In Franz Kafka’s The
Trial, Joseph K. is arrested for something he does not know. However, he is
still required to defend himself against this unknown crime. K.’s situation is
similar to that of the prisoners in Heresy
and The Crucible, where one is
accused of a crime without any tangible evidence to be proven guilty. Likewise,
it’s nearly impossible to gather any evidence to prove K.’s innocence. The
irony of this situation is apparent when one of the guards says, “You see,
Willem, he admits that he doesn’t know the Law and yet he claims he’s innocent”
(9). The courtroom scene is even more peculiar because it seems that the
magistrate and other court officials don’t speak much, if at all. It seems that
the entire time, K. is defending himself by attacking the court’s legitimacy,
assuming that he, himself, is innocent. We are not, once, given any hint of the
crime K. is being accused of, which is confusing and frustrating. However, this
lack of information all seems to be normal in K.’s world until he remarks,
“it’s in the nature of this judicial system that one is condemned not only in
innocence but also ignorance” (55). Finally K. directly acknowledges the problem
of his court case, but the woman’s lackluster response, “it must be” is frustratingly
unhelpful. K. seems to be the only person aware of the illegitimacy of the
court, whereas the other characters are either against him or not intelligent
enough to comprehend his situation.
Excellent analysis, Nancy! Throughout the novel, K. is unable to gather any evidence that might prove his innocence, just like how you noted was present in “Heresy” and “The Crucible.” Yet, what makes this story stand out from the others we have read in class is the fact that K has no idea why he’s being accused, much less how to prove his innocence. It seems inevitable that K will be convicted of whatever crime he is charged with, as the corruption in the court is far too great. As we read on, we realize that it is not only K who has no idea about the workings of the law. Lower court officials are also in the dark, and the high court officials that ultimately decide the sentence lack any sort of concrete identity.
ReplyDeleteI like that you addressed that idea that K seems to be the only person who questions the legitimacy of the court, as now that I have read the whole thing, I feel that his questioning of the courts is why K ends up being executed at the end. All the other defendents we read about were able to stave off a closing of their trial and were able to keep it in limbo to ensure their freedom. Block specifically mentions that he kept his trial going for five years and the painter said that it was possible to keep a trial in limbo indefinatley. K is the only person whose trial gets wrapped up, and I think that it is at least partially because K refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the courts.
ReplyDeleteThe irony mentioned in the quote spoken by the guard is an excellent point to bring up. By being accused of an unknown crime, K is forced to defend himself from anything, forcing him to reflect on his life, digging for possible wrongdoings that could have brought him in front of the court. Through K's ruthless effort to defend his name, one may come to the assumption that he is actually guilty of a crime, even if he is only acting out of frustration. It will be interesting to see if the power will convince K that he is indeed guilty of the unknown.
ReplyDelete