Reaction

Having finished the book, I really like the part about “In the Cathedral.”  The parable that the preacher tells K is written in really direct language and obviously an anecdote for the entire book as a whole. The plot is self-evident and doesn’t need any further explanation; the meaning is what is important. The parable is about a man who is desperately trying to gain permission to enter a door and he dies before his wish is granted. Everything about the plot is logical, but the setting and characters that are involved in the parable seem somewhat allusive. The setting and characters are not at all identical with our reality, which I think is K.’s goal. He wants us to expand our knowledge and perception of how we view reality since we see it so narrow-mindedly. The setting seems somewhat dream-like and nonsensical. It certainly has characteristics of an imaginative mind. The characters don’t really have any human characteristics or traits and are rather translated to motives. The man from the countryside is a persistent desire while the doorkeeper is like an obstacle to the identity of a hidden Law that neither of them knows. I think Kafka decided to write about this certain setting and characters because he wants it to reflect on K’s personal experience with the law. I think that the man from the country side is who is waiting for permission from the doorkeeper is like the man who is looking for freedom but always seems to block himself from it or the man who is looking for absolute happiness but can never find it. They are all the same characters- a man desiring an absolute ideal that doesn’t exist in reality. This describes K, he never achieved the sense of isolation from the judicial system. There is no exit once you enter the system and there is no way to avoid the system. It is an absolute that engulfs everyone even though we cant feel, perceive, know it. Yet, as I have spent my time analyzing this, Kafka probably meant something entirely different. I think he wants us to analyze how and why we view the story in this certain way and what it says about is. There is a sense of self-reflection associated with this book that is external to K.’s story but wouldn’t be able to happen if we didn’t know K.’s story.

Kafka's Ending

Kafka choose a very interesting way of ending the book. Personally, it sort of made me very upset as a reader. After spending, the whole book puzzled by the situation that K. was in, the novel ends with the reader not knowing what he was actually being accused of. Instead, K. is killed off by the resistance. After researching I found out that this book was actually developed into a movie. The link to the trailer is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_7weUR0oMY. As a movie writer, I would love to make a movie on this book due to the fact of the open ending. It would be one of those movies where you cannot wait to see the cause in the next one.

Anyways, the ending of the novel further reinforced the ideas that were presented to us by Mr. Shapiro. The three institutions truly set K. up to fail. In fact, he even died because of the institutions. It was very Kafkaesque, relating to the central theme of all of his other pieces.





I also wanted to include the image above because of one thing that stuck out to me. Franz Kafka was a writer who wrote this pieces in German. They were then translated into English. I find it very interesting that trial and process are represented by the same word. For Joseph K. this trial was a tumultuous process that took over his life.

Last Chapter

The ending of “The Trial” can be described in the same way as the entire novel; perplexing. Throughout the last few pages, it seemed like everything that happened was foreseen by Joseph K., and that the two officials who took him on his birthday did not surprise him. The novel ended in a rather unexpected way, as if the author had never finished the book. After doing some research, I found that Kafka never finished writing the novel, which is why the ending seemed so open-ended and unfinished.

Once again I saw the repetitive emphasis on the unprofessionalism of our system; throughout the whole novel there were strange incidents and encounters that showed the unreliability of the state institution. Through K.’s story, I comprehended Kafka’s transmission of his views on society and his belief that the people are constantly being betrayed by the very institutions that are meant to support them.

It is clear that Joseph K.’s trial and the details of the crime he may or may not have committed are not truly valid in the story. By omitting this seemingly important information from the readers, Kafka achieved his goal of conveying his cynical yet arguably realistic views on society and the three institutions that are ingrained in every persons being. The conclusion of the story is a good representation of Kafka’s writing; illogical, confusing, yet communicative and meaningful.  However, the last few lines in “The Trial” also highlight so many of the major themes that Kafka evoked throughout his writing.

The relationship between the beginning and the end of the story is shown in the last paragraphs. At the start of the novel, when K. gets arrested, he is very self-conscious about what his neighbors will think and is more worried about their opinions than about his situation. At the end, the same idea is brought up and we realize how much the opinions of others influence a person’s life. His shame lives on, even after K. is dead. Kafka’s powerful words bring us back to his main points and give us a good perspective on how Kafka sees the world. Nevertheless, the conclusion is open-ended and lacks a sense of closure. Kafka stays true to his paradoxical style of writing and simultaneously expresses his outlook so that they are instilled in the readers’ minds.

Though reading the novel was kind of frustrating at times, as a whole I like the symbolism and rather strange writing that Kafka uses to express himself. I wish I had some more closure at the end, but in a way it kind of says a lot about Kafka, his ideals, and his style. 

Reaction

I thought that the ending to this book was really abrupt. Kafka leaves the readers with a lot of questions about K and his trial, especially the details of his crime. Although I think that Kafka could have ended this story in a better and more rational way, it is definitely characteristic of how we view Kafka's work.

I love the parallel between the men at the beginning of the book and the men at the end. Just as K's trial started, it ended in an obscure manner that highlights the weaknesses of a bureaucracy. I think that Kafka intentionally describes the men at the beginning as rugged and poor individuals and the men at the end as formal and of a higher society because he wants to show that the role an individual holds in society is irrelevant to his vulnerability to hidden and oppressive institutions. Also, both groups of men are fools and ignorant about the institutions they are involved in. They have lost all sense of their natural intelligence and consciousness and when they come across issues that were not outlined in their directions, they find themselves hesitant about what they should do, “So one of the men asked the other to let him work on positioning K on his own for a while, but that didn’t improve things either. Finally they left K in a position that wasn’t even the best of those they had already tried.” In order to associate themselves with this institution, they have to give up all instincts that would allow them to thrive in reality. This institution inevitably arrests the men who thrive in reality, unless they avoid this institution by defying inherent logic, “logic is no doubt unshakable, but it can’t withstand a person who wants to live.” People are put under this pressure after they pass the stage of infancy described on page 226, “two small children were playing together behind a grille…not yet capable of moving from the spot.” They are trying to play and taunt each other, but their influences on the other individual are restrained by their inability to move.

In the last paragraph of the book, Kafka points out that life is less important than the influences of other individuals on you, “’Like a dog!’ he said; it seemed as though the shame was to outlive him.” People’s perspectives and influences on an individual are more important than how an individual lives their lives.

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.