A review by richardrbecker
The Trial by Franz Kafka
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0
Whether you subscribe to the notion that Kafka is writing about bureaucracy or religion, which possesses its own bureaucratic tendencies, The Trial is vexing in its ability to keep a reader's attention without sharing anything, or perhaps more correctly, it shares everything about something explicitly simple. I tend to lean toward the latter view with the caveat that Kafka didn't finish this novel. It was completed by his editor, Max Brod.
The story is about Joseph K., a respectable bank clerk, who is arrested by two unidentified agents from an unspecified agency for an unspecified crime on his thirtieth birthday. He has no inclination of what he has done wrong, leading some readers to suggest he is dealing with the complexity of original sin as he and everyone on trial are presumed guilty, and even acquittals cannot be proven.
As a painter puts it: "Only the highest judge can [acquit], in the court that's quite out of reach for you, for me and for all of us. We don't know how things look there, and incidentally, we don't want to know. The right to acquit people is a major privilege, and our judges don't have it."
Then again, I don't see Joseph K. as innocent as he professes. His landlady mentions his immoral relationship with his neighbor Fräulein Bürstner. And, as the novel progresses, Joseph K. uses women and their attraction to him to further his ambitions without remorse. While he doesn't see the connection, his standing with the court suffers.
Personally, I was especially taken by Joseph K. meeting with a priest near the end of the story. The priest provides a key to understanding that the court is operating with the writing about The Law, which is simple but subject to many, and often incorrect, interruptions. The tale the priest shares suggests that, once again, Joseph K.'s impatience is similar to a man from the country who tries to gain admittance at an entrance to the Law, but is always denied by the doorkeeper. As he dies, he learns that the entrance denied to him was meant only for him, and possibly his impatience to enter kept him from entering.
The parable of the entrance to the Law hints at the relationship between the citizen and the Law, much like man's relationship to heaven. It is not the gatekeeper who has power over the proceedings, but the attempted manipulation of the gatekeeper or impatience on the part of a citizen trying to gain entrance when it is not his time, that could further diminish his standing with the court. "...it is not necessary to accept everything as true, one must only accept it as necessary." Indeed.
Readers picking up the novel should recognize it's an intellectual read, without a clear plot and an abrupt, likely purposeful end. There are also times in the novel that I was convinced that Joseph K. Was in purgatory or limbo, with any diminishing attachment to his real life fading away as the novel progresses (just as other arrestees talk about in their lives). As such, especially as one is presumed guilty, one wonders about the merits of postponement over damnation.
The story is about Joseph K., a respectable bank clerk, who is arrested by two unidentified agents from an unspecified agency for an unspecified crime on his thirtieth birthday. He has no inclination of what he has done wrong, leading some readers to suggest he is dealing with the complexity of original sin as he and everyone on trial are presumed guilty, and even acquittals cannot be proven.
As a painter puts it: "Only the highest judge can [acquit], in the court that's quite out of reach for you, for me and for all of us. We don't know how things look there, and incidentally, we don't want to know. The right to acquit people is a major privilege, and our judges don't have it."
Then again, I don't see Joseph K. as innocent as he professes. His landlady mentions his immoral relationship with his neighbor Fräulein Bürstner. And, as the novel progresses, Joseph K. uses women and their attraction to him to further his ambitions without remorse. While he doesn't see the connection, his standing with the court suffers.
Personally, I was especially taken by Joseph K. meeting with a priest near the end of the story. The priest provides a key to understanding that the court is operating with the writing about The Law, which is simple but subject to many, and often incorrect, interruptions. The tale the priest shares suggests that, once again, Joseph K.'s impatience is similar to a man from the country who tries to gain admittance at an entrance to the Law, but is always denied by the doorkeeper. As he dies, he learns that the entrance denied to him was meant only for him, and possibly his impatience to enter kept him from entering.
The parable of the entrance to the Law hints at the relationship between the citizen and the Law, much like man's relationship to heaven. It is not the gatekeeper who has power over the proceedings, but the attempted manipulation of the gatekeeper or impatience on the part of a citizen trying to gain entrance when it is not his time, that could further diminish his standing with the court. "...it is not necessary to accept everything as true, one must only accept it as necessary." Indeed.
Readers picking up the novel should recognize it's an intellectual read, without a clear plot and an abrupt, likely purposeful end. There are also times in the novel that I was convinced that Joseph K. Was in purgatory or limbo, with any diminishing attachment to his real life fading away as the novel progresses (just as other arrestees talk about in their lives). As such, especially as one is presumed guilty, one wonders about the merits of postponement over damnation.