Monday, January 27, 2014

Draft 1: The Fault in Our Stars: An Analysis of Block and K. from The Trial by Franz Kafka

            In Shakespeare's famous work Julius Caesar, the Senator Cassius is famed for saying the line: "the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars". This line relates to the idea that our lives are not limited to a certain road by destiny but by the strength of our will to struggle. One must question however is it really our own will that defines our fate or is that what our ego wants us to believe. Perhaps, Cassius is wrong in his words, that the  fault is indeed in our stars with the end being the same for all men. Perhaps, it is only because of human ego that one wants to believe that he has control over his destiny. In the paradox between Kafka's characters Block and K., the two men react very differently to their dance with the court (one allowing himself to be reduced to the state of a dog and the other to a state mental fragility); yet in their struggle they both achieve an equal state of success at free will.

            Though K. chooses to pursue absolute acquittal and Block seeks to remain in the constant state of deferment, their faith in their decision allows then the freedom achievable in the constraints inflicted the court. The court in truth wants nothing of Block and K. It symbolizes the constraints in one's life; it symbolizes destiny and fate. The priest had clearly said to K "So why would I want anything from you? the court doesn't want anything from you. It accepts you when you come and it lets you go when you leave." This is what fate does. It constrains you. Block and K. follow Nietzsche's beliefs in wanting to transcend from the common man: achieving freedom from the court. They are only successful in achieving freedom in the fact that they do not accept their trial as the sentence it is but constantly fights these restraints. Block begins a love affair with the court with his obsession to find lawyers to save him. "Five petty lawyers", and the lawyer he shares with K is not enough to satisfy is will to struggle causing him to continue to "even [negotiate]with a sixth one". K in contrast sacks his lawyer, and allows himself to be consumed mind and soul into proving his innocence. Both these men will not let themselves be taken freely by the court instead "[want] to see some tangible progress" in finding innocence. This innocence of course is unfindable as fate is set and its boundaries unalterable. Though the court (fate) bind K. and Block by beginning and end, the differences in their journeys demonstrates the free will attempted.

            The parallelism between Block and K. and their interactions with the court is apparent in the doorkeeper's parable as they both are represented by the man waiting outside the door.   Both men believe in Camus' idea that they can transcend the absurdity to find innocence from the court. They have the faith that they can change their fate from its set boundaries. The fate of Block and K. fixed. It is to wait outside the door. However K. and Block's door differs due to their varying journeys to the end thus their doors are different. The doorkeeper himself had said to the man. "Nobody else could have got in this way, as this entrance was meant only for you.". These words reflect the ultimance of free will is in the struggle. Both K. and Block are limited by boundaries set by the court which they cannot escape yet knowing that each of their doors is different shows that the little resistance they were able to put up did make a difference. It was a difference in journey to destination. The doorman had said "If you're tempted give it a try, try and go in even though I say can't."and both men did try. Their differing struggles demonstrate the little amount of freewill they could thus making all the difference.

            At the end of The Trial, K is dead and Block still lives yet both men remain at an equal state of being. When K. is finally killed by the two policemen his last thoughts turn to the fact that "the logic cannot be refuted, but someone who wants to live will not resist it." At this moment K. is broken and he finds that everything he has fought for is pointless and that there never was a way out of the court as an innocent man. K. reflects to the fact of "where was the judge he'd never seen? Where was the high court he had never reached." At this stage K. and Block are parallels. Block from the very beginning has chosen deferment to avoid the court. His faith is in the fact that he will continue living by parasiting as many lawyers as he can. K. immediately  regards Block's choice as weak and hopeless for "he was no longer a client, he was the lawyer's dog". Similarly Block had noted K as a dead man for sacking his lawyer and trying to achieve absolute acquittal. Block only comes to view himself in the perspective of K after hearing the lawyer say "What do you think he'd say if he learned his trial still hasn't begun, if you told him they haven't even rung the bell to announce the start of proceedings." This serves as Block's revelation that everything he has been doing: succumbing, begging, groveling, is pointless. Block instead of submitting like K. his death to the point of the knife he submitted his death to his lawyer. At this state "if the lawyer had ordered [Block] to crawl under the bed as if it were a kennel and to bark out from under it, then he would have done so with enthusiasm." Block in using deferment to avoid his trial was killed by the court just like K. only mentally. The irony between these two men is that they each recognized that the other's struggle was pointless but could not see that his own was also. They are both victims to Camus theory of absurdity. In truth there may be no point to the trial and the court yet Block and K. still seek a meaning to it.

            K. and Block, through all the surface differences of their separate journeys, walked the same road down to the same fate. They were trapped by the stars, the court, and were unable to leave those limitations that bound them. Still though, they managed to grasp at in which ever direction they thought best to define the fact that though they were bound they were not broken. Both K. and Block did not give up. They took the situation were offered and worked as best they could. This is what gave them success, this is what made them unique even though they walked the same road. One is birthed and one dies, that is the rule of the world-that is everyone's fate. It is because that we are all Blocks and K's seeking our own definition of our fate that our lives differ. Free will is not the act of doing our actions but choosing to do them. It is the faith in the hope that even though our ends are the same we chose to make what we can our own.


No comments:

Post a Comment