To a certain extent, K. in the novel Zamak is he, like Hamlet, an obsessive, perhaps because he is haunted, pursued and driven by the Lacanian (Seminar XX) 'There is one – Y a de l'Un.' That's why the difference between The process i Trap so profound, since Jozef K. is in the middle of a bureaucratic machinery (Kafka will insist on a 'suffocating' architecture that is, moreover, all broken), meaningless and always infinitely impenetrable, while Zamak a story about - centeredness, about the lack of a master discourse due to which the hysteric has no one to ask the question about the essence/importance of his own existence. K. is, stricto sensu, unconfirmable.
U To the process we simply cannot escape the impression that Jozef K. has been replaced with some other wanted person, as, for example, in Trap We are left wondering whether K. is, in fact, the surveyor they invited to the village. Kafka The phrase will explain the essence of both novels, so: If you seek, you will not find (Loads), but if you don't seek, you will be found (Process).
bulgakov defined Kafka's letter most precisely, writing - ""Kafka writes in black and white"His text is so 'readable', discursively distilled and legally precise, that this alone contributes to its even greater nightmare, since it is precisely this - textual transparency hides a secret. (In a state of nervous exhaustion from thirty days of non-stop writing in a Manhattan hotel room, Handke He calls his manager and asks for only one thing: a novel. Zamak whose perfectly refined German will help him finish the novel A slow return home.)
Re-reading some parts of Diary, especially the collected aphorisms, one immediately sees that Kafka was too aware to be able to write. Namely, some persistent state of frivolous elation is necessary in order to be able to write, which was not the case in Kafka's case, on the contrary: he is always in a position that Sioran describes it as follows - What I know kills what I want..
An event can be said to be, in Badiou's sense, a 'miracle' only if it arises of its own accord, as it were, out of nothing. It is quite correct and consequently unshakable that, only by retrospectively examining a series of situations from which something then arose, does it actually become clear how it had to be. Coincidence is revealed as necessity, etc. The despair that develops in Kafka as a man and writer gains additional strength because even through writing he was unable to make that 'short circuit' that would introduce a positive element into the gap between single life, boring office work, the family's comic role and failed engagements. - All the more so, isn't Kafka himself the embodiment of bad infinity??
Following the situations that K. finds himself in, we are constantly faced with the obvious fact that there is nothing here but hopeless circular motion. All the more so, isn't it then in Trap, the path to it is the only goal because it is reached Trap surely it can't arrive? In other words: since it is Zamak pure phantasm of K., he will do everything to avoid enlightening himself. In addition, the endless delays and series of obstacles as Kafka's method, in fact, hint that the writer himself is in To the process He knows just as much about its outcome as we do, as well as about the "ending" Trap, which, yes, is impossible to finish.
Lakanova The maxim, as is well known, is - Don't give up on your desire.. So: what binds us so strongly to Joseph K.? His intransigent demand to reach the Law, to show him the Court, i.e. to acknowledge that he is the geometer they were looking for. After all, psychoanalysis has recognized our primary desire, which consists precisely in the recognition, among other things, that our desire is formed by the Other. Or, since we have already referred to Lacan several times, let's put it this way: petit object is the other at the center of the Other itself, that which is in it more than itself.
Don't get anywhere.
Whether it is an ordinary washerwoman of questionable morality, the mysterious Mrs. Bürstner or, finally, Frida, the “stable girl” or Klamm’s lover, women in Kafka’s novels are always already in the power of chance, reconciled to it as if they actually know their role, which both Josef K. and K. often use in an effort to obtain some information or a position in general that will enable them to advance more easily in the case. Here we will take a risk and therefore say: did Lacan, although he strangely never wrote about Kafka, find elements here for an extremely explicit claim according to which - 'The woman does not exist.. '
Anyway, we will list here Maurice Blanchois, the reason for this is primarily the metaphysics of incommensurableness, incommensurableness and essential non-belonging, therefore, the following lines also speak of non-existence: “Right from the beginning, he is, therefore, outside of salvation, belongs to exile, to that place where he is not only not at home but is outside himself, in the very outside, a region completely devoid of intimacy, where beings seem absent, where everything we believe we can reach is snatched away. The tragic difficulty of the undertaking means that, in that world of exclusion and radical separation, everything is false and wrong as soon as you stop in it, everything is missing as soon as you lean on it, but that nevertheless the basis of that absence is always given again as an undoubted, absolute presence, and the word absolute is here in its place, which means separate, as if the separation, experienced in all its severity, could be turned into an absolutely separate, absolutely absolute.”
The atmosphere of unreality, both in the characters and in the plot, is what is inescapably felt in the novel. Zamak, because instead of moving, K. can only accidentally bump into someone, the scene with the old man in the narrowing room, who in a state of disorientation tells him something that is difficult to explain, is enough to ask what is reality there, what is not. In addition to all this, the nightmare becomes comical when we single out two intellectually retarded associates assigned to K., who not only make the situation more difficult/complicated for him, but we are not sure whether Zamak put them at his disposal to let him know that he looks at him as well as at them?
Although, therefore, none of the villagers, even those who have some kind of 'function', know anything about the Castle, what is very noticeable is their completely subordinate position, their extremely, in fact excessively servile way of acting which, at the same time, has no influence on the reality of things. If the thesis is that Process a precursor to the dystopian novel, in which the hunted figure Jozef K., searching for the Court and the Law, finds nothing but death, then it is to the same extent also Zamak, if we consider that all the figures are - characterless, alienated, frightened, in every conversation they try to interrupt him, everyone is making assumptions about everyone, only the coachman, one night, while it is snowing heavily, after K. greets him, he does not respond that he is nothing, although, nevertheless (he adds immediately afterwards), unfortunately he is still something, someone who is "outnumbered".
Undoubtedly, Process is a fight for the right, while in Trap the action is broken down into an attempt to realize one's place, but since there is no law, there is no place either, being disenfranchised and exiled presupposes one another. Let's try to imagine this now: the law is not unjust, it simply does not exist, just as the place/house/world disappear with every attempt to reach them.
Bonus video:
