Truth be told, 'The Trial' is nothing but an allegory. An allegory of what is up to you to decide. I think I interpret it on the most universal level and see The Trial as a symbol of human existence. We don't know why we are here, how it is going to end and even what the rules of the game are.
Yet, we take this frustrating journey trying to make sense of it, comforted by little meaningless bogus victories that fool us into believing some progress has been made. We long ago learnt that the 'actual acquittal' is unattainable but we refuse to give up.
This is how I see it. However, many literary critics and other smart people see it differently and that is their prerogative. There is, for example, a quite interesting theory that 'The Trial' was born as an inmediate result of the break-up of Kafka's engagement to Felice Bauer. Felice Bauer was, one might say, an uncomplicated woman.
She was Kafka's muse and his anchor in the reality. Kafka needed her to write and to stay sane. What Felice got out of the affair is unclear as her letters didn't survive. No doubt, it must have been frustrating as Kafka's idea of love was definitely not a healthy one. Their relationship consituted mostly of letters and occasional meetings which made Kafka the happiest just after they were over.
He did finally propose to Felice but emphasized he would be a rather rubbish husband as he was simply not cut out for family life. And so it went on. If anyone felt like they were on an endless, incomprehensible trial, it was, in my opinion, Felice. But, of course, Franz maintains it was him - because finally Felice's friends and relatives decided to put an end to it, called Kafka in, forced him to knock it off and leave the poor girl alone.
Now, I don't want to entertain this theory because if it is true, I would have to reduce the rating for 'Trial' to some stars and put it on my 'brats' shelf I have for selfish, woe-is-me individuals acting like brats. I prefer to stick to the human-existence allegory which I find quite moving in its Weltschmertz way.
The letter is written by Felice long after Kafka's death and basically asserts that Kafka was a dick. Apr 10, J. Reading Franz Kafka's The Trial is a frustrating experience, but that's at least partially the point.
Our protagonist, Josef K is arrested, but neither he nor the reader know why he's been arrested. The remaining narrative is a sort of judgment on all the decisions he's made. Although he is 'free' for most of the novel, K's trial consumes all his time, and he is locked in a course of events over which he has little or no control.
How are we to judge K's trial? Indeed, K's entire ordeal is imposs Reading Franz Kafka's The Trial is a frustrating experience, but that's at least partially the point. Indeed, K's entire ordeal is impossible to come to grips with. The process of the trial playing out even if it is not outwardly 'in session' and K's own processing of events, forces us to recognize that our decisions are consequential. Even decisions that don't seem significant. This is especially apparent at the end of the novel which brings us to a sort of tragic anticlimactic climax.
It's difficult to determine if such an end is inevitable, or, for that matter, whether K's fate is for him alone or for all of us. Along the way you encounter friends and strangers — sometimes the strangers, or friends are disfigured in some way, even just slightly — perhaps one big front tooth, like a truly massive FRONT TOOTH - but the tooth then becomes important.
You end up in pointless circular conversations with these people — and all the while you need to hurry towards your goal, otherwise. The main character, Josef K. He is then sucked into a cloudy, ludicrous world of pointless interactions amidst fog of peak ambiguity. In general, the proceedings were kept secret not only from the public but also from the accused. Only as far as possible, of course, but that was to a very great extent.
The accused was not allowed to see the court documents either, and it as very difficult to deduce anything from the hearings about the documents on which they were based, especially for the accused, who was prejudiced and had all sorts of worries to distract him The lawyers are evasive and dysfunctional. The judges are invisible and opaque. For example, the door is tucked right behind the artist's bed - now this becomes a topic of conversation, a problem to be solved.
Hunched over a candle. All of this written by a young man back in Kafka must have either been disturbed, or ridiculously talented or both — either way this man with a brain the size of a planet, understands discomfort and above all — absurdity and importantly, lack of control.
If you think the wheels of our own bureaucracies, establishments and Governments are churning in the background realising no great end-result. Well you ain't seen nothing yet!!! This one is even better than The Metamorphosis. This must be given 5 exhausted, troubled stars. View all 52 comments. Jun 19, Maureen rated it liked it. Strange, bleak, not really for me. Oct 07, Joselito Honestly and Brilliantly rated it really liked it.
Look at Joseph K. He wakes up one day with strange men in his apartment telling him he's under arrest. Why or for what offense, no one knows. The arresting officers themselves don't know and can't tell him. Even if he's under arrest, however, no one picks him up or locks him in jail. He can still go to his office, work, perform his customary daily chores, and do whatever he wants to do as he awaits his trial. But he is understandably anxio Look at Joseph K. But he is understandably anxious and worried.
He is, after all, charged with an unknown but very grave offense. He has a criminal case. He is an accused. He is under arrest. For this problem he consults so many. He gets a lawyer. His uncle comes to his aid. He talks with his lawyer's other client--also charged and under arrest like him.
He consults other people, a painter who is said to know the "Court" , some women, a priest, etc. But no one can tell him what the charge is and what his sentence will be.
Now, look at yourself. You were born or made to exist without your consent. You live, you do whatever comes to your mind worth doing, you marry or stay single, maybe you've married already and are raising a family, you may be living a life of fame or anonymity, amassing riches or just getting by, happy or sad.
But the whys and wherefores of all these, why you're here in the first place, why you're doing whatever it is you're doing, if you have a purpose or was just an accident, if you will outlive your physical death, see God or see darkness, witness corrective justice for all the wrongs you've witnessed or heard about--all these you do not know and never will know.
Sometimes you'd think, with all these uncertainties and frightful unknowns it would have been better that you did not exist at all. But you had no choice. You're condemned to this life and had been charged. You can't "not exist" and escape. You are under arrest. So you seek help. You'll try religion, common sense, reason, study the affairs of men, look back in history, see what the living and dead prophets and philosophers have to say, pray to God and his saints, ask Oprah, google your questions, but all these offer no certitude.
Then, you will still die, and you would die bewildered and afraid and, like the death of Joseph K. Then one of them opened his frock coat and out of a sheath that hung from a belt girt round his waistcoat drew a long, thin, double-edged butcher's knife, held it up, and tested the cutting edges in the moonlight. Once more the odious courtesies began, the first handed the knife across K. But he did not do so, he merely turned his head, which was still free to move, and gazed around him.
He could not completely rise to the occasion, he could not relieve the officials of all their tasks; the responsibility for this last failure of his lay with him who had not left him the remnant of strength necessary for the deed. His glance fell on the top story of the house adjoining the quarry. With a flicker as of a light going up, the casements of a window there suddenly flew open; a human figure, faint and insubstantial at that distance and that height, leaned abruptly far forward and stretched both arms still farther.
Who was it? A friend? A good man? Someone who sympathized? Someone who wanted to help? Was it one person only? Or was it mankind? Was help at hand? Were there arguments in his favor that had been overlooked? Of course there must be. Logic is doubtless unshakable, bit it cannot withstand a man who wants to go on living. Where was the Judge whom he had never seen? Where was the High Court, to which he had never penetrated? He raised his hands and spread out all his fingers.
With failing eyes K. I will be honest here and say that this went over my head. I'm not sure why, but I had a hard time getting into the story and understanding what was really going on. I fell like I was a little dazed reading this. I think I really enjoy reading books like this where there is a lot of metaphor that isn't really explained in a group setting with people who sorta get stuff like this.
I enjoy the conversation and then beginning to understand the text more. It's less fun by myself. I have been over-stim I will be honest here and say that this went over my head. I have been over-stimulated mentally with school and I do well with fun and funny material, but the series stuff I used to enjoy, well I just sort of don't take it in as much right now.
I hope that changes. I do appreciate the genius of Kafka's writing and the artistry he brings, but honestly, I didn't enjoy this story.
It was weird and it didn't feel like much happened. I take pride in the fact that I did read this and I'm happy about that. I doubt I will ever read it again, though. I enjoyed the Metamorphoses much better. I'll let someone else describe the story who has a better grasp on it than me. It is nice to read outside my genre now and then. View all 18 comments. Jun 01, Dave Schaafsma rated it it was amazing Shelves: fictionth-century , best-books-ever.
The basic story is simple and especially given the time it was published, , though still today, strange: On his thirtieth birthday, the chief cashier of a bank, Josef K. We proceed without ever knowing what the crime is that K supposedly committed, and what unravels is a labyrinthine nightmare, often surrealistic, sometimes comic, ultimately terrifying.
How is it even possible for someone to be guilty? Do many people really possess civil rights, or is this a myth? And why read it today? Is there a rise in authoritarianism? Are we seeing a rise in fascism globally? Is this a dystopian book such as ? Sounds heavy, yes? Adding that layer to this book makes it seem extra crazy. Sometimes funny.
In many places the book seems very funny, actually; I seem to recall that Kafka, reading sections of it aloud to friends, was convulsed with laughter. It feels on the one hand tragic, a political or legal nightmare, and yet in some places it seems like dark comedy, like a Marx Brothers movie. In one place, for instance, judges read porn magazines rather than legal texts.
Initially I thought it would be too damn sacrilegious to add this piece of classics to my account filled to the brim with trashy books but then I thought I don't do golden mean so here be it. Diversification of my bookshelves. By the looks of it, the story is my favourite kind: absurd, unrealistic and bizarre. The protagonist is ridiculously pretentious, based on a few dozen of pages I've read so far. His disorganised thoughts and attitude remind me of a schizophrenic.
Love it so far Initially I thought it would be too damn sacrilegious to add this piece of classics to my account filled to the brim with trashy books but then I thought Love it so far and curious what path the author had chosen. Who Dared Seize Him? Ever since first reading this novel in school, I've assumed the word "Kafkaesque" described an aspect of society analogous to living under a totalitarian state. For much of this thoroughly enjoyable re-read, I persisted with this view.
However, when Joseph K. He asks: "Who could these men be? What were they talking about? What authority could they represent? A natural reaction is that it might be a joke. However, it's not funny for very long, certainly not for the twelve month process K. Officials on High Apart from the apparent absence of a reason for K. It's inexplicable for K. It doesn't evoke an outcry except, understandably, from K.
It's as if this turn of events is uncommon, but it could still happen to any of us at any time. Not because we live in a totalitarian state, but because we might have committed a crime. But what if K. For all the empty formality of the Law, everybody he deals with is meticulous in their observance of etiquette. They're amiable, courteous, helpful and apologetic, not to mention sometimes obsequious and solicitous.
Whoever is wielding this power, exercising this authority, is wearing velvet gloves: "I don't in the least blame them, it is the organisation that is to blame, the high officials who are to blame.
He only ever seems to encounter lowly officials. Still, power is exercised and punishment occurs at this level. One official says, with a hint of the banal: "I am here to whip people, and whip them I shall.
However, here, K. He suggests that he flee the city and come to the country: "I only made the suggestion because I thought your indifference would endanger the case He is a risk assessor in a bank, presumably someone educated, an intellectual of sorts, a free thinker. Early on, he says, "A man can't help being rebellious. So, what is it that places chains on mankind? The Courts just serve the Law.
Is the Law wholly rational, or does it serve some other authority? Whose justice does it dispense? You must remember that in these Courts things are always coming up for discussion that are simply beyond reason, people are too tired and distracted to think, and so they take refuge in superstition.
The penultimate chapter occurs in the Cathedral. Some of Kafka's language sounds almost biblical: "The Court makes no claims upon you. It receives you when you come and it relinquishes you when you go You see, everything belongs to the Court. Is God the unseen higher source of authority and the Church the organisation behind K. Was it God's churchwardens who dared to seize him? Is life an ongoing trial under God's Law? Original Sin If this speculation has any legs, then "The Trial" might be concerned with the concept of original sin.
Is original sin a crime with which each of us has been charged without our knowledge, without any proof and without any guilt? If so, the Trial might be a metaphor for the supernatural process of God looking over and judging us every moment of our lives, until we are granted permission to enter Heaven. Ultimately, K. The Barrister's Song hide spoiler ] The Throng of Gossip I've always thought of this novel as a five star achievement.
Re-reading it, I've realised that what convinced me of its status was probably the power of Kafka's vision and ideas. What struck me this time was the quality of the writing.
For all the claustrophobic abstraction, Kafka grounds the novel in evocative and descriptive prose. There's even a bit of humour: "Down the whole length of the street at regular intervals, below the level of the pavement, were planted little general grocery shops, to which short flights of steps led down.
Women were thronging into and out of these shops or gossiping on the steps outside. A fruit hawker who was crying his wares to the people in the windows above, progressing almost as inattentively as K. A phonograph which had seen long service in a better quarter of the town began stridently to murder a tune. There comes a point in the evolution all art; visual, literary, musical, wherein those who create it eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and become too self aware.
The artist is then free to write, to draw, to compose with a clear head and a fresh soul. It is what led to the design of the Barbican. It is what led Kafka to write The Trial. It is a horrible, horrible moment. It manages to be all the worst parts of self-indulgent, self-effacing, ponderous and pointless.
It is a hateful book. Up until then I had read only decent books and it was a shock to realize any crap could be a classic as long the author was foreign and the subject was avant garde. A man is informed he is on trial, but not for what. Throughout the chapters he is gradually and by his own stupid volition separated from his friends and family.
Each chapter he meets a set of unsettling people and they talk mildly depressing gibberish before disappearing from the story forever. At the end, the main character ends up in some sort of newly surreal, inexplicable and unexplained hall of light where he dies in a similar fashion.
There is no trial. That, more than anything really pissed me off. Nothing occurs in this book. They should have been put down in a diary and read by a reputable psychoanalyst, not published in 37 languages and crammed down the maw of 16 year olds. God is dead. Choice is an illusion. Reason and logic are comforting lies we tell ourselves and death is the only certainty.
Existentialism is and forever will be a dirty word to me and The Trial gets a 1. View all 20 comments. Sep 23, Nandakishore Mridula rated it really liked it Shelves: literature , classic.
I have been terminated from my job here in the Middle East and is currently in the process of relocating to India. It's a somewhat nightmarish scenario, uprooting oneself after ten years; that too, unexpectedly. So I am plagued by disturbing dreams in the night where I am caught in situations without escape forgetting luggage at the airport, searching for house in a country whose language is unknown to you, etc.
This is pretty much common for me and these dreams will disappear once I am past I have been terminated from my job here in the Middle East and is currently in the process of relocating to India. This is pretty much common for me and these dreams will disappear once I am past the crisis. I think, in a way, they are therapeutic. While browsing Goodreads just now, I was struck by how much my dreams resemble Kafka's novels. In the novel under discussion for example, K.
What gives the novel its nightmarish quality is that there is no continuity and the story moves in jerks. Situations are repeated again and again until we feel hemmed in.
However, there is still an unreality to the whole thing that we feel that sooner or later, K. Before I read him, I had been told that Kafka is a tough writer. He is not. He is very easy to read. The problem is that, you may not be able to stomach the endless loop his characters traverse without getting anywhere: if that's so, he's just not your cup of tea and best avoided.
But for people like me who prefer disturbing stories as a sort of antidote to much more disturbing reality, this is an ideal read. View all 37 comments. Adult Dystopian. He's confined for legal reasons but gets ambiguous information when he asks questions. Readers also enjoyed. Videos About This Book. More videos Literary Fiction. About Franz Kafka.
Full Book Full Book Summary. Characters See a complete list of the characters in The Trial. Quick Quizzes Test your knowledge of The Trial with quizzes about every section, major characters, themes, symbols, and more. Mini Essays Suggested Essay Topics. Further Study Go further in your study of The Trial with background information, movie adaptations, and links to the best resources around the web.
They are being whipped by a man because of what K. He introduces his nephew to Herr Huld, a lawyer who is confined to his bed and looked after by a young nurse named Leni. Leni seduces K, and when his uncle discovers that K. Realising that Huld is an unreliable advocate for his cause, K. Titorelli agrees to help him, but is aware that the process is not favourable to people and Josef K. The man waits by the door until the day of his death, when he asks the doorman why nobody else has tried to gain entry.
The doorman then reveals that this door was meant only for that one man, and that he is now going to shut it. The priest thinks this fable represents Josef K. The day before Josef K. There is a literary-critical study by Mark Spilka, Dickens and Kafka: A mutal interpretation , which brings together the unlikely pairing of the modernist Kafka with the most popular of all Victorian authors.
And Kafka is a comic writer, although he finds humour in the most tragic and unpromising situations, such as the sinister arrest of a man who has apparently done nothing wrong, and his subsequent execution. For Camus, Sisyphus is the poster-boy for Absurdism, because he values life over death and wishes to enjoy his existence as much as possible, but is instead thwarted in his aims by being condemned to carry out a repetitive and pointless task.
Such is the life of modern man: condemned to perform the same futile daily rituals every day, working without fulfilment, with no point or purpose to much of what he does.
When Sisyphus sees the stone rolling back down the hill and has to march back down after it, knowing he will have to begin the same process all over again, Camus suggests that Sisyphus would come to realise the absurd truth of his plight, and treat it with appropriate scorn.
He has liberated his own mind by confronting the absurdity of his situation, and can view it with the appropriate contempt and good humour. Although for many people Camus is all posing in overcoats and looking world-weary and miserable, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the grim comedy and stoicism that underscores his reading of the myth of Sisyphus.
0コメント