A return to my Existential roots...
I am currently working on a paper which discusses "The Trial" by Kafka as an Existential work. Finally! I get to write a paper that I actually want to write!
Even my initial thoughts are inspired, I feel.
The story of Joseph K. reflects many Existential themes. First, the life of K. is one of a mysterious contingency. He discovers that he lives in a world in which there is no eternal grammar, no order to the universe; things just are for no particular reason. This senselessness is reflected by the bureaucratic world in which he lives. K. is arrested in the first chapter for what appears to be no particular reason. Or at least, for no verifiable reason. He asks his warders what crime he is charged with, and they reply, "We are not authorized to tell you that" (3), but the truth is that they themselves do not in fact know the nature of his charge. Faced with such absurdity, K. feels it necessary to make sense of this matter. After his arrest, K. feels as though his household has been "thrown into great disorder... and that it was his task alone to put it right again" (17). Over the course of his trial, he enlists the help of several persons in an attempt to udnerstand his case and thereby achieve a verdict of innocence. However, though the Law Courts may operate under some system of reason, comprehension of such is ungraspable. He is held guilty, but his crime is undiscoverable. As the priest confirms to K. in one of the final chapters, "You are held to be guilty.... Your guilt is supposed... to have been proved" (210).
Even my initial thoughts are inspired, I feel.
The story of Joseph K. reflects many Existential themes. First, the life of K. is one of a mysterious contingency. He discovers that he lives in a world in which there is no eternal grammar, no order to the universe; things just are for no particular reason. This senselessness is reflected by the bureaucratic world in which he lives. K. is arrested in the first chapter for what appears to be no particular reason. Or at least, for no verifiable reason. He asks his warders what crime he is charged with, and they reply, "We are not authorized to tell you that" (3), but the truth is that they themselves do not in fact know the nature of his charge. Faced with such absurdity, K. feels it necessary to make sense of this matter. After his arrest, K. feels as though his household has been "thrown into great disorder... and that it was his task alone to put it right again" (17). Over the course of his trial, he enlists the help of several persons in an attempt to udnerstand his case and thereby achieve a verdict of innocence. However, though the Law Courts may operate under some system of reason, comprehension of such is ungraspable. He is held guilty, but his crime is undiscoverable. As the priest confirms to K. in one of the final chapters, "You are held to be guilty.... Your guilt is supposed... to have been proved" (210).
posted by kris @ 11:47 a.m.
1 Comments:
At 2:29 p.m., January 05, 2006,
Anonymous said…
Hello! I've been lurking for a while and felt I should comment.
I was thinking (sorta)the same thing about two other books recently, "Through the Looking Glass" and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". Both feature characters taken from a world where things make sense, and, being children, react in unique ways. Ultimately the most dynamic storytelling (in my opinion) involves some element of the impossible.
Post a Comment
<< Home