And now, the questions:
- Were you surprised that the court meets in a tenement? What is the significance of this chapter's setting?
- What did you think about Josef K.'s castigatory speech? Did you agree with it? Disagree? Why or why not?
- On page 52, the examining magistrate tells K. "'that [K. has] today deprived [himself] . . . of the advantage that an interrogation offers to the arrested man in each case.'" The magistrate warns Josef K. that his actions are damaging his case, implying that K. (like the man from the country, the hunger artist, and Gregor) is trapping himself through his misuse of his freedom. So, what should K. have done instead of ranting about the court? Of what advantage(s) has he deprived himself?
I can't wait to discuss this on Tuesday! Have a lovely long weekend!
1.The court's location certainly seems odd to me, especially in how difficult to find it was. It seemed hidden, like they'd put themselves here to keep it quiet and forgettable. Who would assume that a court could be found in a tenement? Who would ever go looking for it here? Do the people living in the building even really know it's there? When K. approached the door, he was directed inside without being told that it really was the courtroom he was supposed to be in, and he was immediately recognized as the man to be investigated, despite his insistence that he was only looking for a man named Lanz. They obviously know more about this place and these activities than he does, and they are absolutely disinclined to inform him on any of it. It felt more like a cult than a proceeding.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that it is an accurate representation of K.'s experiences thus far, if displayed in a negative light. I agree with it informationally, but I think it was stupid of him to give it. Towards the end he began to make assumptions about the supposed corruption of the people in power without for a moment considering that, one, he had little evidence of corruption (only blatant evidence of either intentional secrecy or just a poorly designed legal system, as they neither charged him with anything nor correctly identified his occupation) and two, because it never occurred to him that perhaps some of these supposedly corrupt individuals would be in the crowd he monologued to. It was based off of his experiences, but he went on and elaborated into things he had no substantial evidence for - he simply assumed them to be true, as though any mistreatment was purposeful and any lack of information was evidence of corruption of the system, rather than assuming that there had been a mistake, or that these particular guards were simply more informal than others. The secrecy of the proceedings allows for assumptions to be made, and while the secrecy itself could be a sign of corruption it was not in K.'s best interest to introduce himself by accusing the entire legal system of being corrupt.
3. The magistrate's comment to K. was very similar to the warning he received earlier, "Don't make a fuss about how innocent you feel; it disturbs the otherwise not unfavorable impression you make." He's also warned to talk less in general. Yet, here he is, giving a speech about how innocent he is, how he's been victimized by a horridly barbaric system led by corrupted individuals and incompetent workers - all the while, most of the people in the crowd K. monologued to WERE the supposedly corrupt higher-ups that he was slandering, and thus while he did not endear himself to the public, he did succeed in offending the very people he'd have been sensible to win over instead. He ruined his chances to endear himself to those in power by insisting on his innocence and apparent moral superiority. Really what he should have done is been quietly insistent that he was innocent, found ways to get more information (he didn't even bother to call back when he realized he hadn't been given a time to arrive at the session, or precisely where the room was), while also being pleasant to those around him. He has been fussy, antagonistic and childish thus far, and it's going to come back to bite him.
ReplyDelete1) I was very surprised that the court meets in a tenement. I think that this was a very strange addition to the story, and meeting in a tenement for a court meeting definitely contrasts from typical arrests, which meet in a court room. I believe that the significance of the court meeting in a tenement is that it adds to the mysterious aspect of the story. It makes Josef K.'s arrest seem even more peculiar. I also think that having the meeting in a tenement makes Josef K.'s arrest seem even more illegitimate. It also seems very secretive, and a tenement seems to be an odd environment to have such a serious meeting.
2) I thought Josef K.'s speech showed his anger towards the whole situation. I disagreed with his speech because he over exaggerated a lot, and he made his arrest seem much more painful for him than it actually was. Much of his retelling of his arrest was similar to what actually happened. For example, he described how one of the men guarding him messed up the woman's photographs, and this actually did happen. However, other parts of his speech were not accurate. For example, K. describes the guards as extremely rude to him: "They'd shamelessly eaten my breakfast before my very eyes." (47). This was very made up, and from this point on, I disagreed with the truthfulness of his speech.
3) Throughout the entire court meeting, K. seems very rude towards the examining magistrate and the entire court system as well. He mocks the system and acts like he is still the most superior. Instead of ranting about the court, K. should have been more respectful to the magistrate. I think that K. wanted to remain feeling powerful, and respecting the magistrate would take away some of his power. I think that by disrespecting the magistrate, K. has deprived himself of any sympathy the magistrate would have given him if he was respectful. Ultimately, if the magistrate liked K. and thought he was a good, respectful person, his arrest might end up less significant.
1. I thought it was very weird that the court meets at a tenement. It was a very unusual place to hold a court, yet it makes sense to have the court meet in a unique place because K.'s arrest was very unique and unusual. It seems as thought the tenement provides for a very private, secretive environment which makes K.'s arrest more puzzling and strange. It was specifically secretive because K wasn't told the exact place he was supposed to proceed to. The location of the assembly portrays the meeting as if it weren't as serious as it is meant to be.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with most of his speech because it displays a detailed struggle of how he was arrested for no given reason. He provided an explanation that said, "...guards try to steal the shirts off the backs of arrested men, inspectors break into strange apartments, and innocent people, instead of being examined, are humiliated before entire assemblies." Even thought I am not fond of K. as a character, I believe that this particular part of his speech was a reflection that his arrest was not equitable, and that an arrest where he was NOT given any explanation was very inessential.
3. I believe that K's speech was very pointless and did not do anything in his favor for the court. I feel like K felt superior over the court, and he seemed to taunt them throughout his speech, and this was discourteous to the magistrate and the rest of the court. K seemed to feel empowered because he had the audience's attention, so he became more arrogant as his speech went on. K could have been more cautious of how to behave in a court, and by being aware of his surroundings, he would not get into serious trouble (like being put in jail, faced with charges e.t.c). As well as being cautious, K should have been nicer to the people around him to provide a portrayal of innocence on his behalf to the magistrate.
Were you surprised that the court meets in a tenement? What is the significance of this chapter's setting?
ReplyDeleteI mean. I was surprised, but I probably shouldn't have been. Knowing Kafka, I should've suspected that where ever they (the people of the Law/law) met would've been an unusual place. I think Kafka is making a statement about the law and class. We all expect for the courts, especially the cold, abstract ones of Kafka, to take place some where clean, to be respected, and well kept. Instead, Josef K visits courts in a very disorganized, poor community.
What did you think about Josef K.'s castigatory speech? Did you agree with it? Disagree? Why or why not?
I agree with it, but I think it was a bad idea. He's giving the court more power by being outraged by it. Also, he assumes the people of the court are less enlightened than him, that they haven't already considered that the magistrate might not know anything at all. He keeps on thinking upon the people's reactions to his speech to edit his statement and influence them instead of letting his words be and dismissing them as people of the system. I did like what he said about how he wasn't an individual case, but simply typical of society. The fact it's important people know that shows he's thoughtful and it gives him a better sense of purpose.
On page 52, the examining magistrate tells K. "'that [K. has] today deprived [himself] . . . of the advantage that an interrogation offers to the arrested man in each case.'" The magistrate warns Josef K. that his actions are damaging his case, implying that K. (like the man from the country, the hunger artist, and Gregor) is trapping himself through his misuse of his freedom. So, what should K. have done instead of ranting about the court? Of what advantage(s) has he deprived himself?
He could've a) made more subtle comments to the magistrate when he did something Josef didn't like, making the magistrate seem stupid and Josef more calm or b) quietly participated in his trial, using silence to prevent the courts from effectively gathering his information. I think he deprived himself of the chance to show the court how little their inquiry means to him (though clearly it means something deep to him). His life probably would've been a lot easier if he had just complied. He deprived himself if the chance to curry favor.
I was surprised by the story's setting, but it fit into the mysterious and somewhat bizarre presence and workings of the Law. I also thought the setting was a reflection on class, as the occupants of the tenement were working class, poor families, unlike K. who worked in a bank with a high ranking position. In this setting, Josef K. was powerless, whereas in other settings, he would hold more power over these other poor people. It was interesting to have the trial in a place that truly stripped him of all his power, and allowed people who usually would be "under" him in a social hierarchy to end up being more powerful.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the crux of the speech, that the system is corrupt, but I think he was wrong to assume that the system was using him. In my opinion, someone of his caliber and wealth would not be used by the system; victims of the system would usually be poor and with little means. I think he is guilty of his unnamed crime, based on his behavior but also because the police had to have some legitimate reason to arrest him, especially because he is so powerful and has the means to get away with crime. His outburst was also disrespectful to the court and simply a naive move. Had he strategized and just thought for a minute, he would've realized earning the respect of the court would not involve him haranguing about its inherent corruption.
K. still continues to have this air of superiority and arrogance over others. He treats the court with disdain (not just the institution but the people in it) He's still trapped in his bubble, where he believes the power he exudes elsewhere can excuse all wrongs he has (or hasn't) done. He believes his power and high stature can save him, but this is a naive way of thinking. Rather, he should've been more respectful and humble, which would've appealed to the court and earned him some empathy. The magistrate is offering him a lot of wiggle room, but K. completely misuses and manipulates his freedom, which removes any chance of redemption in the future for K.
1. Because this system of law seems entirely alien to Josef K., it did not surprise me that the court is located in a drastically different part of town than K. occupies. While K.’s affluence and high-ranking bank job allow him to live in a nice part of town, the tenement and its poor inhabitants serve to contrast his lifestyle. This distinction between the laws and setting of the world K. inhabits and the world of the court system gives the impression that K. is either unaware of his surroundings and the rules he has transgressed against or the court is part of a clandestine operation. Because K. doesn’t even know what law he has broken, it makes sense that this legal system has roots in a place unknown to K..
ReplyDelete2. I agree that the way they have treated him seems like a miscarriage of justice, but I don’t agree with the tone in which he delivered the speech. While the contents of his speech are factually correct (the guards did eat his breakfast, intrude upon his house, and supply no evidence of his transgression), K.’s speech demonstrates his lack of respect for authority. Furthermore, by grabbing the Magistrate’s notebook and holding it by the tips of his fingers (46), he displays contempt for a legal system that holds power over him, which is an unwise thing to do.
3. K. states that he doesn’t understand this court’s proceedings or how they propose to enact justice. He doesn’t realize that every member of the room is a law official until he sees their badges, thereby demonstrating that he assumes his audience is less qualified than they actually are. Because he doesn’t wait for his trial to begin, he assumes they are mere witnesses to his trial and consequently makes a faux pas by insulting their court system and failing to respect their authority. If he had respected this court system enough to wait for them to begin proceedings, they might have been receptive to his pleas of innocence.
At first, I found it strange that the court is set in a tenement building, but it sort of makes sense in a way. The hidden, tucked-away nature of the place perhaps reflects the elusiveness, mysterious quality of "the Law." It's hidden in plain sight. It looks like a plain, old, and broken down building on the outside, no one would suspect that there would be such a place of power and authority inside. We expect buildings of authority and power to standout, to also look powerful, such as the Supreme Court, or the Capitol. Even city government buildings have signs in front of them or are some sort of office building. Is the run-downed, mundane nature of the court room's location suggesting that the Law's power declined or is obsolete? Or is it saying that the Law never was as powerful and glamorous as people think it is?
ReplyDelete2. I agree with parts of K.'s speech and I disagree with his tone. He makes some valid points about the injustice of his arrest: how the guards just entered his house without permission, ate his breakfast, etc. However, he does exagerrate and he does sound very haughty. He wasn't just giving a speech; he was giving a performance. He wanted to humiliate the court. K. said himself on the subject of this proceeding that "I don't take it very seriously." He is describing how this arrest inconvenienced him, not that it was a violation of his rights. So, I think, while he did have some valid points, the tone of his speech and the underlying meaning behind his speech undermined the legitimacy of his claims.
3. I'm not sure how the court system works in K.'s world but in the United States, defendants are "innocent until proven guilty" so that's an advantage that we have here. However, I think regardless of how different court systems, one advantage that people can have in court is presenting themselves as respectable, good people that the court will feel sympathy and kindness towards. K.'s speech made him look insolent. Maybe he should have acted unlike himself and present an image of a well-mannered, respectable man that would make the court think "how can a person like this commit any crime?"
1. I find it somewhat odd that the inquiry takes place in a tenement building. Why would the government choose to set a court in such an unofficial place that is so difficult to navigate (unless of course this was not a government arrest but rather a vigilante action). Assuming that the arrest was not official, I would presume that K. is a terse businessman who does not necessarily do anything illegal, but who acts amorally and, according to some vigilante group, must be punished for his actions. As such, it would make sense for the inquiry to be in an unofficial locale, such as a tenement building. However, if the arrest is official, this location is more puzzling. Could it be that the government is trying to sabotage K.'s case by making the location and time of his inquiry, which the court says is his time to make his case, not deducible? Or, is this where K. wants or expects his inquiry to be, for some strange reason? The people in the court make it clear that the course of the case depends on how K. wishes it to go (he may leave his house if he wishes, the time was really dependent on what time he expected he had to be there, etc.). I haven't figured out a reason for him to want his inquiry at the tenement building, but the explanation is possible.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that the information in K.'s speech is mostly correct (if exaggerated). I, however, agree with most people that his decision to make the speech was a terrible decision. Considering his lack of knowledge of his situation, he should be on his guard. However, he speaks his mind openly and completely shows his hand. He would have been much smarter to bide his time, answer their questions tersely, and consider what questions they asked him, which likely indicate something of the charge against K. He tells the court a lot of unnecessary information that they could later use against him.
3. K. does not ever figure out what they want out of him. Clearly, since this is an inquiry, they intend to ask him questions. However, he may have had the chance to ask questions himself, something he desires greatly. Also, as I noted above, he shows his hand. He gives them more information than they ask for, giving the court an advantage over him. He should have said as little as possible so as to avoid giving the court any extra information until he knew more about the charge. He should have presented himself as a respectable person who follows the rules instead of making himself out as a rebel who has no respect for order.
1. I believe that the court was strategically set up in a messy and disorganized tenement to annoy/frustrate K.. K. believes in organization and order, and the fact that this whole arrest and interrogation ordeal has been sloppy and disordered leads me to believe that it was purposefully set up that way in order to bring out the worst in K.. The officers who have arrested K. want to get a sense of his character so that they can know whether or not he is capable of committing whatever crime they believe he has committed. To test the limits of his morality, they force him under a condition that they know will bring out the worst in him: disorganization.
ReplyDelete2. I disagree with K's speech, but I think it's interesting. K. seems to reveal that above all he is dedicated to himself and had no regard for any moral code. In his speech he says "What has happened to me...is typical of the proceedings being brought against many people. I speak for them, not for myself" (47). He strays from morality because he doesn't truly care about other people who have fallen victim to false governmental accusations. K. says this only to manipulate his audience into believing that he is selfless and deserving of respect. This act is shockingly selfish because it shows that K. is willing to bend universal moral rules in order to feel power over people.
3. K. should have been calm, polite, and a little more charismatic. The court was testing him to see what kind of person he was, and the interrogation was an amazing opportunity for K. to depict himself in any favorable manner. He blew it by acting obnoxiously and constantly trying to establish his superiority. In this way, like all Kafka's other main characters we've read about, K. has blocked himself from obtaining freedom and justice.