Jose Saramago’s Seeing (2006) and Kafka’s The Trial (1923) have something in common: they both reveal the inherent disconnect between those who govern and those who are governed.
For me, the stories demonstrate the politics behind government policy and its failure to consider the everyday “man on the streets.”
In The Trial, Kafka refers to government officials with his line: They’re constantly constricted by the law both night and day. They have no proper understanding of human relationships and in such cases they feel that keenly.
In The Trial, Josef K is arbitrarily put on trial. He is told by a prison priest — in the midst of his trial and before his guilt or innocence has been determined — that he’s assumed guilty.
But, I’m not guilty, said K. It’s a mistake. How could any person, in general, be guilty? We’re all human, after all, each and every one of us.
That’s right, said the priest. But, that’s how guilty people always talk.
Are you prejudiced against me too, asked K.?
These criticisms of concentrated power emphasize obscure or incomprehensible situations, which find human rights are only for a select few.
I was drawn to both stories by their similar interpretation of government officials: the idea that once a select few are given the powers to govern, they lose the capacity to understand the implications of their decisions — they don’t comprehend the pain they inflict on the very people they’ve sworn to protect.
Saramago makes that point here:
The rash person who appeared to be ignorant of the basic tenet of social behavior, which teaches that in the house of the hanged man, one should never mention the word rope.
To understand Saramago, one has to be dedicated and have a willingness to concentrate on his peculiar writing style.
Seeing is a story told after there has been a city-wide election and the voters have cast blank ballots. The government’s reaction is paranoia and martial law.
All top government officials, military and police evacuate the city and create a false narrative to re-establish normalcy, defined in their terms.
Saramago believes that: Rights are not abstractions…people either deserve rights or they don’t…they continue to exist even when they’re not respected.
Saramago shows his readers that making amends in spite of circumstance is a noble cause. However, he drives home the point that ingrained in the status quo is a constant element that sees anything contrary to the stability of government as severe and deadly.
Kafka’s Door Keeper character also shows the futility of resisting the status quo.
The Door Keeper explains how the Law works, while producing anguish in suspects told the reality regarding their societal status. Oddly, Kafka has the Door Keeper give this information to suspects when it’s no longer relevant.
That being said, Josef K is told, You don’t have to consider everything true; you just have to consider it necessary.
K’s response shows the inherent gloom in “necessary” information:
A depressing opinion, said K. Lies are made in a universal system; K said that with a finality.
In the end I questioned the appearance of a dog in both stories.
Dogs represent various emotional states, from being a man’s comforter to being used as a derogatory moral statement about someone’s character.
I came away with a vague sense of missing something when reading about the significance of a howling dog at night or to die like a dog.
Still, for both Kafka and Saramago, death is merely a passing moment in their storytelling.
Juan’s Book Review
