Leif Frenzel

The character of Josef K.

Reading Kafka can be confusing, and The Trial is perhaps, among his works,
the one which produces this effect most strongly. It has invited speculations
on many interpretative levels; prominent among them are autobiographical,
religious, psychoanalytical and other largely impalpable readings. That there
is room for all these speculations is in part what makes it fun to engage with
Kafkas work, and the texts are ambivalent enough to guarantee that they
will never come to a conclusive end.
On the other hand, there are many aspects of his work, and the novels
in particular, which merit close, down-to-earth interpretation work. One of
them is the way in which the protagonists are portrayed. Far from being
understandable only from the larger speculative framework that many seem
to take as prerequisite, we can ask questions about their personalities, the
particular way in which these personalities are presented, and the way they
develop (or fail to develop) over the course of the narrative.
In what follows I shall pursue a close reading of the first chapter of The
Trial, which I take as a personality study of the protagonist, Josef K.; he
is, as I shall argue, displayed as a weak and faulty character through and
through. However, the resulting picture is a sharp and coherent portrait, and
made neither deliberately inconsistent nor obscure by Kafka.

Lack of decisiveness and strength of will

Especially at the beginning of the chapter the text directly demonstrates
a mismatch between what K. wants us (and the other characters) to think
of him and the state he is really in. He tries to look firm and determined,
but actually he is insecure and hesitant. At the first encounter with the
guards, he enters the next room slower than he wanted to (8),1,2 later on
he lets himself into an extensive eye contact with one of the guards, without
intending it (1314).3
1

Im Nebenzimmer, in das K. langsamer eintrat als er wollte [. . . ]

All references to The Trial are made by page number from the critical edition of Kafkas works: Franz Kafka, Der Proce, ed. Malcolm Pasley, Schriften. Tageb
ucher. Kritische
Ausgabe, eds. J
urgen Born et. al., Frankfurt a.M.: Fischer 2002.
3
K. lie sich ohne es zu wollen in ein Zwiegesprach der Blicke mit Franz ein
2

c 2009 by Leif Frenzel. See http://leiffrenzel.de for more information.

Leif Frenzel - The character of Josef K.

K.s weakness of will is more pronounced when he gets emotional. Clearly

this is supposed to provide some energetic drive to his actions, but repeatedly
fails to do so not because reason and self-control get the upper hand again
in K., but because it simply runs out of steam against the calm composure
of the other characters: when K. yells at the guards (18),4 and again when he
demands to be allowed to phone his friend, the prosecutor Hasterer (2324).5
In addition, when K. deliberates, he typically reaches the conclusion to
do nothing and just let things run their course. The long series of instances
of this pattern is opened in the first chapter, when K. presumes that by just
walking out of the room he might get rid of the whole affair but then
decides to do nothing, preferring the safety of the solution resulting from
the natural course of things, as he puts it to himself. (Never mind that there
isnt the slightest indication what the natural course of things would be, and
what a solution would look like.) As in countless later situations, weve got
a lack of decisiveness here, supported by questionable rationalization (16).6
At this point, let me introduce one of the primary questions guiding my
interpretation. I have noted that there is a gap between how K. tries to present himself and what his way of acting tells us about his real condition.
He talks firmly to the guards, but when it comes to even minor action (just
entering the next room), we learn that this firmness is just a facade. But
what does K. himself believe? Is he aware of his insecurity? If thats the case,
then his apparent firmness is a deliberate deception, the facade is put up
to mislead the other characters, but questionable as this move may be, we
can at least ascribe some self-awareness to K. On the other hand, K. may
be deceiving himself, he may actually think of himself as firmly in control,
not recognizing the episodes of insecurity at all, or discounting them unconsciously. His arrogant behavior wouldnt be a deliberate deception, but rather
a symptom of his lack of self-awareness.
4

die W
achter, die immer wenn K. schrie, ganz ruhig, ja fast traurig wurden und ihn
dadurch verwirrten oder gewissermaen zur Besinnung brachten
5
Er geriet in eine gewisse Aufregung, gieng auf und ab [. . . ], schob seine Manschetten
zur
uck, bef
uhlte die Brust, strich sein Haar zurecht, kam an den drei Herren vor
uber, sagte
es ist ja sinnlos , worauf sich diese zu ihm umdrehten und ihn entgegenkommend aber
ernst ansahen [. . . ]. Der Staatsanwalt Hasterer ist mein guter Freund , sagte er, kann
ich ihm telephonieren? Gewi , sagte der Aufseher, aber ich wei nicht, welchen Sinn
das haben sollte [. . . ] Welchen Sinn? rief K. mehr best
urzt, als geargert. [. . . ] Gut,
ich werde nicht telephonieren. Aber doch , sagte der Aufseher und streckte die Hand
zum Vorzimmer aus, wo das Telephon war, bitte telephonieren Sie doch. Nein, ich
will nicht mehr , sagte K.
6
Deshalb zog er die Sicherheit der Losung vor, wie sie der nat
urliche Verlauf bringen
mute, und ging in sein Zimmer zur
uck, ohne da von seiner Seite oder von Seite der
W
achter ein weiteres Wort gefallen ware.
c 2009 by Leif Frenzel. See http://leiffrenzel.de for more information.

Dealing with surprise

At any rate, the narrator is on our side: in all the episodes where K.
is acting in a way contrary to his own decisions or feelings, we promptly
are not only told about the events that go on objectively (in the world of
the novel), but also about K.s subjective states. Otherwise, we wouldnt
be in a position to even know of the mismatch; insight into K.s mind is a
necessary ingredient for that. Thus the working hypothesis: The function of
the narrators giving us insights into K.s feelings and intentions is precisely
to expose that mismatch. In these first passages, there isnt yet so much
unusual about it, but we will see many more instances of the same pattern
during the novel, exposing more and more of the tensions and tears in K.s
personality.

Dealing with surprise

The supervisor of the guards opens the dialogue with Josef K. by asking him
whether he was very surprised by the events of the morning. This is followed
by a particularly incoherent statement from K.: he says that he certainly is
surprised, but hardly very surprised, just to correct himself a moment later,
claiming that he is indeed very surprised, but he is used to take surprises
lightly, especially this one; he justifies that attitude by referring to his being
thirty years on the world and having had to fight his way all the time, being
all on his own (2021).7
Leaving aside the somewhat pathetic tone (what does it have to do with
his age, which isnt that high anyway? also, as we learn later in the novel,
K. isnt by far the lone wolf type as which he presents himself), this is not
cogent: while it is true that, with experience, one can become competent
in mastering difficult, even challenging situations (what K. refers to as sich
durchschlagen), this has nothing in particular to do with how one deals with
unexpected situations. Unexpected situations may be difficult to handle, not
least because they characteristically leave not much time for consideration
and planning. Thats why they require quick, reliable responses, which is
a talent that not everybody has, and a talent that at any rate must be
developed. But neither is every unexpected situation hard to cope with, nor
is any challenging situation unexpected. The fact that one has successfully
7

Sie sind durch die Vorg

ange des heutigen Morgens wohl sehr u
berrascht? fragte
der Aufseher [. . . ] Gewi , sagte K. [. . . ], gewi ich bin u
berrascht, aber ich bin
keineswegs sehr u
berrascht. Nicht sehr u
berrascht? fragte der Aufseher [. . . ]. Sie
miverstehen mich vielleicht , beeilte sich K. zu bemerken. Ich meine [. . . ] ich bin
allerdings sehr u
berrascht, aber man ist, wenn man dreiig Jahre auf der Welt ist und

sich allein hat durchschlagen m

ussen, wie es mir beschieden war, gegen Uberraschungen
abgeh
artet und nimmt sie nicht zu schwer.
c 2009 by Leif Frenzel. See http://leiffrenzel.de for more information.

Leif Frenzel - The character of Josef K.

dealt with complicated constellations in ones life doesnt show directly that
one has the talent to deal with surprises.
Moreover, the latter talent is based on several character traits that Josef
K. obviously hasnt. One is decisiveness, which we have seen he lacks. Another
is the ability to learn from experience, which isnt K.s habit, as we are told
in passing (12).8 Even more useful would be a habit of preparing oneself for
future events: thinking about the ways things may develop, about likely turns
of events, and indeed surprises that the future may bring. By contemplating
what might happen next, and how one could react, what the options would
be and which of them one would prefer, one is to a certain extent safeguarded
against being taken by surprise. Being prepared enables caution as well as
some provisional action. But then, as it is bluntly stated, thats what Josef K.
never does: Hes always tended to take things lightly, to believe the worst only
when the worst happened, to take no precautions whatever was imminent
(11).9 Given all this, K.s claim to be proficient in handling surprises is not
credible.
We can note two things he decidedly doesnt do in this entire scene: he
does not keep his cool, and he never actually asks about the accusation.
On the contrary, he is clearly agitated, and uninterested in the basis of the
accusation; hes just outraged at the way the business is handled. But later
on, in the first hearing, what he claims repeatedly is the opposite: he claims
to have remained calm and asked what the accusation was. At this point, he
must be either lying, or else he must have a self-image that is widely off the
mark (66).10
This gets us back to the reflection in the previous section. Again we
find a gap between how K. presents himself (at least to others, but possibly
also to himself) and what we learn from the insights the narrator gives us.
The interesting new constellation is that the evidence here is distributed
over several passages. K.s action in the surprise-exchange doesnt match
what we learn about his characters dispositions earlier in the chapter; K.s
description of the exchange later in the novel (at the hearing) doesnt match
the insight we are given by the narrator during the exchange. Again, the point
of letting us know about K.s internal life seems to be to expose the difference
between how he wants us to perceive him and how we should realistically view
8

[. . . ] ohne da es sonst seine Gewohnheit gewesen ware, aus Erfahrungen zu lernen

Er neigte stets dazu, alles moglichst leicht zu nehmen, das Schlimmste erst beim
Eintritt des Schlimmsten zu glauben, keine Vorsorge f
ur die Zukunft zu treffen, selbst
wenn alles drohte.
10
[. . . ] Es war nicht leicht ruhig zu bleiben. Es gelang mir aber und ich fragte den
Aufseher vollst
andig ruhig wenn er hier ware, m
ute er es bestatigen warum ich
verhaftet sei.
9

c 2009 by Leif Frenzel. See http://leiffrenzel.de for more information.

Awareness of others

him. Another thing that is new is that character traits come into play, i.e.
stable, long-term dispositions to acting and feeling, whereas in the previous
section, we had simply to do with episodes of acting and feeling.

Awareness of others
The way it is written, it can easily seem that there are no real persons in The
Trial, apart from Josef K. himself. All the other characters, beginning from
the two guards Franz and Willem (in the opening chapter) and ending with
the two executioners (in the final chapter), are just moving into and passing
out of view with the circumstances of K.s life; we only get a glimpse at them
when he does; and we never see them differently than from his dim point of
view.
Repeatedly, Kafka shows us expressly how limited K.s awareness of others
is. For instance, in a brief episode in the second chapter, K. encounters a
young man who introduces himself, at K.s inquiry, as the son of the caretaker
(Sohn des Hausmeisters). K. has to move his face close to him because of
the bad lighting conditions. When walking on, he turns around once more,
impulsively as it seems, presumably to get another look (31).11 This action
mirrors an impulse K. has in the first chapter, when driving away in the
car from the scene of his arrest. Telling himself that he didnt notice the
officers leaving, he resolves to be more attentive next time but then,
inconsequentially, turns around to check if he can see them yet (an attempt
that he abandons as quickly as he made it, and resultless with that, 2829).12
Until he is prompted by the supervisor of the guards, he doesnt notice that
some of the people on the scene of his arrest are his co-workers (27).13 In a
11

Wer sind Sie , fragte K. sofort und brachte sein Gesicht nahe an den Burschen,
man sah nicht viel im Halbdunkel des Flurs.[. . . Er] gieng weiter, aber ehe er die Treppe
hinaufstieg, drehte er sich noch einmal um. (With this, the paragraph ends, and the text
continues with K. arriving at his flat.)
12
Da erinnerte sich K. da er das Weggehn des Aufsehers und der Wachter gar nicht
bemerkt hatte, der Aufseher hatte ihm die drei Beamten verdeckt und nun wieder die
Beamten den Aufseher. Viel Geistesgegenwart bewies das nicht und K. nahm sich vor,
sich in dieser Hinsicht genauer zu beobachten. Doch drehte er sich noch unwillk
urlich
um und beugte sich u
ber das Hinterdeck des Automobils vor, um moglicherweise den
Aufseher und die W
achter noch zu sehn. Aber gleich wendete er sich wieder zur
uck ohne
auch nur den Versuch gemacht zu haben jemanden zu suchen, und lehnte sich bequem in
die Wagenecke.
13
Wie? rief K. und staunte die drei an. Diese so uncharakteristischen blutarmen
jungen Leute, die er immer noch nur als Gruppe bei den Photographien in der Erinnerung
hatte, waren tats
achlich Beamte aus seiner Bank, nicht Kollegen, das war zu viel gesagt
[. . . ], aber untergeordnete Beamte aus der Bank waren es allerdings. Wie hatte K. das
c 2009 by Leif Frenzel. See http://leiffrenzel.de for more information.

Leif Frenzel - The character of Josef K.

similar way, K. feels the need to look closer at his executioners only when
the three of them are already on their way, although he has met them (and
even formed a strong opinion about them) earlier at his home (306307).14
These episodes show an extensive lack of perceptiveness, and an extraordinary lack of interest in, and awareness of, other people. At the same time
K. doesnt hesitate to judge them by what little impression he can have of
them and his judgments are typically condescending, rarely sympathetic
(and if so, then in a patronizing manner).

Two instances of good advice

Twice during the first chapter, Josef K. receives good advice regarding his
own behavior. The guard Willem suggests that he focuses his mind on the upcoming complications in his life, and resists distraction from useless thoughts
(15).15 K. promptly does precisely the opposite: he returns to his room and
occupies himself with pointless musings about the far-fetched possibility of
himself committing suicide and the question whether the guards had considered this scenario and why they might not have taken precautions. Apart
from his ersatz breakfast consisting of a fine apple and a couple of drinks,
that seems to be the only thing looking relevant to him. Later on, the supervisor of the guards recommends that K. talked less and more carefully: what
he had uttered during the conversation was mostly redundant and also not
always to his advantage (22).16 Again, K. doesnt pay any heed to the advice
(and for the rest of the novel, he just continues not giving too much thought
to what he is saying).
This lack of prudence and the inability to receive feedback and incorporate it into his own actions is typical. Of course, nobody necessarily has to
follow each bit of advice, and surely one doesnt normally take advice from
anybody. But a moments reflection should have shown K., in both cases,
that the recommendations made sense. They might have been trivial, and
u
onnen? Wie hatte er doch hingenommen sein m
ussen, von dem Aufseher und
bersehen k
den W
achtern, um diese drei nicht zu erkennen.
14
Alte untergeordnete Schauspieler schickt man um mich , sagte sich K. und sah
sich um, um sich nochmals davon zu u
berzeugen. [. . . ] Unter den Laternen versuchte K.
ofters [. . . ] seine Begleiter deutlicher zu sehn, als es in der Dammerung seines Zimmers

m
oglich gewesen war.
15
Wir raten Ihnen, zerstreuen Sie sich nicht durch nutzlose Gedanken, sondern sammeln Sie sich, es werden groe Anforderungen an Sie gestellt werden.
16
[. . . ]Auch sollten Sie u
uckhaltender sein, fast alles was Sie
berhaupt im Reden zur
vorhin gesagt haben, h
atte man auch wenn Sie nur ein paar Worte gesagt hatten, Ihrem
Verhalten entnehmen k
onnen, auerdem war es nichts f
ur Sie u
unstiges.
bermaig G
c 2009 by Leif Frenzel. See http://leiffrenzel.de for more information.

Arrogance and contempt

even possibly not really been well-meant, but that wouldnt necessarily make
them wrong.

Arrogance and contempt

K.s initial reaction to all the other characters in the first chapter is to view
them as inferior, and he tends to interpret any complications in his own situation as brought about by incompetence, stupidity or outright wrongdoing
on their part. When he confronts the two guards with questions about legitimation papers and doesnt get anywhere with this strategy, he explains this
to himself with their incompetence and concludes that his problem is just
that he had no opportunity so far to talk to someone more equal to himself
(15).17 When he later speaks with their supervisor, he sees this opportunity
as finally come (20)18 but of course the supervisor is likewise not impressed
by K.s incoherent (see above regarding K.s ramblings about surprise) and
arrogant (viz. his thinking out loud about regarding the whole process as a
joke) speech, and so K. again changes his perception abruptly and concludes
that the person opposite him is just not an equal to himself (23).19 Generally,
whenever people act contrary to K.s expectations (however unrealistic those may be), his opinion of them falls to very low levels immediately. In the
second chapter, this is particularly pronounced when his landlady overlooks
his desire for a symbolic handshake (a symbolism that exists in K.s mind
alone anyway, 3435).20
17

[M]u ich, dachte [K.], durch das Geschwatz dieser niedrigsten Organe sie geben
selbst zu, es zu sein mich noch mehr verwirren lassen? Sie reden doch jedenfalls von
Dingen, die sie gar nicht verstehn. Ihre Sicherheit ist nur durch ihre Dummheit moglich.
Ein paar Worte, die ich mit einem mir ebenb
urtigen Menschen sprechen werde, werden
alles unvergleichlich klarer machen, als die langsten Reden mit diesen.
18
das Wohlgef
uhl endlich einem vern
unftigen Menschen gegen
uberzustehn und u
ber
seine Angelegenheit mit ihm sprechen zu konnen ergriff ihn
19
K. starrte den Aufseher an. Schulmaige Lehren bekam er hier von einem vielleicht
j
ungern Menschen?
20
[. . . ] Ihr Urteil, das Urteil einer vern
unftigen Frau wollte ich horen und bin sehr
froh, da wir darin u
ussen Sie mir aber die Hand reichen, eine
bereinstimmen. Nun m

solche Ubereinstimmung
mu durch Handschlag bekraftigt werden.
Ob sie mir die Hand reichen wird? Der Aufseher hat mir die Hand nicht gereicht, dachte
er und sah die Frau anders als fr
uher, pr
ufend an. [. . . S]ie war ein wenig befangen, weil ihr
nicht alles was K. gesagt hatte verst
andlich gewesen war. Infolge dieser Befangenheit sagte
sie aber etwas, was sie gar nicht wollte und was auch gar nicht am Platze war: Nehmen
Sie es doch nicht so schwer, Herr K. , sagte sie, hatte Tranen in der Stimme und verga
nat
urlich auch an den Handschlag. Ich w
ute nicht, da ich es schwer nehme , sagte K.
pl
otzlich erm
udet und das Wertlose aller Zustimmungen dieser Frau einsehend.
c 2009 by Leif Frenzel. See http://leiffrenzel.de for more information.

Leif Frenzel - The character of Josef K.

It is easy to see what the function of this behavior is to rationalize his

failure to engage or cope with the situation, and more specifically, the failure to interact sensibly with the involved people. Neither are K.s strategies
successful, nor is his style suited to improve his standing in all the situations
that are described in the novel. But K. attributes the resulting undesirable
developments invariably to other peoples shortcomings which guarantees,
among other things, that in subsequent interchanges he modifies his approach
not in the least, and the outcomes are, predictably, very similar to those he
reached earlier. (It also reinforces the contemptuous tone of both his internal
monologue and his dialogue with others.)

Kaminers smile
One of K.s co-workers summoned by the supervisor to the scene of the
arrest, we learn, has a physically distorted facial expression that makes him
look as if he was constantly grinning or smiling (27).21 At the end of the
first chapter, K. abstains from making fun of this feature of his co-worker,
because unfortunately humanity forbids it (29).22 It is unfortunate that
some English translations omit the unfortunately here; but the German
text says leider, and it is important to notice that K. abstains regretfully
from making a joke. He would have liked to do so.
This makes it doubtful whether it really is humane consideration which
motivates him. A considerate person wouldnt probably even have had that
impulse, but if explicitly deliberating, such a person would have weighed the
(small) pleasure to be gained from initiating a conversation (which seems
K.s motive here, for he is in need of Zuspruch, i.e. a few encouraging
words) against the probable hurting of someone elses feelings; from that
comparison at the latest there shouldnt be any more doubt about the appropriate behavior, and thus no more reason for residual regret. Such regret
shows that for K., as clearly in contrast to a humanely motivated person, his
own needs seem to have enough weight to let him secretly wish for having
that option available after all. And this, in turn, shows that what stops him is
probably not really humanity, but something else (perhaps social convention,
or a desire not to look callous).
This is a general pattern: sometimes K. acts in a way that might look at
first glance as if it showed some concern for others but then it becomes
21

Kaminer mit dem unausstehlichen durch eine chronische Muskelzerrung bewirkten

L
acheln.
22
Nur Kaminer stand mit seinem Grinsen zur Verf
ugung, u
ber das einen Spa zu
machen leider die Menschlichkeit verbot.
c 2009 by Leif Frenzel. See http://leiffrenzel.de for more information.

Reflection on narrative technique

clear that the motivation was selfish after all. For instance, in the third
chapter K., who is walking up the stairs in the house where his hearing takes
place, is slowed down for a moment by two children (who have grabbed his
trouser legs to prevent him from spoiling an ongoing game). K. has to wait
what keeps him from shaking off the two kids is that he would have to
hurt them (55).23 Now, a normal person would surely have the kindness and
patience necessary to wait a few seconds if the alternative course is hurting
a child - thats because hurting children is wrong, the thing one doesnt do
(except for situations where there is an overriding concern: if there is a fire
alarm for instance, one might well have to use force in order to ensure the
safety of persons). But thats not K.s reasoning. His motivation is that he
is afraid of the noise they would make which, by implication, means that
he probably wouldnt hesitate to shake them off (indifferent to the pain he
might inflict on them) if he just could ensure nobody would notice.

Reflection on narrative technique

I have argued that the first chapter of The Trial exposes a number of unfavorable character traits in Josef K.; but one more aspect needs discussion: the
apparent inconsistencies in the text. I shall look at the narrative techniques
that bring about these inconsistencies, and at the function they fulfill.
Although the novel is written in third-person mode, it is closely focused
on K. as the center of attention. We are told only about developments and
events in which K. himself is present, and the narrative content is restricted
to what he perceives. Furthermore, it is not only the objective facts of the
plot that are restricted the same applies to information about thoughts,
feelings, memories and so on. We are given insight (to a certain degree) into
K.s thought processes, but into no other persons in the novel. In particular,
we must do without other persons impressions and estimations of K.s personality. (Unless they are of course verbalized or otherwise expressed by them,
e.g. in body language described in the novel but in this case we must
again be aware that what we learn may be distorted by K.s perception,
which heavily influences the narrative content.)
Now, it is of course not to be expected that K. himself has the same critical
attitude towards his own character as we have. In fact, quite in accord with his
other character qualities, he displays a considerable arrogance and a strong
23

Knapp vor dem ersten Stock mute er sogar ein Weilchen warten, bis eine Spielkugel
ihren Weg vollendet hatte, zwei kleine Jungen mit den verzwickten Gesichtern erwachsener
Strolche hielten ihn indessen an den Beinkleidern; hatte er sie absch
utteln wollen, hatte
er ihnen wehtun m
ussen und er f
urchtete ihr Geschrei.
c 2009 by Leif Frenzel. See http://leiffrenzel.de for more information.

10

Leif Frenzel - The character of Josef K.

tendency towards self-righteousness. Thus we have registered a tension, in the

first chapter, between what we learn from observing what goes on and what
K.s own assessment of the situation suggests about it: Although K.s actions
betray character defects, this comes out in a distorted manner, because at the
same time K.s subjective view is actively devising excuses, rationalizations
and so on. We are therefore challenged to see through K.s attempts to deceive
himself (and us) when judging the character that is presented to us.
Note that given these observations, there is nothing either particularly
inconsistent nor especially obscure about the way the novel introduces the
main character. True, we dont have the luxury of an objective narrative that
just shows how K. is reacting, without a subjective overlay that comes from
his own perceptions and attitudes. So we have to deal with both points of
view simultaneously. But then, so are we most of the time in daily life. It
makes many of our judgments less clear-cut and more provisional, but in the
light of what is possible, they are still good judgments on which it makes
sense to proceed. We are thus not in a position with respect to interpreting
the novel that is in principle worse than what we are faced with in real life.
The situation is complicated, however, by the fact that insight into K.s
mind is used selectively by the narrator, and the purpose of the selection
is not (as is more typical for narrators in literature) to give us a broad or
comprehensive character portrait. Its as if the narrator shares K.s disinterest in other people hes only interested sporadically, and only when
it fits his own agenda. That agenda, as I have argued, is to expose certain
aspects of K.s character. More precisely, the narrator provides insight into
K.s thoughts, feelings and intentions whenever it helps us seeing that they
contradict his actions and self-descriptions. But its not the contradictions
themselves in which he is interested. Behind them, there is always an aspect
of K.s personality.
Personality is not just a matter of regularities in behavior, though. It
has also long-term aspects - character traits may change, normally resulting
from reflection and a conscious effort on the part of the characters bearer.
In theory, every episode shown to us by the narrator would be a chance
for K. to do so as well, precisely because K. has available to himself exactly the same information that we receive from the narrator, including those
inconsistencies.
When we are confronted with a feedback that shows us an inconsistency
between what we think and how we act, different options are open to us: we
may correct our actions (and possibly our dispositions to act) or we might
change our views of ourselves. Or we might, as K. usually does, invent some
excuses or rationalizations that let our actions look plausible after all. The
narrator of The Trial lets us see this aspect of K.s personality. Its another,
c 2009 by Leif Frenzel. See http://leiffrenzel.de for more information.

Reflection on narrative technique

11

additional character trait, a perverted (as we might say) form of reflection.

Its dysfunctional as reflection because reflection normally should help to
improve ones character, not to excuse it and re-assure oneself that one is
doing just fine.
To summarize, then: the narrator provides us insight into K.s mind to
carve out character traits. Some of these can be simply seen from a mismatch
between K.s thoughts and actions, but there is also his inability to honestly
reflect on himself, which needs more elaborate presentation of his thought
processes. In all cases, however, were not given a full picture of K.s inner
life. All we get are the elements necessary for a critical exposition of his bad
qualities.
Can we infer from this that K. doesnt have any good qualities, that he
is a uniformly bad person? Given the overwhelming evidence of weakness,
arrogance and lack of concern for others in what we learn about K., this
seems to be a natural conclusion. Still, can we rely on the narrator here?
Can we be sure that this portrait is not a deliberately one-sided one? The
evidence we are given might have been carefully selected to generate just
that impression.
The function of an interpretation is of course not to pass moral judgment
on a character. Rather, we should note that such a judgment is strongly suggested by the way the text is narrated, and we can identify the techniques
which make that suggestion so strong. We can notice that K. is presented as
a weak and faulty character, and we can find out exactly how this is achieved
by the authors use of narrative techniques. Its not our business to condemn
the character of K. (and indeed, what would be the point of such condemning?) Were concerned with how the text works, and why it achieves the
effects it does achieve. When doing this, we have to draw in resources like
our knowledge about how character shows itself in people, and what indicates
good or bad qualities in a personality. We also have to develop an ability to
see through the deceptive (and self-deceptive) maneuvers of K., and the deliberative, but purposive holding back of information by the narrator (he only
shows us part of K.s mental life, and thats in accord with his agenda). Having mastered this, were rewarded with a surprisingly consistent and elegant,
albeit disturbingly stern and purely condemning reading. That it is possible
to find this behind a text that looks so strange and confusing at first sight
is a sure indicator for the great quality of Kafkas work. (More so, I think,
than the opportunity it perennially gives for metaphysical speculation.)

c 2009 by Leif Frenzel. See http://leiffrenzel.de for more information.