Türkçe okuyucular için -> [[Dava - Franz Kafka]] --- ## Introduction > There may be spoilers ahead, I felt the need to warn you even though I think it will affect the reading experience. A book that I was not aware of how deep it was when I bought it, I still continue to read the book itself, the criticisms and analyzes written on it, even though a week has passed after I finished the book in 3 days. > First translation I read -> İş Bankası Publications (translation from the German original) It starts a bit confusing at first, and although it is easy to understand the story, Kafka also introduces elements that are incompatible with the subject matter. Towards the middle of the book, the characters and the main theme begin to settle down. But this time the course of the story becomes confusing and comes to an abrupt end. At the end of my first reading of the book, I realized that I needed to focus on the details of the book in order to understand it. I also briefly looked at the history of the book in order to find out the real-life story of the book (what kind of conditions it was written under, etc.). ## Spelling of the book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial Kafka started writing the book in August 1914 and continued writing it throughout 1915, a period when, according to him, he was very productive as a writer. Notice that these dates coincide with the beginning of the First World War. (While researching this part, I came across "The Decisive Years", maybe I will read it in the future. It looks interesting). After Kafka's death, Max Brod (his friend) compiled his notes and turned them into a book. The reason for some interruptions and abrupt endings is that the book was never completed. For example, chapter 8 "the dismissal of the lawyer" is not fully concluded. ### Changes made after the first version The version I read of the lawyer's dismissal (chapter 8) ends with this sentence: > "Let go of the sheepskin and listen to the lawyer." But when I look at the German original, it is followed by these two sentences in which K. speaks to himself: > K. couldn't understand how the lawyer could think of winning him over with this stunt. If he hadn't dismissed him earlier, he could have done it through this scene. Later on, in my research, I realized that these last two sentences were actually only moved from the end of the episode to a little bit more in the middle in the same form. **(Review the Tarotelli meeting)** ## In the cathedral After K.'s encounter with the priest in the cathedral, there are a few remarkable parts. 1. **K. says "I am innocent" and the priest says "but all criminals say that"** - Maybe K.'s mistake from the beginning was to talk about the concept of " guilt"? Maybe all the court wanted was a defense without the concept of " guilt"? - Maybe the defense that the lawyer wrote in the previous chapters was what was needed. Throw in some Latin, praise the higher authorities, talk about the favorable outcome of similar cases in the past. I notice that nothing relevant to the present case is mentioned in the defense prepared by the lawyer. 2. **K. arrives with a sightseeing guidebook instead of the prayerbook the priest had expected** - I think this part is an indication of how K. is trying to find a solution to his case in the wrong way. 3. **The cathedral is plunged into total darkness even though it is morning** - It shows how blind K. is to his case (and the judicial system). 4. **Priest asking "can't you see two steps ahead?" - It indicates that he failed to see the obvious negative verdict on K.'s case. 5. **Priest saying "I have to talk to you from a distance, otherwise I am easily persuaded and forget my duty" - I had a hard time understanding, but I think the priest was referring to the difference between looking at the case from a general/specific perspective. He was afraid that if he paid close attention to K. (if he approached the case specifically) the warnings in his mind would lose their clarity. - I see this as a situation like when someone we know starts smoking and we don't warn them enough. Something we would warn them about every day if we approached it from a general perspective is ignored when it comes to the specific. 6. **The priest bluntly says that K. was wrong about the court and tells his story "in front of the law. "** - This part is already clear, but if we make a connection between the story told here and Tarotelli's solutions, I think the priest's opinion is that K. should try to drag his case to a dead end and prolong it without reaching a decision. ### In Front of the Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_the_Law https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/hd11/BeforeTheLaw.html Short story told in the Cathedral episode. >A man from the country seeks "the law" and wishes to gain entry to it through an open doorway, but the doorkeeper tells the man that he cannot go through at the present time. The man asks if he can ever go through, and the doorkeeper says it is possible "but not now (_jetzt aber nicht_)". The man waits by the door for years, bribing the doorkeeper with everything he has. The doorkeeper accepts the bribes, but tells the man he only accepts them "so that you do not think you have left anything undone". The man does not attempt to gain entry by force, but waits at the doorway until he is about to die. Right before his death, he asks the doorkeeper why, even though everyone seeks the law, no one else has come in all the years he has been there. The doorkeeper answers, "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it." Although the story is one paragraph, it is discussed extensively in the chapter. The review article in Cornell is one of the best sources I found on this subject. I don't need to repeat the same review. ## The Reason why this book is interesting In fact, if it had been written in a normal way and directly targeted a dystopia with an absurd judicial system, I don't think it would have attracted so much attention. I think it would have remained at the same level as the similar distopian work of "1987". If there weren't dozens of unnecessary details and a complicated plot, I don't think people would be attracted to this book and its metaphors. Personally, I found this book boring at the beginning, but the fact that it became even more tangled in the second chapter is what drew me in. Also, when we follow the allegories in the book and "The Trial" from end to end, we see that while K. wants to be found innocent with a privilege, he is lumped in with everyone else and put on trial. The story does not discriminate against its main character, it ends like every other citizen who is judged and found guilty. The part that makes it worthwhile for us to read is to follow the absurdity of the system and the main character's experience through the eyes of the main character. ## Being Mentally Arrested While Free in Actions It's a good psychological description of K. He is not subject to any restrictions. He is asked to come to court every Sunday, but it is not an obligation. But what consumes K. is being drawn into the judiciary and being mentally obsessed with his case. His obsession with his case makes both his work and his daily life difficult. And in the end, despite his obsession, he is unable to understand his case and is found guilty and sentenced. ## Kafkaesque One of the books that explains this word, which reflects the theme of many of Kafka's books, is **The Trial**. This phrase is often used to describe the depressing world depicted in these books. ## Oxford Translation I also checked out the 2009 Oxford edition translated by Mike Mitchell to read the extra notes. ### Fragments and Notes In this version, there was also a "Fragments" section added after the book. Some of them were originally referred to as chapters within the book in the translation I read, but in this translation they are treated separately. **"Fräulein Bürstner "** -> The notes state that "Bürstner" means "to have sex with". I realized that this character, whose role I couldn't fully understand at first, exists for a concept rather than a character. (I need to read the Bürstner dialogues again) **"some great metamorphosis "** -> I thought it was used to describe the absurdity of the situation. After reading the notes I realized that it might have been used because there was a point where K.'s understanding of the judicial system changed. **"clearly preoccupied with his own affairs "** -> I thought it was used to describe K.'s sick state. After reading the notes, I realized that maybe he was referring to K.'s case. It is also interesting that he said this after being given information about the case. Even though it is not directly related to the case, this information about how the court works definitely has an effect on K. Or I should say that the court/trial is taking over K. **"a dog howling "** -> I thought K. said it to avoid the attention of the staff, but as the notes say, all the use of dogs in this book is actually meant to insult people. Indeed, the last sentence of the book says about himself that his death was like a dog, in a humiliating way. **"head of administration "** -> Here Kafka creates a character out of nothing. The fact that someone in a high position in the story universe joins the story in this way is actually proof of how poorly organized the book is. **"fog mixed with smoke "** -> Symbolizes the uncertainty of K.'s case (from K.'s point of view). **"Sunset Over the Heath "** -> K. buying 3 versions of the same painting shows that every path he tries will lead to the same conclusion. **"marking of the lips "** -> I learned two important things from the reference mentioned in the notes. Kafka was a law graduate, there were two legal systems in Prague at the time he lived there. The Germans penalized action while the Austrians penalized intent. As far as I understand, Kafka took this one step further and wrote this book with the idea of punishment (despite the fact that there was neither action nor intention) for the possible criminal. In addition, "Hans Gross", who worked on the identification of potential criminals by phenotypes (in this case the nose), was a professor of Kafka's at the university. **"knelt "** -> Block's use of a lawyer is sort of like Catholics using mediators instead of talking directly to God. #### Translation Error in the Oxford Translation One of the things mentioned in the detailed notes (which I was surprised to have missed) was that K. went to the cathedral at 11 am for the meeting that was supposed to take place at 10 am. I checked that it was 10 from the translation I had read and started looking for the German original to verify it. Luckily, Project Gutenberg had published the original book online. [https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/69327](https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/69327) According to what I checked here, Is Bank's translation is correct. Thanks to the translator.