Authoritarian Government In 1984, And The Trial

In 1984, by George Orwell, and The Trial, by Franz Kafka, both authors demonstrate the corrupt control of an authoritarian government through the way officials abuse power to bend, shape, and brainwash followers to their own will. The two authors are able to enhance the illustration abuse through three key pillars: setting, characterization, and conflict. The works exemplify dictatorship in urban settings and courtrooms through constant, watching eyes that provoke anxiety within rebellious characters. These all-knowing officials are one-step ahead, creating conflict between protagonists and their journey to victory, ultimately causing the perpetual and inevitable defeat that all rebellious characters face in the stories. A group or member of

Each character plays their own role within the novels, contributing to the broader argument that the two works highlight: An oppressive, authoritarian government has the resources to be constantly one-step-ahead, thus proving that characters who attempt to rebel against officials will always meet an inevitable fate: failure.
Urban and Watchful Setting
Orwell and Kafka create settings in both novels that display overwhelming dictatorship of higher powers through urban atmospheres and courtrooms, loaded with officers, strict regimens, and watching eyes that create anxiety and portray victims in a manner of great, unjust oppression. The ability of Big Brother to know what his people are up to on a day-to-day basis, including their thoughts, activities, and plans, allow the government to intervene and capture any person posing threats against them, thus leading to failed rebellion. The government is able to have ceaseless knowledge of their citizens because of the strict regimens and multitude of devoted followers that fill the streets and homes of Oceania’s urban setting. As Winston Smith, 1984’s main protagonist,

offers representation for the desire to understand the court, and in some cases the desire to possibly overcome it. This, in turn, brings about K.’s further representation for the destiny of failure all rebels face against all-knowing powers. K. works tirelessly throughout the story to prove wrong a crime for which he does not even understand his guiltiness. The court is unmoved in each trial. K. confides in many characters about his charges, one of these characters being the priest. When he continues to insist that he is innocent the priest replies, "But that is how the guilty speak.” (Kafka 119) No matter who he talks to or what he does, the outcome seems to remain constant. It is K.’s stubbornness and refusal to give up that results in his incrimination and gruesome death. The judges were never going to give K. the result he wanted, they had far more power than he was ever capable of understanding and “K.'s cause [was] lost from the beginning” (Deinert). K.’s defensive and rebellious personality only contributes to his inevitable fate, shining light on the court's representation of powerful dictatorship and capacity to make decisions that disregard opinions if those opinions do not align with their own truth. The court can do whatever it wants, this includes raiding the homes of its civilians and arresting those they find to be delinquents. In this manner, the court alludes to a communist-like system, where the leader(s) is all-knowing and all-powerful. K. never stood