only hope at this point? He seems to believe that these women are the only way he will win the case.  Through this wishful thinking, we see that Kafka believes that the state institution is not a very consistent one, nevertheless it holds complete power over all of us. Regardless of the fact that the institution is corrupt, unjust, and unprofessional, it keeps a strong power over the citizens and cannot be overcome. In this unfair world, the only thing keeping people out of trouble is their connections.

The parable told by the priest is very symbolic to Joseph K.’s situation. The man in the parable is knocking on the doors of the “law,” and the institution fails to help him due to the manipulation and threats it manifests over the people. K. is experiencing something similar; he is hopeless before the law and cannot trust the state institution; an establishment that claims that they exist to help the people and not weaken them. Kafka, through this parable, demonstrates his cynical view of society and the state institution, and shows the readers that the law is does not fulfill the support and benefits that it claims. The law is weak and leaves the people impotent. Those that are forced to deal with the law are left helpless, because they are bound to fail. In a way, the man in the parable is Kafka’s way of summing up Joseph K.’s situation and represents the way the law reacts to his case. Clearly, Kafka has little or no faith in the controlling institutions that so strongly affect society and the common  man. 

Trial Blog Post

We have not had a blog post for this book in a while, and a lot has occurred since my last post. First, we are introduced to Block, a businessman who appears to be in a situation that is similar to Joseph K’s. Block is consumed by a trial that hit him, causing him to hire a legal team of five lawyers and exhaust all economic resources that he could, including from his business. This kind of makes you think if K. is going to be in the same predicament as Block is in. Block reveals one very important thing, he thinks that Huld is basically a terrible lawyer and did not really do anything for his trial. As a result, he hired these other ones. If I was K. then I would immediately go and hire a different lawyer. However, it is then revealed that K. fired Huld and leaves his office for good.

As I am reading this book there is only one thing that is going through my mind: how are the three institutions prevalent in the book and are the controlling K. and society as a whole. So far, these institutions are still controlling every aspect in the book. The two that are most apparent are the government and familial branch. K. only decided to use Huld as a lawyer because of the fact that he was his uncle’s friend. However, he did not do a sufficient job in the governmental branch as he did not really do anything that could benefit K. in his trial. This creates a separation in the two branches of society. Do you stay with Huld because of the familial relationship in respect for his uncle or do you do what is best for you legally? In my opinion, K. did the right thing. When these two institutions clash as they did, you have to side with the government side. You do what is best for yourself and what is going to keep you out of jail even though you might be upsetting people in your family. However, I am still waiting to see the one branch of government that has not really been present yet: church. I am wondering if it is going to magically appear at the end of the book similarly as it did in The Stranger by Camus. However, I am enjoying reading this book as a whole much more than I did before. I truly now know how to read and analyze Franz Kafka’s writing thanks to the lecture by Mr. Shapiro. 

Reaction

Oh, our beloved K. We have come a long way since August. At the beginning, K was a successful Chief Financial Officer and enjoyed his life as a bachelor with multiple women like Fraulein Burstner and Elsa while we were stressing over the Common Application. Now, near the end of the book, K is losing sight over his future and seems to be under the control of everyone around him (even strangers) and we still don’t know where we will be going to college. I have enjoyed my time following K’s journey battling with the court and attempting to advance his trial while he has shadowed our progress through senior year.

I am a couple pages from finishing the book and am confident to say that my favorite chapter is the one in the cathedral with the priest. Rather than the priest relating himself with God and religion, he associates himself with the court as prison chaplain. In fact, we are only told that he is a priest because K classifies him as such and K’s interaction with him occurs in a cathedral. This shows that K still sees the world around him as controlled by other forces like legitimate governmental systems or careers and his perspective is hurting him. He divides his responsibility between different institutions rather than focusing on his trial and actually taking action. He wastes his time by busying himself with finding help and creating plans and proposals. He never assumes full responsibility. I think this kink in his perspective keeps him both optimistic about his future and wastes his time. This self-degradation is the root of the priest’s anecdote. K wastes his life trying to find people who will advance his case, like the countryman who succumbs to the doorkeeper, and will end up dead with no progress to show for his effort. In addition, Kafka creates a parallel between the critics who debate over the countryman’s pursuit of the Law and us as analyzers of K’s trial. We are able to have our own ideas and analyses of the author’s intent but what really matters are that both characters die in a wasteful battle, which they entitled for themselves. They never accomplished their goals because they suffered from the pressure of being human and under the control of illegitimate institutions whose power has never been questioned by others in the first place. I am left to question whether or not institutions that have control over us actually have legitimate authority. In other words, is it my responsibility to stand up to the “man”?

CH. 7 and 8

Yet another blog for “The Trial,” and I still do not know what else to write about Joseph K. besides that his personality just irritates me, and that Kafka’s writing confuses me.  However, I saw something that once again demonstrated the weakness of the government. Through Block’s actions we see the way the system is not as strong and correct as it makes itself out to be. Block knows what is happening regarding K’s trial, and he is an informant of the court. Once again we are presented with the idea that the systems are not so professional, and there is a conflict in the legitimacy of it.

            K is still stuck between defending himself, or sticking with Huld, until he appears at his house in hopes of letting Huld go. But before this, Huld was useless and this frustrated K. His lawyer is a very contradictory character; he acts as if he knows so much and has connections, but then shows a side of him that tells us he does not want K to release him as his lawyer. His attitude makes it seem like he has everything together, and like he will do a good job of defending K, but on the contrary he works slowly and gets basically nothing done. K is better off just defending himself at this point, because nothing is getting done and time is passing. It is just now that K. realizes how important this trial is, and that it dictates his future. Finally he got some sense knocked into him and he actually cares about what will happen.

         Chapter 8 reveals to us that Block lives at Huld’s house, at his disposition, because Huld only sees him when he feels like it. Block apparently knows a lot about K’s trial, just like every other character we have encountered in the novel. Once again there is a clear representation of a weak, unprofessional judicial system in which rumors travel quickly and everybody knows everybody’s business. Block is, in a way, a potential futuristic version of Joseph K., and this is scary for the readers and the protagonist. Block has five other lawyers working for him behind Huld’s back, which also demonstrates how pathetic and desperate this man is for his own case. Block is characterized as a lost cause, which instills a sort of distress in the readers’ minds that this is what K.’s life can come to at one point.

         

End of Chapter 7

I know I spoke briefly about Chapter 7 and K.'s encounter with Titorelli, but after refreshing my mind on the topic, I think it still needs some blogging about. This idea of the state controlling our lives by the consequences and threats presented to us is developing more as the chapter moves along. K. starts by realizing that his lawyer is making some progress in his case, but nothing significant. The way Kafka is starting to shape the people around K. is reminding me a lot of how the institution of the state can really control your fate. First, you have the lawyer. He seems like he is working against K. in an indirect way. K.'s boss (the VP of the bank) also sends off that same vibe. After getting rid of the manufacturer and getting rid of K., he snoops around his office. It could just be that he's curious to know what is up with K., but the characters seem to be intertwined in a way that is not directly presented to the reader. Titorelli sends off that suspicious vibe by a lot. It triggered into my mind when K. leaves through the back door, and is in the hallway of the courtrooms. To me, that was Kafka's way at telling the reader that Titorelli is directly connected to the case.

K. fires his lawyer shortly after, and tries to take the case into his own hands. A once intense, hard working, confident, successful man now cannot even muster up the energy to come up with a petition. The state institution has not only physically deteriorate this man's life, but also single handedly deteriorated his spirit and personality. That idea presented in the lecture just continues to grow more and more as I read deeper into the novel. You have the court, which is directly related to K.'s demise. But now you have all of these supporting characters that strengthen and surround the court/state and bring down K. even more.

After reading 20 pages out of Notes from the Underground, I stopped my complaining about how Kafka's work is hard to read. After read NFTU, I realized that The Trial is not that hard of a read, and it is beginning to flow much better.