June {2011} Discussion -- THE TRIAL by Franz Kafka

[Stewart]

Any thoughts about why K goes off so quietly at the end. Was he broken by the system? Did he become convinced of his own guilt and believe that he deserved the punishment. Maybe he just got tired fighting.

[Ellen]

Part of K's problem is he looks to the outside for praise and judgment. Nothing is wrong unless he's told "stop". That's why he's so tortured about "guilt"-without an internalized morality, his reaction is "How am I supposed to know?"

At the same time, while he is far from innocent he is also "not guilty" of doing anything as far as we know. And in a bureaucratic state, the "state" pursues a case there may not be any agent actively pursuing "guilt" or "innocence"-somehow the case got triggered and will now play out according to whatever "guidelines" there are. Although there are many people involved, there is no individual activity, everyone is a faceless mask.

[Silver]

Stewart wrote: "Any thoughts about why K goes off so quietly at the end. Was he broken by the system? Did he become convinced of his own guilt and believe that he deserved the punishment. Maybe he just got tired f..."

I think in the end K did come to this realization of the hopelessness of his case and he saw that there was nothing left to do but to resign himself to the end that lay in wait. And maybe after having such lack of success in trying to assure others of his innocence, it became more difficult for himself to continue to have faith in the idea of his innocence when he could convince no one else of it and the court itself with its seeming almost omniscient power had declared him guilty.

There was no one whom he could rely upon for all those whom alleged they could help him seemed to all give him the run around, and perhaps were only distracting him becasue they themselves knew that there court could not be persuaded or convinced, but that its decisions were final and K's fate already decided.

In the end there was nothing left for him to do but accept the courts decision.

Without rehashing old arguments, I am curious as to the significance of the reappearance of Mrs. B at the end, or K's presumption of seeing her, for he himself is uncertain if it truly is her.

Is this meant as a sort of cycling back to the beginning. As everything starts off with her room having been taken over by these officials of the court, and it is the fact of his Trail which is the thing that gets him to acutally approach her and speak to her after having lived in the same building for so long as complete strangers. And than it ultimately ends with her as well. In fact it was the vision of her that caused him to finally resigns himself. He had attempted to resist until he saw her walk by and at that moment is when he gave himself up to it.

Just then, Miss Bürstner came up into the square in front of them from the steps leading from a small street at a lower level. It was not certain that it was her, although the similarity was, of course, great. But it did not matter to K. whether it was certainly her anyway, he just became suddenly aware that there was no point in his resistance.

[Stewart]

Judy wrote: "Burstner doesn't give the outward impression of being threatened when with K, but the fact that she quickly obtained a roommate and avoided K from then on would indicate she felt there was a degree of threat to her"

She doesn't want to meet him and she has a room mate. Which is the cause and which the effect?

Given the lack of textual evidence for her seeking a room mate for protection why is it any less likely that it is the room mate thatis stopping her from seeing him? She does seem kinda bossy.

[Stewart]

Silver wrote: "You really do not think there is anything inappropriate about a man kissing a woman whom up to that point he has not so much as spoken to before?"

Well, there was a fair bit of talking beforehand.

But, in any event, I don't think that it is for me to tell two consenting adults what it is appropriate or inappropriate for them to do. It is for them to decide.

Did she think it inappropriate? I can not see it in the text. I do see that she is reputed to wish to avoid meeting him because such a meeting would be "hopeless".

Hopelessness and inappropriateness are two quite different things.

[Maggie]

I have come to a tentative conclusion about K. And that is that he is, in fact, guilty. I think that he is a totally obnoxious little twit. He has no good impulses toward other people. He is and overbearing. He is sexually inappropriate an abusive.

I'm not saying that he feels guilty. I'm just saying that he IS guilty. Of what? Of being a shithead? I don't know that he's broken anything that we would think of as laws. Maybe he is simply EXISTENTIALLY guilty.

If this is my hypothesis it has to work through the whole book. I think I can see it in last section, but I admit I just thought of all this. I need to refresh myself on the rest of the book.

Anyway, fire away!

[Silver]

Stewart wrote: But, in any event, I don't think that it is for me to tell two consenting adults what it is appropriate or inappropriate for them to do. It is for them to decide."

And I do not see anything in the text which states that she was willing and receptive to his kissing her or that she welcomed it. She did nothing to suggest she wanted to be kissed, and she did not return his advances.

Granted she did not push him or tell him to stop, but I do not think that in itself is proof enough that she acutally welcomed it or wanted him to do it. There are plenty of reasons why she may have submitted to it without being receptive. Which are two different things.

She is already concerned about someone knowing K was in her room late at night. If she had than told him to stop or tried to physically force him to stop it could have caused a scene to further draw attention to her situation, which is just what she did not want.

I have no reason to beleive she encouraged or invited his kissing her or that she took enjoyment from his doing so.

[Stewart]

Ellie wrote: "Part of K's problem is he looks to the outside for praise and judgment. Nothing is wrong unless he's told "stop". That's why he's so tortured about "guilt"-without an internalized morality, his reaction is "How am I supposed to know?"

I am struggling a bit here, Ellie. I presume that you don't mean that he is being tortured by the law, but rather that there is some sort of internal conflict. But if he does not have any internalised morality I cant see what would be in conflict with what to cause him to be conflicted, to feel tortured.

Maybe I misunderstood.

[Stewart]

Silver wrote: "Is this meant as a sort of cycling back to the beginning. As everything starts off with her room having been taken over by these officials of the court, and it is the fact of his Trail which is the thing that gets him to acutally approach her and speak to her after having lived in the same building for so long as complete strangers. And than it ultimately ends with her as well. In fact it was the vision of her that caused him to finally resigns himself. He had attempted to resist until he saw her walk by and at that moment is when he gave himself up to it. "


I think that you could be on to something here, Silver.

[Silver]

I have also been curious about the role of the bank in the trail and what is the meaning behind that. Throughout the course of the Trail it seems K's bank has been involved in the proceedings. Starting with the presence of the bank clerks during his arrest, and the strange episode of the police officers being whipped in the storage closet. And wasn't it someone who was associated with the bank that told K about the artist who worked for the court? Than in the finale it was for the bank that K was supposed to be acting as guide to the Italian who ultimately led him to the church in which he heard the sermon.

This is another sort of way in which things seem to circle back around again. The bank was present for the moment of his rest, and it was than through the bank that it was delivered up to his final verdict.

Also is there any significant connection between the Bank (which can be a symbol for commerce, commercialism, materialism, capitalism, etc.) and religion?

[Stewart]

Maggie wrote: "I have come to a tentative conclusion about K. And that is that he is, in fact, guilty. I think that he is a totally obnoxious little twit. He has no good impulses toward other people. He is and..."

Maggie, I misread you first line. I thought you had said " he is, in fact, gay"

I was looking forward to your explaination.

[Silver]

Stewart wrote: Maggie, I misread you first line. I thought you had said " he is, in fact, gay"

I was looking forward to your explaination..."

Now that would give the story a whole new meaning. And though I don't quite see any evidence supporting that that is what was intended, I don't think it would be impossible to make a possible case for it.

[Stewart]

Silver wrote: "Also is there any significant connection between the Bank (which can be a symbol for commerce, commercialism, materialism, capitalism, etc.) and religion?
"

And what did K have for breakfast that morning? An apple. Religion, original sin guilt. We are all born guilty.

When Adam ate the apple (Genesis doesn't actually state that it is an apple, but we don't seem to be overly concerned in here with what the actual texts say) he got into all sorts of problems. He had eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he was then thrown of Eden before he could eat of the tree of eternal life and become as gods.

Maybe K is intrinsically guilty but when he gains knowledge of good and evil he has to die.

[Stewart]

Silver wrote: "I have no reason to beleive she encouraged or invited his kissing her or that she took enjoyment from his doing so. "

My contention is that the appropriateness or otherwise, of his behaviour is for her to decide.

That you don't see any reason for this or that is irrelevant.

Why don't you ask her what she does think rather than tell her what she should think?

[Silver]

Stewart wrote:My contention is that the appropriateness or otherwise, of his behaviour is for her to decide.

That you don't see any reason for this or that is irrelevant.

Why don't you ask her what she does think rather than tell her what she should think?

..."

I think the problem is that we just have very different ways of reading, and digesting what we read and perceive literature in a very different way.

You seem to be a very literal reader who takes the task purely at face value, and does not leave room for any possibly interpretation of that text, or reading between the lines or looking beyond the text.

I on the other hand believe that there are things implied and suggested which may not always be directly stated, and that the reading experience leaves for a bit more wiggle room, and that authors sometimes consciously and I think sometimes subconsciously inset deeper meanings into their stories than just what the words strictly say.

And there is a relationship between the reader and author/text, in which each individual reader will come away with a different experience. Not everyone who reads the same book will see the exact same thing in it.

Particularly in a book like this which opens itself to such a vast array of different possibly interpretation. I do not think it is a disservice to the author for the reader to have their own perceptions of what they are reading.

And considering the fact that this is a very psychological, philosophical and existential text, did it ever occur that some of the vagueness in the writing, and the things left unsaid, and not spelled out clearly and directly are in fact there to allow each individual reader to come away with their own impressions and have unique individual experiences?

And in regards to your statement, it is than equally irrelevant, that you do not perceive anything inappropriate in K's behavior. Because just as much as it does not directly state that she did think it was inappropriate , it never directly states that she found it completely acceptable either.

[Melissa]

Stewart wrote: "Mellisa, I can't really see how any of us deciding that k's behaviour is or is not appropriate advances our understanding or appreciation of the book.

What might advance our understanding is dete..."

Isn't that the point of a trial? to decide if behaviour is or not appropriate? Motivation matters. His actions matter. The effects of his actions on other people matter. And maybe, just like real life, people's interpretation of this book and K's actions differ.

[Silver]

Melissa wrote:Isn't that the point of a trial? to decide if behaviour is or not appropriate? Motivation matters. His actions matter. The effects of his actions on other people matter. And maybe, just like real life, people's interpretation of this book and K's actions differ. "

Yes that is a good point. Perhaps the readers in a way do become like jurors, and just as in a real Trial (ha made sure to get it right this time) people will come up with their own judgements and will have their own perceptions of the "evidence" and it is for them/us to come to our own conclusions of his guilt and innocence based upon how we each judge his behavior.

[Stewart]

Silver wrote: "You seem to be a very literal reader who takes the task purely at face value, and does not leave room for any possibly interpretation of that text, or reading between the lines or looking beyond the text. "

As I said away at the start I interpreted the law to equal the world of adult sexuality. The machinations of the law are incomprehensible to K as women are unfathomable to men. The sex in the book is not sex but sexual desire it is the motive force that drives us, get involved with these strange, upsetting to equalibrium creatures that are woman. K's angst represents the conflict between the rational and the emotional, what we know and what we want, holding on to our individuality or being subsumed into the social mileau.

I also think there there is some sort of oedipal thing going on here.

I think that the buildings represent human bodies.On the outside the look normal, perfectly respectable But go inside, go all the way up to the attic, up to where the brain is, and you find all these strange court rooms and peopled by tawdry unkempt officials. i.e. look at some one and they look normal, perfectly respectable but if you could get into their head you would find all sorts of strange unpleasant, dirty things.

Now, that is my (current) interpretation. Onviously it doesn't lieterally say any of this anywhere in the book. It is an interpretation, just as valid as anyone elses.

Were I, however, to seek to justify this view by, for example, statig that K's use of a machine gun shows that he is angry, then you would be perfectly justified to say hold on. That is not in the book. He didn't do that. It never happened.

If I was to say that went to the church and was motivated to do that by a desire for absolution then you would be quite correct so say - Hold on. Yes, he did go to the church but you have just totally invented his motivation. You would be correct to point out what the author says about his motivation. You would be write to point out the difference between my invention and the literal truth(i.e. what is in the book). You would be correct to point out that what the author says K did or felt was more important than my rewriting of what K did or felt.

I would say that you are free to interpret the book in any way that you want. You are free to ascribe any meaning to anything that is in the book. I am just asking that you do the author the courtesy of starting the journey, a journey that can take you anywhere you want to go, from what he actually wrote.

[Stewart]

Silver wrote: "And in regards to your statement, it is than equally irrelevant, that you do not perceive anything inappropriate in K's behavior"


Yes.

What I think about about about his behaviour is irrelevance to an understanding of what the author thinks.

[Silver]

Stewart wrote:I would say that you are free to interpret the book in any way that you want. You are free to ascribe any meaning to anything that is in the book. I am just asking that you do the author the courtesy of starting the journey, a journey that can take you anywhere you want to go, from what he actually wrote.

And from my point of view I beleive that my own personal interactions of K's behavior and actions and the episode with Mrs. B are based off what is offered within the text.

Though Mrs. B does not clearly dictate exactly what she thinks of K, I do beleive that my perceptions of thier exchange can be supported by what is within the text. That does not mean that is the only possibility, or that is the "correct" interpretation, but nor do I beleive I have gone so far afield from what is written.

I think that my arguments can and are supported by the text, though others may feel different. And I think that the very fact that I am not the only who does feel this way about K and Mrs. B is an indication that there is indeed something within the text that may lend one to coming up with this interpretation.

[Stewart]

Silver, the majority is always wrong.

[Stewart]

Is it significant that K's. Problems start on his 30th birthday?

Is this a problem about growing up, entering a world of adult relationships?

[Ellen]

Stewart wrote: "Ellie wrote: "Part of K's problem is he looks to the outside for praise and judgment. Nothing is wrong unless he's told "stop". That's why he's so tortured about "guilt"-without an internalized mor..."

No, I think you understood me but I'm not clear and thank you for pushing me to think it through more.

I think without an internalized sense of right and wrong, we're tortured in a different way-not conflicted as you point out but tortured by the need to constantly search out clues in our environment as to whether we are ok or not, if things go badly, not understanding why since we have no way to independently judge our actions or their repercussions & no real way to understand others since we are at the mercy of outer signs from everyone & no ability to empathize (& thus predict reactions to our actions) with others since empathy depends on a highly developed internal sense of self-which is the source of a sense of a moral code possessed by that self. First however comes that sense of self which then develops a morality.

I believe that our humanness pushes us to develop a sense of self, as irritating and onerous a task as that can be. Without it, where like a camera with no person operating it trying to find the right pictures in the environment to give us information about ourselves.

The law is an instrument of torture if you have no relationship to it, no inner sense to judge back the judgments-this is a good law, this is a bad one. If the law says slavery is ok, than it's ok. If it changes & you don't know it & go to jail, you're not just angry, you're baffled. How could it be wrong if no one told you?

Imagine if you really had no opinions about your actions being right or wrong without external feedback. It would be like operating as a 4 year old in the world.

But at the same time, I think we do have an inner sense of what feels right and wrong. But if we're not conscious about what that is, if its just a vague sense of "ok-ness" or dis-ease, discomfort with ourselves, that would be torturous.

We (most of us) resist becoming fully conscious & fully responsible (at least I do) but to the extent we resist that, the inner voices continue protesting but are too indistinct to understand.

What I love about Kafka is that he pushes us to these kinds of conversations. He refuses to be easily "translated" into X means this, Y=that, the text is about society, the text externalizes internal states.

Instead, I think he says X means this and that, Y= that and the other and some 3rd and 4th reality the reader isn't even thinking about yet.

And Stewart, I think this is a problem about growing up. Not just relationships with others but with ourselves, with society, with self-determination.

And I think this is the truest statement about us: that we are both individuals and at all times in relationship with the world as a whole and others as individuals.

We are never purely social or purely alone but both simultaeously.

[Stewart]

Stewart wrote: "So,you're saying, its a random, unmeditated act that she obtained a roommate at that point? That seems unlikely - particularly, the one she chose. She probably was the only person available on short notice."

On the contrary, I am saying it is significant. It is what Kafka wrote and is therfore more signigicant (to our understanding and appreciation of the book) than anything that you or I invent.

The explaination of her moving in as being occasioned by B's desire to protect herself from K is an invention. It is not in the book. It is perfectly valid, but irrellivant (to an understanding or appreciation of the book).

Perhaps I decide that she is B's lover who has taken it upon herself to move in when she hears of K's attentions, and prohibit's B from seeing K. Is that as valid as your view.

Perhaps I think that B is a cybrog from the future sent back in time to stop K and B having the baby that will grow up and lead the humans to victory in the battle to come. Is that as valid?

I think it significant that B is crippled, as are some other female characters. I think that she is a gatekeeper, as in the parable at the church. She is the one keeping K from that which he desires. Still working on what that means, but think that that line of thought is valid because it is based on the text, what the book actually says rather than what I think it should say.

[Melissa]

Well said Ellie.

I just finished this and I must admit I did not enjoy it much. I feel like I just sat through a Stanley Kubrick marathon.

The best interpretation I can come up with is that our lives are trials. Who is the judge, jury, lawyer, counsels.... there are many to choose from.

The thing that bothered me most, like you said Ellen is that there is no formula here. When the characters are trying to explain the ins and outs of the courts, I always felt on the edge of my seat, like "OK, he's about to say something that will make all of this fall into place." And that never happened. All events and decisions and advice were contradictory and arbitrary and infuriatingly simple yet ridiculous. And I guess that trying to live life "right" is the same way.

I did wonder about the religious aspects- would original sin be our crime? The philisophy of living life right and according to the rules. I thought the apple was a good catch, and as far as his age, Jesus began teaching at the age of 30. But the little I know about Kafka does not support that much.

Part of me wondered if this was a criticism of communist regime take-overs? Such as the Cultural Revolution (and others) when rumor mills and personal relations meant so much when it came to "crimes." But a quick trip to Wikipedia (which I know has faults) says he was a socialist. So that doesn't seem to fit.


My foray into Wiki did find this :
Pavel Eisner, one of Kafka's first translators, interprets the classic, The Trial, as the "triple dimension of Jewish existence in Prague is embodied in Kafka's The Trial: his protagonist Josef K. is (symbolically) arrested by a German (Rabensteiner), a Czech (Kullich) and a Jew (Kaminer). He stands for the "guiltless guilt" that imbues the Jew in the modern world, although there is no evidence that he himself is a Jew." [26]Livia Rothkirchen, The Jews of Bohemia and Moravia: facing the Holocaust, University of Nebraska Press, 2005 p. 23

I guess one of the few things I think about this book strontly is that K is not an Everyman, although symbolically it seems he should be (lack of a real name mostly). He was a jerk. He didn't deserve his punishment, but he was a jerk.

But I couldn't help be struck by the painters words. "if you're innocent, then what's the problem? Why worry??" (not a direct quote mind you). But just as he says, never met a person who was truly innocent.

ugh.

[Silver]

Melissa wrote: But I couldn't help be struck by the painters words. "if you're innocent, then what's the problem? Why worry??" (not a direct quote mind you). But just as he says, never met a person who was truly innocent.
..."

Perhaps the very fact that K remains constantly anxious about his trial is in itself proof of his guilt. If indeed he were truly innocent, than his innocence would be known by the court, but he is told that there is nothing he can say or do to acutally convince them of his innocence, that giving evidence will do know good. Perhaps this is becasue innocence is truly not something that cane be or need be proved, either you are innocent or your not, and if you are than you know you are and thus you have nothing to fear.

K's constantly trying to proclaim to others that he is innocent may be a case of "thou protest too much" and that he is as much as trying to convince himself of this as he is of everyone else.

The painter says that absolute acquittals are almost never granted and there is nothing to be done to persuade a judge to grant one. An absolute acquittal is a testament of complete and absolute innocence.

But the best one can hope for is either to be subject to knowing they may be at any time arrested again, repeatedly or may simply try and stall thier trial and keep it from advancing.

Apparent acquittal I beleive is in fact the act of one going through the life under the false presumption of thier own innocence. They may perceives themselves to be innocent but without in fact having the assurance of true actual innocence. So they are subject at any time to be called to account.

[Stewart]

K is asked early on - if you don't understand the law, how do you know that you are innocent?

Good question.

[Stewart]

Melissa wrote: "He didn't deserve his punishment, but he was a jerk. "

Everyone seems so down on this poor guy. Why is he a jerk?

Is it they way he behaved towards Fraulein Burster? Is it more than that?

Fine if you think he is a jerk, just wondering what makes him so objectionable.

If he is objectionable then I would imagine that many readers could not identify with him which might explain why so many appear not to have enjoyed the book.

[Ellen]

The law is useful in establishing rules & maintaining order.

It does not help in terms of ultimate morality, or not much.

Who is "completely" innocent? What in this context does innocent even mean?

And a Jew during Kafka's time had an even more difficult question to resolve: you were born guilty if you were born Jewish.

The Trial is an effort to make visible an internal and a societal process that is maddening. So the book may feel maddening too-but where ultimately is the madness located? In Kafka? In humanity? Society? In the society of 1920's Germany?

All of the above?

[Ellen]

I want to add that I think that this discussion is one of the most interesting I've participated in on GR. But ultimately the answer to our questions is in the work of art. If the text could be reduced to a simple answer, it would no longer be a work of art.

[Stewart]

Ellie wrote: "But ultimately the answer to our questions is in the work of art. If the text could be reduced to a simple answer, it would no longer be a work of art.
"

My copy of the book has a quote on the cover saying that it is "the greatest philosophical work of the 20th Century"

I was wondering. I imagined going to my local university library and took a standard philosophy text book from the shelf. I saw myself standing there with the text book in one hand and "The Trial" in the other.

I knew that one was art and the other wasn't. I tried to figure out why.

A number of obvious possibilities sprang immediately to mind, but as I examined each they diminished in turn. The more I looked the smaller they got. I examined each to the point where I could not see them any more and concluded that the obvious was not the place to look for the distinction.

I moved closer to the window, holding the books up to the light, thinking that if I moved them away from the rarefied world of academic study towards the beautiful sunlight of the vibrant world outside where no one gave a passing thought to my question, that I would be able to see clearer.

Booth books were more fully illuminated and I was cheered by the thought that I would be better able to determine the distinction between the two.

I thought my attempts were starting to bear fruit when I was interrupted by the librarian who insisted that I come away from the window and treat the library's books with proper respect.

By this time my arms, having held the works aloft for some time grew weary, and smarting, somewhat, at the librarians tone, I left the weightier tome by the window, put the other in my pocket and left.

[Ellen]

The work of art is what you take. And what leads you to other questions.

And I think questions, not answers, are at the heart of philosophy and, for that matter, life.

As Rilke says, "live the questions."

Ask better, ask more. Be alive.

[Stewart]

The older I get the more I am coming round to the notional that truth is to be found in art rather than science.

[Stewart]

Ellie wrote: "The work of art is what you take. "

If you create something, is it art because of what you put in, or because of what I take out?

You seem to suggest the latter, I think it more the former.

[Stewart]

K claims he is innocent yet he does not know the law. If he does not know the law then he cannot now that he has not committed an offence.

He protests his innocence. I can think of only two reasons why.

The first, rather obvious one is that he wants to avoid the consequences of being found guilty. He wishes to avoid being punished, loose his job, his social position etc. He wants to avoid the consequences of being found guilty. Seems fair enough.

The other reason is that he feels himself to be innocent; he doesn't need to know the law because he knows himself to be innocent, he knows that he has done nothing wrong.

Here he is saying - it doesn't matter what your law says, it does not matter that I don't know your law or how your law works, because there is another law, higher law, within which I know myself to be innocent.

In the second case the struggle is not a physical struggle of a man against the system, rather, it is an intellectual debate on the primacy of rules systems; are the rules of society worth more than the individual's rules? Is the majority right because it is a majority.

Given K's apparent acquiescence with his punishment it would seem that he did not continue to try to avoid punishment so perhaps he had concluded that the law, the, state, society or whatever, should have it's way, even although it was wrong.

[Stewart]

Some one told me once that writing was not writing, but rewriting.

I think this book has taught me that reading is not reading, but rereading.

[Melissa]

I'm a little reluctant to get into why I think K. is a jerk. You took me down sentence by sentence last time, and while I enjoy discussion, even heated ones, I don't really enjoy people setting out to prove me wrong. If you really want to know why I think K is a jerk, I can skim the text again, but I don't feel like dragging out the Fraulein B discussion when there seems no chance you'll ever see anything wrong with K's actions. Simple answer, he never did anything for anyone else. He was pompous, selfish, and opportunistic. He was in a terrible crisis, a confusing and unfair situation, but he never handled it well.

I wouldn't say that K can argue innocence. If a child steals candy from the store without realizing the nuances of business, he's still stealing. The shopkeep can press charges (although HIS judgement would be a bit off). If I drive down the road in a new town faster than the speed limit because I'm unaware of the speed limit, I'm still speeding and can get a ticket. Ignorance is not a defense in and of itself. If K does not know the law then he just doesn't know he has committed an offense. He hasn't not committed an offense.

Nor would I argue K was displaying some kind of civil disobedience or moral dilemma. He was not Antigone fighting for the Gods' laws, or Ghandi fighting for equality.

And I'd say it's a tough question of what makes art- what you put in or what you take out. Why does it have to be one or the other?

[Stewart]

Hey, Mellissa. Not my intention to take you, or anybody else, down.

I am really interested in what others think, especially when it is different from what I think. I love being wrong; thinking something is A then meeting somebody who thinks it is B; saying to them "what do you mean it is B, it can't possibly be B for this reason and that reason"; listening to then refute my arguments and give their own reasons why it is B and so on. The beauty of this, for me, is that sometimes the penny drops, something clicks somewhere, and in an instant my world view shifts as something that I thought to be true suddenly reveals itself as false. It's a wonderful moment. I have learned something.

In relation to K's ignorance and innocence, I wasn't suggesting that because he was ignorant he was innocent. I wasn't saying that because he did not know the speed limit he is not guilty of speeding.

I don't think that K was saying - let me off, I didn't know that the thing of which I am accused was illegal.

K doesn't know the law in the sense that he doesn't know what all the rules are; what is legal and illegal. He cannot logically then assert, in truth, that he has not committed an illegal act. Maybe eating bananas has become illegal. He knows that he ate one yesterday. He doesn't know that it is illegal.

I am not saying that makes him innocent. He has broken the law, albeit unknowingly. He is guilty.

He knows that he doesn't know the law. He does not know what is illegal and what is not illegal. He does not know whether any of the millions of things he has done are considered illegal under this strange legal system.

And yet. He doesn't say - I don't know if I have broken any of your silly laws. He asserts that he is innocent. He has done nothing wrong irrespective of what the laws might be. His judgement about what is right and wrong is, in his opinion, superior to any law.

By asserting his innocence he is not arguing about any particular act that he has or has not committed, he is asserting moral superiority over the rest of society, he is more important than the law.

A big claim for a little guy.

In relation to art being what goes in, or what is taken out. I don't think it has to be one or the other. I did not suggest that, in fact I said that it was "more the former", which implies "less the latter", so one AND the other (just in different proportions).

[Melissa]

Stewart- I think you just worded it better than I could why I don't like K.

"By asserting his innocence he is not arguing about any particular act that he has or has not committed, he is asserting moral superiority over the rest of society, he is more important than the law.

A big claim for a little guy."

I think that's exactly it. The fact that he can go around, giving speeches, looking down on the other folks at the law offices, putting people down, even though he's ignorant he thinks he's better.

So that leads me to ask has he been humbled by the end?

[Stewart]

Melissa wrote: "So that leads me to ask has he been humbled by the end? "

Not enough for some here, would be my guess.

[whimsicalmeerkat]

Stewart wrote: "K claims he is innocent yet he does not know the law. If he does not know the law then he cannot now that he has not committed an offence.

He protests his innocence. I can think of only two reason..."

Or he could protest innocenced because for him it is more palatable than to protest ignoramce. Everyone else seems to understand what is happening so continuing to proclaim he does not would cause him to lose credibility. As he cannot bring himself to remain quiet and protesting guild is abhorent, he chooses innocence.

[Mike]

Denae wrote: "Stewart wrote: "K claims he is innocent yet he does not know the law. If he does not know the law then he cannot now that he has not committed an offence.

He protests his innocence. I can think of..."
My thought is that K doesn't know the workings of the law. That doesn't mean he doesn't know whether or not he is guilty. His problem is that he is never told of what he is accused. That is what he doesn't know. Also, he is not conscious of having done anything illegal so he assumes he is not guilty. Has anyone ever made a rolling stop or driven faster that the speed limit? Then when pulled over we say "what did I do wrong?"

[Stewart]

Mike wrote: "has anyone ever made a rolling stop or driven faster that the speed limit? Then when pulled over we say "what did I do wrong?"
"

I just have to see a police officer to feel guilty.

[Silver]

Stewart wrote: I just have to see a police officer to feel guilty."

I have to admit in this regard I am a bit like K. I am not a person prone to feeling guilty, particularly if I am not consciously aware of having done anything wrong.

So if I was in K's position and found myself suddenly arrested without being told why I probably would not automatically presume that I must be guilty of something if I was not consciously aware of having done anything wrong, I would ask why I was being arrested but I probably would proclaim my innocence just as much as K does.

Though I might begin to think back in my mind to anything I could have possibly done recently which could possibly warrant arrest.

[Silver]

Upon reflection I have to say I do find it a bit curious that K does take this court completely at face value without question. They just show up at his bordering house and tell him he is arrested behaving in a way that is quite unorthodox and never present any sort of identification nor proof that they actually have any real authority to do what they are doing. In fact when K tries to question them as to who they are or what is happening they are very vague about it.

Yet K never really questions them and just automatically begins treating the whole thing as if it is indeed a perfectly legitimate court. This to me seems like a strange way to act within such a situation. It never occurs to him to contact the actual police. He just accept it and accepts what they tell them. In spite of his constantly trying to declare that the trial means nothing and that the whole thing is a joke, he still does take it seriously in his constant anxiety about it.

[Stewart]

Silver wrote: " I am not a person prone to feeling guilty, particularly if I am not consciously aware of having done anything wrong. "

Is that not the point, though; the disconnection between feeling and concious awareness, emotional and rational, the concious and the unconscious.

If your's are congruent then great. K's seem to be out of kilter.

[Stewart]

Stewart wrote: "Though I might begin to think back in my mind to anything I could have possibly done recently which could possibly warrant arrest. "

Forget about arrest. Think about being young, having your mother, or whoever walk in on you, and catching you, or nearly catching you with something you shouldn't have, or shouldn't be doing. Not something that they think you shouldn't have but something that you know you shouldn't have. That immediate instinct to hide it behind your back, to deny it "I was only just...".

Maybe after that you start defending yourself "yes I was doing that" or "yes I did have that, and why not, I am perfectly entitled to" "I'm not ashamed, I don't have to hide it. That's just they way it is. And if you don't like it that is your problem not mine".

All the arguments are brought out as to why we should not feel guilty and are made all the more vociferously because we are angry at having felt guilty, even only for that split second.

Or then again, maybe it's just me.

[Silver]

Stewart wrote: "Stewart wrote: "Though I might begin to think back in my mind to anything I could have possibly done recently which could possibly warrant arrest. "

Forget about arrest. Think about being young, h..."

But in the case of K he was not caught doing something he wasn't suppose to be doing.

He was essentially minding his own business when he just woke up in his own bed in his room to be informed that he was under arrest.

K is not in a position where he should have to defend himself becasue he is not consciously aware of having done anything wrong, nor is he informed of any possibly wrong he may have done.

There is no reason for one to feel guilty if they are not aware of having done anything in which would lead them to be guilty of.

But if one is being accused of something, without being directly told what, than they may begin to search through thier memory and retrace thier steps to see if they can recall anything they may have done which could be cause for such accusation.

[Ellen]

I on the other hand could think over any day & find one or more things that I'm "guilty" of.

Not treating another person with enough respect, perhaps not even noticing a person at all. Maybe being rude or sarcastic. Or just not taking the time to help someone who needed help or even being aware of those who need help in my life. Ways I was selfish, could have reached out more to others.

The list is potentially endless. What I do is keep trying to do my best while knowing it is really woefully insufficient to what would be ideal, at least to me. How am I innocent when I sit sipping lattes in a world where children are dying daily for lack of fresh water? (not that I can afford a lot of lattes but still...)

[Melissa]

I've returned my copy of the book to the library, so I can't recheck it, but isn't his acceptance of the arrest gradual? I thought at first he kept thinking there was a mistake, and didn't he even think his "friends" from work were playing a joke? Then for a while he just thinks it's a little thing that will go away, that he'll win, etc. And finally, after listening to the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker, he gives in completely and becomes like the doddering men in the lawyers office he had previously laughed at.

At any point in the process does he consider guilt?