Hi, friends. I know that I posted this very late, and I certainly won’t penalize you if it isn’t done before class tomorrow. Please try to get it (and any missing blogs) done by Saturday morning.
“‘The only thing I can do now is keep my mind calm and analytical to the last. I’ve always wanted to seize the world with twenty hands, and what’s more with a motive that was hardly laudable. That was wrong; do I want to show now that even a yearlong trial could teach me nothing? . . . I’m grateful they’ve sent these half-mute, insensitive men to accompany me on this journey, and that it’s been left to me to say myself what needs to be said” (228).
“K. knew clearly now that it was his duty to seize the knife as it floated from hand to hand above him and plunge it into himself. But he didn’t do so . . . He could not rise entirely to the occasion, he could not relieve the authorities of all their work; the responsibility for this final failure lay with whoever had denied him the remnant of strength necessary to do so” (230).
“Logic is no doubt unshakeable, but it can’t withstand a person who wants to live” (231).
“With failing sight K. saw how the men drew near his face, leaning cheek-to-cheek to observe the verdict. ‘Like a dog!’ he said; it seemed as thought the shame was to outlive him” (231)1.
- So this is it--Josef K. dies at the hands of two “‘old supporting actors’” who seem to be employees of the court (226). Did you see his execution coming? Did it make sense? Was it satisfying in any way? That is, to you, how did it work as an ending?
- Does K.’s ordeal teach him anything?
- What does K. mean to say with his last words, “‘like a dog!’”?
_________________
1 You probably noticed that this quote suggests that the two men expect K. to deliver a “verdict” as he dies. The word “verdict” is highly provocative in the context of the court and the officials, as it suggests that K. himself is a (the?) judge. Where Mitchell uses “verdict,” many other translators opt for “result.” I’m going to investigate the text of the novel’s end to see if his use of “verdict” is appropriate. If it is, we have a lot to discuss.
1. This ending makes sense to me. The way I read it, there are 2 main ways to interpret this book (yes, there are other options, but I don't find them compelling). The first option, the religious one, easily allows for K. to die. If this is a religious court, the only way to truly get a verdict is to die and be tried (by God I believe, although I don't fully understand religion) to see what will happen in the afterlife. K. must die in order to get his verdict: heaven or hell? However, as he does not seem to prescribe to the morals/beliefs of the court, he does not get his verdict as he does not necessarily believe that this final judgement after his death will occur (otherwise, I would expect us to see him getting his verdict after death). The alternative interpretation is that the court is part of a totalitarian dictatorship and that the trial is some sort of a message to others: do as we say or you will be unfairly tried. Even if K. has done nothing wrong, he is being used as an example of the court's power. As such, it makes sense that K. dies as an ultimate demonstration of power; the court does not need the validation of a guilty verdict to perform an execution. This explains why the executors do not know K.'s verdict: it has not yet been stated. In a totalitarian society, there is no need for a verdict.
ReplyDelete2. I do not think that K.'s ordeal has taught him anything. He continues to be obstinate and arrogant to the end of the novel, refusing to make one final act of compassion by killing himself rather than forcing the executors to do so. He refuses to accept the help of a lawyer. He tries to take matters into his own hands, and that desire for power and control ultimately leads to his demise (presumably; we do not know when or how he would die had he hired lawyers to extend his trial). Either way, his attitude ultimately kills him.
3. I don't know. I think it's possible that there is a German idiom that may be at play here. Also, the phrase "work like a dog" is relatively widespread across languages. This refers to the fact that early dogs were used for work and were seen as hardworking. It seems like this could be a parallel, as the impression is that dogs are perseverant, and K. is perseverant in his character throughout the novel? He does not allow his trial to change who he is, no matter how much it tests his patience. I am not sure if this makes any sense at all, but I cannot think of any other way that it could be interpreted.
1. The violence of the ending did not surprise me, as we have already seen similar violence in The Flogger. However, I was surprised that the court decided to take action instead of protracting K.’s trial as they do with the other defendants. Furthermore, I felt surprised by the rehearsed, ceremonial tone of K.’s execution. Before this moment, we’ve seen the court portrayed through a lens of constant disarray and confusion, yet here both the executions seem fully aware of their purpose.
ReplyDelete2. I believe K.’s trial humbles him. During this final scene, he no longer tries to fight against the court and instead lets the men take him away to be executed. Instead of making a speech as we’ve seen him do before, he submits to his fate because he recognizes the futility of fighting against an all-powerful court system. Because this court does not comply to standard laws, logic, or common moral codes, K. finally realizes that he must surrender.
3. Since dogs are usually associated with subordination, I took K.’s reference to a dog to mean that he now feels subservient to the court. While he previously felt superior to the court system and believed he could take down the establishment, he now gives in to their will by submitting to his execution.
1) I definitely did not see K.'s execution coming. I thought it was surprising because it didn't seem like the court was ever that extreme. For example, Block, another defendant, seemed to lose all of his power to the court, but he was never executed. I expected K. to go through the same process as Block. I even saw similarities between Block's trial and K.'s trial. Before their trials, both Block and K. were powerful, however as their trials progressed, the court slowly took away their confidence. Seeing Block living a completely new life because of the court, for more than five years, I expected K. to follow Block's path. Block's path, however, seemed to be more like a slave to the court than a human; the court seemed to take away Block's humanity. So, overall I was surprised that instead of being being controlled by the court for many years, K. was killed after one year. His execution, although surprising, does make some sense. K's life, like Block's, went downhill since his trial. Death seemed like a quick, dramatic next step for K., but it did make sense. I did not find the ending satisfying, however, because it still left me very curious as to why his execution was done in such strange conditions, and what K. was actually arrested for.
ReplyDelete2) No, I don't think that K.'s ordeal taught him anything because I think that when he was executed, that was the moment he would have realized that he had done wrong. However, because the court killed him, he will never be able to fix his behavior and learn his lesson. I think K. never fully realized the flaws of his behavior and personality. Until his trial, his arrogance and confidence had served him well, especially with his high up job as a banker. I think he started to realize the consequences of his arrogance and domineering personality, but never fully understood before it was too late with his execution.
3) I was very confused by K.'s last words. "Like a dog" may refer to K. expressing the unfairness of the court, and that they treated K. like an animal, instead of a human being. K. had never really seemed to realize that the court could have power over him, and I think that seconds before his execution, he realized the true power that the court had over him. He realizes, moments before his death, that his superiority and wealth could not overcome the court.
1. I found K.'s execution as an unexpected twist; I was surprised by K. being unable to escape his fate, but didn't find the brutality of the punishment too surprising, considering the Court's previous acts of violence (like the Flogger). I didn't think the court believed his actions merited that severe of a punishment; rather, I thought that the ultimate punishment would be the psychological torture the court out him through. I didn't find his murder satisfying, because the crime was never revealed. Without knowing the nature of his crime and whether or not he did it, I can't believe that K. deserved the punishment. It seemed like an injustice to me. I do believe it worked as an ending though, because it gave the story some sense of finality. Had K. ended up as broken as Block, it may have been more difficult to wrap up the story properly since his fate would be more ambiguous and unclear.
ReplyDelete2. I do think the trial changed K. in some ways. He was still as controlling as the beginning, taking his own murder into his own hands. however, I think he developed a better sense of what was right and what wasn't. The flogging scene showed K.'s emotional and guilty conscience, whereas before the trial he may not have felt that way. He also is puzzled by the way the men treat women in the court system, especially when the man picks up the woman without her consent. Though he may not realize that they were mirroring his behavior, the fact he found this odd may have made him more aware about his own behavior.
3. I believe that K. said this as a final protest over how court treated him so inhumanely, like a dog. They showed him no respect and the entire process seemed unjust and unfair (at least to him). Though throughout the process, . did things on the court's orders, he ended his life on his terms by uttering that final protest.
1. I honestly did not see this ending coming because it didn't seem like the court would proceed with such a severe punishment to K. when he has only been in the 'trial' for one year and he has not been given any context about what he did wrong to deserve this execution. When I thought about it, this ending definitely makes sense because the court is full of twists and has the authority role to use the death penalty over defendants. The ending was not satisfying for me because death is NOT a resolution to any mystery story (especially because the Trial was such a secretive book). I desired to have more answers, but instead, K. was killed. However, and Kafka's abrupt ending to the story does seem like the only good way to finish The Trial...otherwise, K. would have suffered through Block's struggle of having a life-consuming trial (which would have been expected; not a surprise).
ReplyDelete2. I think that the ordeal changed K's perspective/character in many ways. K. is forced to change position from being a wealthy, authority figure who had control and power over others to someone who is controlled by the powerful, authority that is the Law. K.'s ordeal taught him more about what is the morally good or wrong way to act--he was able to somewhat realize that the way he acted before was not right.
3. I'm not totally sure how the "like a dog" line should be interpteted, but when I read it, i thought of it connecting to how the system of the Law basically treated K. like a dog (or animal). The court is holding K. and K.'s trial by a long leash that seems to be never-ending. He was being treated like a dog because he was forced to follow the control court.
1) I didn't see this execution coming. It makes sense considering that there seems to be no clear/defined logic to the court. Why should things make sense now? I liked how it was less open ended than if Kafka had just ended the book while K was still struggling to get somewhere with his trial. I appreciated a verdict and an ending, but I was frustrated that the verdict meant he couldn't learn from the court. We had a couple different interpretations that indicated the court was trying to teach Josef something and killing him so he can't benefit from his experience doesn't match them.
ReplyDelete2) K's ordeal definitely makes him consider change. When he's being lead to punishment, him eyes are opened to his flaws and the possibilities of change. However, he doesn't really get to learn anything because he is killed. While he realizes he was often rash and he doesn't want to finish his experience with the court system without showing he's learned something, he is killed, giving him no opportunity to show these realizations in his life.
3) I think this shows how little the court has treated him. He is not human to them. He can be thrown around, confused, and abused and the courts don't care. They have nothing but contempt for him. If he's remembered, it will only be as a pitiful creature, not as a daring fighter or a concerned citizen.
1. I didn't see his execution coming - it was actually a pretty brutal shock. After the dream-like, friendly feeling of the priest's explanation of Before the Law, to have different members of the court walk K out into a quarry and stab him - and then TWIST it, which served to make it even worse in my mind - was just not what I was expecting. I was looking for something less definite, after all that talk about trials dragging on for years. It wasn't satisfying to me - I wanted K to get away from the courts, even if I didn't like him as a person. I'd say it did work as an ending, though. It set the courts identity as something more solid and more sinister than the impression I would have been left with otherwise.
ReplyDelete2. I think it teaches him that there are things in the world he does not understand, and powers he cannot overcome or circumnavigate. He cant worm his way out of it, or negotiate to a smooth ending like he originally tried to - he tried talking with his guards, trying to get them to shake his hand and smooth things out so they could leave on good terms - sometimes there are things you can't tackle with the tried and true methods you already have. What he didn't learn was new ways to approach things. He knew he needed them, but he couldn't conceive of a new angle before tome was up.
3. I think it's a reference to his dignity. "Like a dog" is a surprised, indignant description of his execution. Killed quietly, stabbed to death in a quarry, not a public execution or a prison sentence. K thinks he's above this sort of death. Even after all this, that's the last thing on his mind - his status, his pride.
1. I did not see this execution coming. For the ending, I was expecting for either K to turn into Block, a broken shell of a man, or for there to be some sort of ultimate trial. After his encounter with the priest, I felt like K was beginning to gain some sort of understanding about how the court works (or how his world works?) so I was shocked that they were just going to kill him. Why didn't he get more time to come to whatever understanding that the court wanted him to come to? How come his punishment was so different from the others? I knew that the court system was shady, mysterious, and totalitarian but I didn't expect for them to execute K. I think I might have understood it more if they publically executed him and "two supporting actors" came for him in the middle of the night and killed him in a middle of nowhere field. That almost makes the court more sinister to me. It was not a satisfying ending because it was so confusing but one thing I will say about the ending is that, this is where I felt that K had some sense of reform.
ReplyDelete2. I'm not sure what the lesson is suppose to be either. However, I think the K at the end of the book is different from the K at the beginning. He didn't put up a fight and he accepted his end. K from the beginning would have been indignified that he were to be disposed of in this way. So, I think K mellowed out more. The line, "I've always wanted to seize the world with twenty hands, and what's more with a motive that was hardly laudable. That was wrong..." (228), makes me think that K realizes that the way that he was living and viewing the world was wrong. But perhaps, even though he realized this, it was too late (But why was it too late???)
3. Maybe it was referring to the inhumane and mudane nature of his disposal. He wasn't giving any dignity in his death and was disposed of like a dog. But I thought of it more of how he was living his life. In class, we talked about absurdism. The world that K lives in is absurd (so is ours) but he tries to find meaning in it, he tries to make sense of it. So, that way of thinking and living causes him to miss out on life. Perhaps the "like a dog!" phrase refers to how he didn't appreciate life and wasted it, lived his life in ignorance like a dog (or any animal) does.