Just wondering lit. Did Kafka finish this book or was the strange ending written by someone else?

and you didn't know? What are you, 17?

i knew, but you forget eventually that famous or notorious people are just the same garbage as the rest of us.

It's all written by Kafka himself but I think it's actually a lot more unfinished than they make out.

The first time I read it, that version put some parts in the afterword section after the end. The second version I read had placed two parts into the middle somewhere. There are named characters in some of the fragments which don't appear in the published narrative.

Given that the ending is extremely confusing I think there's at least two large things that were meant to take place in the book which weren't put onto paper. I read that one of Kafka's acquaintances handled the composition for publishing.

Ya the ending is just so underwhelming to me. It feels way too abrupt. Like the plot could of been developed a lot more.

Max Brod was the man you're referring to. Most editions you can find now were not the ones originally published in Germany, his full manuscripts have been reclaimed and were quickly translated and published without Brod's emendations

Is that cover seele?

He didn't finish it. The ending was a rough draft.
He first said that the novel was not finishable, when he gets into a deeper layer of the law there would just another layer. He would have to do this forever.
It seems Kafka changed his mind on ending the story though if you look at the chapter with the church and the story where he is before the law.

You don't know the order in which he wrote the Trial?

Like, really?

He first wrote the first and last chapters, then the middle, with the ambition to have the core like 20% longer than what ended up being published (1 more chapter iirc, plus a finish to the unfinished one)

That's the whole ''unfinished'' we're talking about

Why doesnt the main character ever ask what he is accused of?

Because it doesn't matter. We're all guilty, all die

LIKE A DOG.

because he realizes its ultimately a completely unimportant point

I love Kafka but, you can take the brackets off of the last name, you can't take the brackets out of the man

Because logic is not required in literature.

What did you mean by this?

>/b/
more like /d/

I think one of the keys to Evangelion (which samples so liberally from so much existentialist and early 20th century German thought) is the complete absence of any references to Kafka.

>(((Kafka)))

They are just satirical drawings, i saw them int he kafka-museum in prague. They are like doodles you drew in school

Interesting that there are 3 completely different answers to this.

I can't lie, I was annoyed by this too when I read it. It being a completely unimportant point? Maybe to the novel but to the character?

I get that's what adds to the Kafkaesque idea but it annoyed me. I probably just don't like Kafka very much...

What were they satirising?

except the first two are almost the same and the third one is dumb

johncoulthart.com/feuilleton/2008/08/16/kafkas-porn-unveiled/
doesn't look liek doodles

>quoting all the posts in a thread
>acting all haughty like "Oh, you don't know this thing which is not actually explained in any printed version of the book? HAH!"
Kill yourself, nerd.