Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - English Kafkas The Trial Josef Ks victory in death over the law Kafkas The Trial Josef Ks victory in death over the law Josef K.’s victory in death over the Law In The Trial by Franz Kafka, the Law, its courts, and its people seem to makeup a kind of poorly run, secret society. It appears that the purpose of this secret society is to uphold the Law although using very different methods of enforcement than what most people are used to. The arrest of Josef K. and the manner in which his trial is conducted attests to the unusual workings of this Law. The mysterious execution of Josef K. without any knowledge of a ruling only adds to the complexity of how the law works. Though what K. never does understand is that the accusations against him and the question of his guilt are almost irrelevant to his execution. In reality, K.’s survival depended completely on the Law’s success in recruiting K. Which had the law been successful, might have proved to be worse than execution. The final scene though, marks the defeat of the Law even though this victory is in death. It must first be said that the purpose of K.’s recruitment is impossible to be known for sure and of no significance either. K. held a high position in the business world and was respected in these aspects by men of his stature and by those above him. It is possible that because K. was young, intelligent, and successful, he appealed to a certain position the Law needed to fill. Or it could also have been that the Law wished K. to serve a necessary function for the court. The court may have needed K. to be like the defendants he saw in the court’s offices who could all unknowingly assisted the court in its operations. After all, K. is told by Titorelli the painter that a full acquittal has never been heard of and that a more likely result of K.’s trial would be an apparent acquittal or a protraction. In either case, K. would have to appear before the Law again and again, therefore ensuring the Law of K.’s continued service to it. For the Law to be able to entrap K. it needed to cast a sense of doubt over K. about his innocence. It must make K. believe that it is possible he is guilty of the accusations against him or, more likely, that he appeared guilty. The Law instilled this doubt very subversively by using its most powerful influences on K. Those influences were the people who K. received advice from. Throughout the novel, K frequently found himself being advised on many issues concerning his trial. It seemed that those people had only noble intentions in mind although the advice given did not always clearly help K. Most often though, except for the conversation between K. and the priest, the advice K. received was intentionally detrimental to the speedy conclusion of his trial. The only purpose the advice served was to submerge K. deeper into his trial by forcing him to become more and more involved with it. The first such instance of wrongful advice is during K.’s initial arrest. While being detained, K is informed by one of his guards of the Law’s attraction to guilt. In the eyes of the Law, this attraction clearly explains why K. was arrested and why people of the court wished to be involved with him. This seemingly illogical statement (in The Trial illogical does not necessarily mean improbable or impossible) was only meant to mask the true intentions of the court. Also, since many people of the Law will be “attracted” to K. during the following year, it could have eventually caused him to doubt his innocence. This theme of attraction continued in the novel with K.’s sexual relationship with his lawyer’s mistress Leni. K. did not realize the underlying reason Leni is attracted to him. Which is that Leni is attracted to all defendants. This is revealed when K. meets with his lawyer, Huld, in order to dismiss him. At the start of the meeting, K. is clearly perturbed by leni’s apparent relationship with the lowly merchant, Block. Huld then explained to K. leni’s odd nature and also pointed out to K. that all defendants are attractive in their appearance for some reason. He also stated that while there is no physical change in appearance, any defendant can be picked out of a crowd with relative ease by a trained eye. While huld’s revelation to K. about leni’s attraction to all defendants did not attest to K.’s guilt, it did serve an important purpose for the Law. K. was made to realize that he, a chief financial officer of a large bank, was just another defendant. His social and economic status were of little importance and he and someone such as block were considered as equals. This is a blow to K.’s ego because he is arrogant and no doubt felt to superior to most of the other defendants. His dealings with the defendant in the offices of the court and his initial response to block point out his feelings of superiority. But even more disheartening to K. than the realization of equality to his peers is the notion that since he was in the same boat as block, he may end up like block. Block’s case had been going on for five years without even the first petition even being served. It was very distressing to K. that there was even the slightest possibility for him to become the pathetic, groveling, man that block was. K. voiced his disgust for a man like this when block knelt down before Huld to beg him for any information on the progression of his own case. K. feared these consequences greatly and felt that it was necessary for him to seek help from those who had knowledge of the Law. Even while he planed out his dismissal of huld, he was thinking of other contacts that he might be able to make. There are also two more important instances in this chapter that deserve mention. The first occurs directly before K. entered huld’s office to inform the lawyer of his dismissal. While he is engaged in discussion with the merchant, Block mentioned to him a group of great lawyers who apparently know more of the Law than anyone else who did not work inside of the Law. K. immediately demanded information on how to contact these lawyers but received none. Block told K. that he knows it is useless to seek out these great lawyers but even still, he dreamt of being represented by one. This fable served not only as a possible wild goose chase for K., but also to implant in his head the idea that there was a possibility for a full acquittal. Once K. himself begins to dream of the intervention of the trial by a great lawyer on his behalf, K. will feel that he has still not done all he could or should have. The second instance takes place while K. is inside Huld’s office and has already informed the lawyer that his assistance is no longer desired. K. then watched block beg to Huld like a dog when he noted that the whole scene appeared as if it was rehearsed many times and only block was unaware of this fact. The truth is that block fully understood the rehearsed speeches that had taken place and had played a part in them himself. This incomplete enlightenment by K. shows the reader the true intentions of not only the three participants of the short skit but on a global scale, the intentions of everyone involved with the Law. K. doesn’t realize that everyone involved with his case is only trying to pull him deeper into his own confusions and frustrations. There is also one scene in which the Law gives K. the chance to come to understandings with his entire ordeal. The Law, in the form of the priest in the cathedral, presented K. with insight into the true workings of the Law. The story of the doorkeeper and the man from the country quite clearly showed K.’s situation while also hinting at the future. Once the priest completed his story, he and K. discussed the various opinions regarding the interpretation of the story. One of these opinions given by the priest involved the theory that it was actually the doorkeeper who is deceived. This theory stated that while the doorkeeper seemed very powerful he is also simpleminded. It is this simplemindedness that keeps the doorkeeper from understanding that although he was executing his duties, he was also bound by them. Also, it is only possible that the doorkeeper knew very little about the Law. After all, he could not even bare to stand the sight of the third doorkeeper, so his depth of knowledge in the Law could not have been great. The priest then explained that the doorkeeper was bound while the man was free. From this, it could be understood that the man, once denied admittance to the Law, could have easily turned around and gone home. Though, while the man was not waiting at the door, the doorkeeper would still be required to wait so that he can fulfill his duties successfully. Meanwhile, the man from the country could live out his life in a normal fashion and never bother with the Law again. Instead, the man sat and waited with the doorkeeper. The man’s death is only symbolic and actually represents the completion of the man’s enslavement to the Law. The reasons for this destruction of the man’s life can be many. The man, now a servant of the Law, may become a doorkeeper himself. The sole purpose of the breakdown of the man could have been to find a replacement for the current doorkeeper. What really matters is that the man, like the doorkeeper before him, has become a product of the law and is blind to the ways he has been deceived. K., as the man from the country had done, stood before the Law seeking to gain entrance, but is denied and forced to depend on others to admit him. The people that he has relied on, Huld, Titorelli, Leni, and others are all merely doorkeepers. They had very little understanding of the actual functions of the Law. The knowledge that they did possess was most likely passed on to them by others who were in the same position as they were. The information they gave to K. served only as a way in which to force K. to sit and wait at the door. Whether or not K. realized the full implications of the priest’s story is unclear. K. afterwards is tired and does not want to think about the story’s meaning anymore. The chapter then concludes and the following chapter describes K.’s execution. This sequence of events would suggest that the priest’s story foretold K.’s death. In reality, this is not the case. There is though, a fragment that if inserted between the events described, would change the meaning of the priest’s story. The fragment “To Elsa” began with a phone conversation K. had with a messenger of the court. In this conversation it is apparent that K. had started to become complacent to his trial. He had not been complying with the wishes of the court and he informed the messenger that he would most likely not appear at the summons that night that the messenger had just informed him of. In fact, he does not go and instead goes to visit Elsa. If this fragment was inserted between the chapters “In the Cathedral” and “The End” the death of the man in the priest’s story and the execution of K. can be distinguished as two very different consequences of seeking the Law. The man’s death is symbolic of his future, which will be spent in service to the Law. K.’s execution is brought about for reasons opposite of the man’s death. Since K. was no longer obliging to the Law he was of no use to the Law. He became aloof to his accusations and had not intended to pursue his innocence any further. The Law realized this and had, in their view, no other option but to destroy K. After all, they did not want to let K. live and allow him to inform everyone who would listen of his past experiences. It seemed that K. understood that his non-compliance with the Law would eventually lead to his death. This was shown in the final chapter when K. is not surprised to have guards arrive at his house. He soon accepts his fate and the novel then concludes with K.’s last impressions while dying. K’s will could not be broken and the Law was forced to execute him. In this sense, the Law was defeated. Their only objective from the onset of the trial was to exploit K.’s instincts for survival. They had intended for K. to become so concerned with his trial that it would completely overtake his previous lifestyle. He would then soon fall from his place in society into the unbreakable grip of the Law. It first seemed as though K. would easily succumb to the pressures and be a helpless victim of the Law for the rest of his life. But with a rapid reversal in his actions, K. refused to become the victim and intended to live his life completely separated from the Law and his trial. He exercised his freedom over the efforts of the Law to control his life. His determination to live like he had always lived was therefore the direct cause of his death. Kafka, Franz. The Trial. New York: Schocken Books, 1998. Bibliography: Word Count: 2297
Copyright © 1998-2008 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved. DMCA Notifications and Requests