How is it even possible for The Metamorphosis to be so good but for The Trial to be so bad?

>The Trial is widely acknowledged to be his best work
Yeah, and I don't understand why.

The Trial is too short. I would have happily read about twice as much, leading to the same conclusion, of course. The point would have been better made, I think.

It's also very funny.

Brilliant utilitarian prose. A fractured narrative that functions both as absurd slapstick comedy and a commentary on a dislocated human condition. Structured brilliantly even though finished early, balancing comedy like the courtroom scenes with the most horrifying things Kafka ever wrote (punishment of the guardians/execution). Kafka grappling with his lack of faith and his heritage. It's just all there and works perfectly as a novel even though if was never really finished.

>a story that goes nowhere
>in an unfinished book
Interesting.
I enjoyed it. The entire read felt surreal and frustrating. Not everything has to be wrapped up neatly and presented accessibly.

Maybe it's just not for me. I didn't find the "funny" scenes very funny and I was not nearly as disturbed by the graphic violence as I was by Gregor's misery and alienation.

I should mention that I only got about half way through before I couldn't stomach reading any further.

Are you really saying that The Trial is bad and you only read about half of it?

Dude. The Trial is way better than Metamorphosis.

At least read the last chapter, it works pretty good by itself and is probably the best thing Kafka wrote in his life. It's incredibly poignant if you had a problem with the impenetrability of the first half.

...

Yes.

I didn't like the book, and by that point I felt like I had given it enough of a chance that I wouldn't be missing out by stopping where I was. Likewise I don't finish meals that taste bad.

I think I might give it another go, you guys seem to really like it and maybe it was a mistake to go in expecting a similar work to The Metamorphasis.

>they don't realize its about original sin

The Trial is great, you are a pleb

This

Can't even bring himself to read half of The Trial before crying to the internet that it's a bad book because it wasn't accessible enough.

>because it wasn't accessible enough
That's not what I said.

I didn't even insult the book, I just made it clear I don't like it so don't be offended.

read it in german (native language). not seeing the genius that should apparently shine through.

>Complain about being alienated by a book about alienation

It used to be complained that prior generations, through books, cinema and latterly television, experienced various things only in a mediated and ultimately vicarious manner.

Millennials aren't even prepared to do that.

>Wah wah, its not the book I wanted to read, its just the book Kafka wanted to write. Trigger warning next time pls.

The "death of the author" was a useful counterweight to a prior generation who frankly had too much respect for institutions and establishments. However in the hands of the consumerist snowflake generation its like a loaded revolver with a hair trigger and needs to be taken off them. Respect authorial intent kiddo.

Geh jetzt mal raus aus dem Internet und lies das Buch fertig, du ungebildete Kartoffel.

Are you suggesting that if a writer manages to articulate what they wanted to articulate then you're obligated to like them regardless of what you're actually reading?

Because that's silly.

The allegory of the Gate should be enough to make The Trial worthy on its own

Can you explain how you'd like to feel alienated?
Then we'll make sure we only alienate you in an acceptable manner. The being what alienation is all about obviously.

In all seriousness, look at Nabokov's lectures on literature, you're reading books wrongly.

This. I warmed up to the book about halfway through and started loving it, but initially it kinda dragged. By the end I realized that it was probably the best thing I've ever read, and it immediately made me want to read it again.

I look at The Trial as this sort of modern theology, where the priests/angels/saints have been replaced by lawyers/policemen/judges. It's surreal, but so dry that it feels mundane. Such a strange tone. It's like a dream that's almost exactly identical to your woken state, except there's some subtle discrepancy that makes the entire experience uncanny.

You're not obligated to like anything, in my opinion. But if you can't even force yourself to complete a book then you're doing a disservice by saying that it was a bad book.
It's not so much the quality of the writing as it is the quality of your reading and capability to understand the writing that is causing this opinion of yours to rise.
Like it or not, that's fine. But if you're going to complain about it then at least pull yourself together and finish reading it instead of acting like a child about it.

>Can you explain how you'd like to feel alienated?
The thing is literature isn't just about making the reader feel what the protagonist is feeling, it's also about this being done in such a way that you appreciate the true depth of that feeling. The Trial (at least as I've read it) fails at this, I do not feel frustrated with the people K. is frustrated with, I feel frustrated with Kafka himself.

>people unironically read Kafka

>him being a roach

Boohoo, it wasn't accessible or relatable and vomited into my mouth let me complain on the internet that it is a bad book and I can't even read but half of it.

>I look at The Trial as this sort of modern theology, where the priests/angels/saints have been replaced by lawyers/policemen/judges
I like that wording. Kafka's sense of atmosphere is still unprecedented if you ask me. The only things that come close are Eraserhead, Last Year in Marienbad and (weird as it sounds) Revolutionary Girl Utena.

Go on

It's obvious.

>muh Hebraic inner turmoil because my daddy forbid my study of the Torah
>tainted because my identity is suppressed
>father figure is also a metaphysical power
>everything in the universe coagulates to crush you
Kafka had it hard

>. But if you can't even force yourself to complete a book then you're doing a disservice by saying that it was a bad book.
I simply didn't want to finish it. I wasn't enjoying it, I was reading it for pure leisure rather than any educational requirement or an intentional effort to criticize Kafka. On that basis it's only reasonable to not read a book for enjoyment when you aren't enjoying it.

I should also add I've explained what I didn't like about it and acknowledged that indeed, on the count I didn't finish it, that I may very well have misjudged it given that people who have finished it and enjoyed it probably understood it better than I have. I don't know how this is unacceptable behaviour when discussing a book.

If this is how you react to people not appreciating art that you appreciate then /mu/ is more your board.

It's one of the few books where a Stirnerian reading is actually useful (even more true for The Castle). Consider how spooked Josef K. and K. are. It should at least get you thinking about your relationship with authority and society.

idiot get off Veeky Forums Stirner is a non-entity

>I couldn't finish the book because I didn't like it
>I'll start a thread on a literature board about it being a bad book

What discussion is there to be made?
Sorry ya didn't like it, ya missed the best parts of it (specifically the allegory of the gate).
Better luck next time reading those books of yours?

Maybe I'm just biased because I always finish a book before trying to say that it's a good or bad book. In that case, grumblegrumble.

>What discussion is there to be made?
Exactly the discussion that ensued.

Discussion on the quality of the book.

In the end, it is me who is the fool for looking to Veeky Forums for anything but the practices and opinions of plebs, those of which can't bring themselves to even stomach a fairly short book without feeling the need to voice their incomplete opinion on it.

Fuck off with your meme philosophers and your meme philosophy no on likes Stirner except newfags who think he's an epic meme

the trial is his masterpiece, the metamorphosis is overrated by boring hacks like nabokov

The trial is the only book that I hate that I still think about all the time...

>goal was to waste a load of time on a story that goes nowhere
thats like 99% of literature. the 1% are poems and short stories

It's literally the best thing I've ever read.

aye aye kapitän

...

what a fucking pleb

end ureself

a great work should survive even a shoddy translation

Personally OP I find all his longer works to be extremely boring. I like his short stuff a lot more.

Nobody can really tell you why they like something, can they? So what's the big deal?

The point of The Trial is to be yourself.

everything in the trial makes sense.

I have a feeling that the english translation of the title is incorrect, as it should in fact be "The Process" (as in a judiciary process).

My interpretation of The Trial is as follows:
1) "The process" of Josef K is simply put his life. He gets dragged in to it without being asked and with no explanations. He tries to understand the nature of life and how it all works, but is unable to grasp the mysterious and unfathomable inner workings of the way things are. Just as life, the trial is complex and unexplainable. Other people around him know very little of the inner workings or don't really bother to question the process.

2) The world is run by laws, both state, religious and moral. The process has judges, both high and low. Low judges are the people around you, the society. The high judges are gods.

3) K's lawyer is a religious institution, a priest. He claims to protect K in front of the high judges (gods), he claims to know the judges. He gives his other client, Block, an old manuscript (The Old Testament) to read about the law. Block reads faithfully, but he barely understands anything in it.

4) The artist claims to know and understand some of the law. K tries to get some insight into the meaning of life through art, but the artist simply tries to sell his paintings.

5) Just as to life, there's no fulfillment to the process and it ultimately ends in death. The suspect is never acquitted.

Read the trial, loved it.

Was Kafka writing about the nature of reality or his relationship with his father though?

literature is not inherently "about" anything

I like this interpretation

This is good.

this is too obvious.
Why write the chapter with the priest at all if it's all just about faith? Separate the personal and the existential or universal.

this desu
it drags in the beginning, but the second half is great. although, if you don't find it at least somewhat funny from the start, it's probably not for you.

interesting, I always figured it was a metaphor for life itself. I guess that's kind of banal though

Well my interpretation doesn't imply that the novel is about faith, but rather that it is about man's quest for the truth and meaning of life. Religion is just a part of it.

Also, I didn't imply that the novel strictly revolves around this one idea. Of course there are other ideas at work in the trial.

As for the chapter in the church where K waits for a client: my interpretation doesn't directly address it. Maybe it's an allegory for K waiting for a god that never comes. Maybe that scene would have been edited out. Knowing that the novel wasn't finished allows some inconsistencies coexist in an interpretation.

This.
It is really worrying that most people on Veeky Forums don't seem to properly understand about a book like The Trial and also seem unable to have the most basic opinion regarding it other than 'it makes no sense LMAO'
This board is going to shit