blue trane's Journal: The Trial

I reread this book. I remember first reading it in high school. I think I may have learned its lesson.

What is its lesson? That society will try to use implicit, unwritten, non-verbalized "laws" against people. The charges against Joseph K. are never formalized, never written down, never shown to him or explained to him. The courts and warders who summon him and harass him have no legitimate written-down authority to back them up. Yet everyone he meets or knows seems to give them authority, acknowledge the power of the shadow courts and their illegitimate enforcers, lawyers, painters, chaplains, etc. We are told repeatedly that these "shadow courts" function by personal connections and favors rather than by public and open proceedings. Facts are much less important than who you know, who has a favorable disposition towards you.

But throughout the novel, we get the impression that there might be a way out. Joseph K. suggests it at the beginning: refuse to acknowledge the courts. Demand written proof of authority for any action required of him. Challenge each and every infringement upon his personal life that the courts or their agents carry out. In the language of the story told by the chaplain towards the end, refuse to wait at the gate: go off and live your life without letting the shadowy existence of the courts affect you. If they wish to affect you, make them state their reasons and authority explicitly.

Joseph K. starts out trying this tack; he is very indignant and affronted at first by the courts' actions. But slowly as the book progresses we see him get worn down. He never quite reaches the level of Block or the subservient conduct of the accused in the waiting lobbies of the courts; but we watch as he slowly begins to give up his early indignation and becomes resigned to the fact of his case - even though he never sees any explicit document with charges.

Another answer or way out may be hinted at in the novel's portrayal of women. He gets sidetracked by them, pays attention to them and tries to get them on his side - but by doing so, he implicitly acknowledges and acquiesces to the power of the courts. The women who help him are connected with the courts in some way (the washerwoman, Leni). Fraulein Burstner doesn't seem to be connected with the courts; however she ignores him. Maybe she knows about his case and considers it a hopeless cause from the start. Or maybe he should have pursued her more than the others, as she was the only one "outside" the courts.

At any rate, i think I empathized much more with Joseph K. when I read this before. Now I can still see his point of view; but I don't think I would have acted the same way as he did. (After all, I'm not a Chief Clerk in a Bank.)