I personally loved the end of The Trial by Franz Kafka. When
surrounded by men expecting Joseph K to kill himself, “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 strength necessary to do so.” To me, K’s action seemed like a final
rejection of the court system, like he was still finding a way to express his
disgust for how corrupt the entire bureaucracy was. It also demonstrates that
even after all the mental torture he endured, he was still able to ground
himself in his own personal values. However, I would not go as far as to say
that Kafka was showing a world where there is hope in the end. K refusing to kill
himself is not a true symbol of escape since his two options, to die at the
hands of the guards or to die by committing suicide, are both really a way to
die at the hands of the government. So even though K has his final stand by refusing
the government’s final demand, Kafka still crafts a world where there is no
hope regardless of what little power we have over our own personal choices.
The end of the story does seem unconventional, at least to me. K never had any chance to escape the court, as the artist stated, "everything belongs ot the court." As you state, his fate, no matter suicide or killed, is going toward the direction that the court wished. This really set me to wonder that is the purpose of the court. Though the purpose might not be important in the over sense of the story, just pure curiosity.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that K's unwillingness to commit suicide could also be interpreted as him giving up. He has tried for the entire time to gain control over his life throughout the process of the trial. Now, for the first time in a long time he does have control, to an extent, over what happens to him, and he just gives up. This could mean that after trying to fight back for so long, the system has finally broken K. He cannot muster even the last shred of determination and resolve to kill himself instead of letting the court do it. Instead, the court officials kill him, controlling even the final aspect of his life. While K doesn't really have too much of a choice - he is going to die either way - he still doesn't choose to take the noble way out, showing us that he has finally been beaten.
ReplyDeleteI can see how the ending could be interpreted as either K giving in to the law or that Kafka has created a story in which there is no possible way to win. I personally lean more towards MaryAlice's idea that there was no way in which K could have outdone the law. I agree that in either situation, K's death would have meant he was submitting to the government's wishes. I think the only way to overpower the law would've been to somehow ignite a movement to overthrow the current system of law. But no one in the story really fought for K or tried to act against the system of law. K's lawyer, the women, and all the other people he interacted with were submissive to the law. Arguably the only person that understood how the system of law could be corrupt was the priest who told K the parable at the end of the book; but he never really encouraged any actions from K. Therefore, no matter how K died, I don't think anyone would've been inspired by his death and moved to action against the law, because no one really cared. I like to think that K wasn't giving into the law, but that the law had exhausted all his options, and in the end K wanted proof that the law could actually do something to him. It wasn't an escape, but I don't think he was giving up either.
ReplyDelete