Although
the events in Kafka’s The Trial would
not ordinarily be considered “torture” in the usual sense of the term, the
response to these events by the protagonist, Josef K, follows the same process
as that of other characters being tortured in previous readings. K is being held on trial for a crime he is
not being informed of, and many people tell him that it is inevitable that he
will be convicted. He spends all his
time trying to find a way to prove himself innocent to the court. This causes his work to falter, and him to
lose any sense of caring for anything other than his case. Similarly in readings like The Wall and Scarry, people being
tortured lose their sense of self and the world, losing interest in anything
other than their own circumstances.
It is also
interesting to note that although Downcast
Eyes in part noted the importance of visibility in many forms of torture,
the torture that K undergoes in The Trial
is entirely private to him. While
visibility is often a key factor in torture, including in psychological torture
(such as being publicly naked), K undergoes severe psychological torture as a
result of his trial without any information being made public beyond a select
few which he generally chooses. This
illustrates the many and diverse forms of torture that people can be subjected
to and shows how wide the range of things is that can be considered “torture”.
Great, informative response and analysis. I really like how you are comparing Kafka to the less popular readings we have done in class - The Wall, Body in Pain, and Downcast Eyes. I enjoyed your interesting interpretation of K's supposed psychological torture, caused by everything being unknown to him. In fact, I find the idea of being surrounded by the unknown act as a great form of torture to be incredibly fascinating.
ReplyDeleteI can easily put myself into K's shoes and imagine how I would feel about the situation he is in. I'm sure that it would be mind-boggling at all times; I would constantly be questioning myself, asking again and again what could possibly have happened that was bad enough to lead to arrest.
Great analysis! I especially liked how you connected the story to what we learned in Elaine Scarry's text. Indeed it seems that K. is beginning a slow descent into madness over his trial, and will eventually begin to lose his sense of self.Though the book doesn't mention the officers questioning K. in the beginning scenes, the movie makes it apparent that the interrogation is meant to be maddening and disconcerting for the defendant, K. This, in a way, foreshadows the near impossibility of winning such a trial. Without knowing what he is being accused of, K. has a very slim chance of winning his case. Just like in similar stories we've read, The Crucible and Heresy, the lack of substantial evidence makes it hard to justify one's innocence. Judging by the trend in our previous readings, it seems that K. may be fighting a losing battle.
ReplyDeleteLike Nancy pointed out, the lack of evidence makes it not only hard to prove innocence, but it should also make it hard to prove guilt. While America's current judicial system is rooted in the idea of "innocent until proven guilty", none of these stories seem to have that idea. The parable of the law that the priest tells K confusingly implies that the law is beyond the access of the man, while the gatekeeper states that the door to the law is always open. I think we can possibly interpret this to imply that the law encompasses all (people, crimes, etc) but there is no substance to it; for how can it encompass all by stating limitations? It's similar to saying that there's only one rule, and that one rule is that there are no rules. Through the paradox of this law, Kafka is implying that the law is fiction, an idea which we have discussed in class. While we believe it to be real, we can't really prove it. Therefore, the truth of the crime that K committed and the reason as to why the trial exists cannot be uncovered. K is guilty until proven innocent, but can he really can't be proven either in our current understanding of truth in the law, because the law has just stated that he is guilty. No amount of sexual or judicial connections could get K out of his current situation. Kafka is famous for presenting stories with an extreme and almost unimaginable context in which everything you believe to be normal has been stripped away, and the only thing you can do as your sense of normality falls apart is struggle to your ultimate failure. This story is certainly a prime example of that.
ReplyDelete