Was Anyone Else Disapointed By This One?

I love Kafka's short stories so I was really excited to read his unfinished "masterpiece" and unfortunately when I finished it all I could help thinking was "unfinished" is a much more appropiate label than masterpiece for The Trial.

My beef:

>There is only one chapter where any form of "trial" takes place
>Character spends most of the novel with the threat of this ubiquitous court shadowing over him but tbqh his life really doesn't feel that affected by it i.e. still gets laid, still makes stacks at the bank, still has freedom to walk around etc
>the ending, while beautiful, felt so rushed that it really reinforced how unfinished the book is.

Idk Veeky Forums I didn't hate it by any stretch but I just feel like the book wasn't as awesome as it was made out to be. Could someone please explain what made them love or hate this book and if I'm missing anything.

Read DFW's essay on Kafka's humor and why American kids don't get it. The same, in a broad sense could be said for his writing in general.

What collection is this essay in?

did you read that edition of the book? because they do a great job in explaining the subtleties of the book. I thought it was a masterpiece, and probably the majority will think the same. I think you missed the point of the book if you are focusing on those three items

Consider the Lobster

This quote is a good synopsis:

“And it is this, I think, that makes Kafka’s wit inaccessible to children whom our culture has trained to see jokes as entertainment and entertainment as reassurance) It’s not that students don’t “get” Kafka’s humor but that we’ve taught them to see humor as something you get-the same way we’ve taught them that a self is something you just have. No wonder they cannot appreciate the really central Kafka joke-that the horrific struggle to establish a human self results in a self whose humanity is inseparable from that horrific struggle. That our endless and impossible journey toward home is in fact our home. It’s hard to put into words up at the blackboard, believe me.”
-DFW

Gentle reminder that American kids, especially American university students, "get" everything--they're the planet's cultural and intellectual apex. American university students are the height of human intellectual achievement. Nothing flies over their heads because they decide what is permitted to fly in the first place. The fact that you're citing yet another American boy genius is proof of this empirical fact

>There is only one chapter where any form of "trial" takes place

Wow, are you actually autistic? Are you really upset that the book isn't just the second half of a Law and Order episode?

Also, do you hate Crime and Punishment because there is only one chapter where the crime literally takes place?

Yes I expected the book to be about a trial. From what I had heard about the book I thought the character would be subjected to the complex, injust, and bureaucratic authority of the court system but the court was merely in the foreground while K. bumbled around until randomly murdered. I still liked the book but I think it could have been much better/interesting read.

Also nice strawman but even in Crime and Punishment the title is still relevant because the character undergoes their "punishment" throughout the entirety of the book after the "crime" is committed.

not that user man but K wasn't murdered, he was executed. The trial is supposed to be an integral part of K throughout the book and affecting all his relations, which it does. In turn changing him. His attitude of positive outcome slowly turning into despair. A despair of the unknown, which you seem not to have participated of. If the book didn't do it for you, it's ok. But honestly, I think you should stick with YA

How is it possible that you comprehended the "punishment" in Crime and Punishment but not the "trial" in The Trial?

>Character spends most of the novel with the threat of this ubiquitous court shadowing over him but tbqh his life really doesn't feel that affected by it i.e. still gets laid, still makes stacks at the bank, still has freedom to walk around etc

>I thought the character would be subjected to the complex, injust, and bureaucratic authority of the court system but the court was merely in the foreground while K. bumbled around

K was subject to constant fear and anxiety from the impending trial, the injustice was the system he was under in which he was so unable to actually prevent his sentencing for a crime he didn't even know about. While being able to be free to go to work he was never truly free from his impending doom despite any efforts he made to fight it. Having to wait around for his fate was how his powerlessness and helplessness was conveyed (his fumbling around), just like the people in the court who just sat there in silence waiting all day in that claustrophobic building.

I'd definitely say he was subject to a complex, *unjust, bureaucratic system. From a mere order of authority his entire life was being controlled for reasons he didn't even know and his life left to the means of a clearly broken system.

These two posts are definitely helping me appreciate the book more. While reading I did associate the actual "trial" to be symbolic of death and knew the book had to end with his death as that is the only outcome to all of our respective "trials."

That said, regarding K's feelings of despair his anxiety never seemed to be that poignant to me especially with how accepting he was in the final chapter. He was portrayed as more frustrated than anything else.

Another point about his anxiety you both mention is that it seems like was produced externally rather than internally. K only truly started to dread his impending Trial after he was told by other people his chances of winning were dim, he was always very self assured with his chances throughout the book.

(you)

>I expected the book to be about a trial
The German word "Prozess" is ambiguous: it can mean trial, but it also means "a sequence of activities or states/situations triggered by an event leading to a final state"; a process or procedure so to say.
K. undergoes trial, but he also undergoes a process of dealing with it. He tries to manipulate his trial on a lot of different levels but he's unaware how he can manipulate it all the time. For the entire novel K.'s searching for the rules of the game.

and not finding them. Also, the story of the priest provides insight on how the different possibilities of analysis unravel. Was it even possible to make the right question? Perhaps he was pre destined to this trial and execution? How many guardians would there have been had Kafka had more time to write this? I mean, this is a really good book.

>>Character spends most of the novel with the threat of this ubiquitous court shadowing over him but tbqh his life really doesn't feel that affected by it i.e. still gets laid, still makes stacks at the bank, still has freedom to walk around etc
It's because you expected too much. It's precisely this split between Josef K.'s life and the court that was intended. You don't see the relevance of the split to the novel?

It is entirely above normal, everyday life, even seems to allow him to go on living normally. The court is too high for Josef K. to even glimpse into his workings or to realize that, while he appears to go about his life normally, complex machinations are going on that will lead to his death. If the court and the trial subsumed his daily life entirely, the Court would become too profane and Josef K. become too sacred.

Do you even remember the parable of the man before the law? That he never is actually allowed to go into the law? Such is also Josef K., and the reader. Kafka makes the workings of the court beyond even the ken of the reader. I understand how you could be disappointed, expecting more, I too was surprised how little of the book is actually Josef K. dealing with the court and court officials and undergoing anything resembling a direct trial/legal proceedings, but this exact unexpectedness, this subversion of the reader's expectations, is actually what was intended, I think. And I wasn't disappointed but pleasantly surprised at the complex emotional tapestry Kafka created out of a man being subject to laws he sees and knows nothing about. I mean, would the book be as great if we knew conclusively what he was prosecuted for, too?

very good point and I will keep that in mind. I do find myself appreciating the novel more now that I've finished it and am digesting it with the ideas this thread has brought up. I think my instinct reaction was just wanting more but I'm starting to understand why the book is considered so important now.

Good points indeed. But why did K. accepted so easily his final destiny? Because either he knew that he couldn't change the court decision or could be free of the trial?

Don't see what that has to do with my post, but if you're just asking me my personal opinion, I think it's because

Its because the court is religion[/spoiler[

its a critic of the modern world you narrow minded cunt

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
Get Fucked Oxfags

Who /Cambridge/ here?
t. Emma

That
>narrow minded cunt
is right on the money, although I wouldn't say
>the court is religion
but "the court is of divine nature" which is more accurate imo.

Just tell me, why is K. never questioning the court's authority?

The legitimacy and authority of the court is never ever questioned. K. doesn't even try to offer resistance against his execution. That only makes sense if he deeply believes in the "rules of the game", if he deeply believes all of that is natural and makes sense. He doesn't understand it, he tries to manipulate it in his favour but he never questions it itself. He never tries to get out of the system, which only makes sense if the system is an absolute one - but the "modern world" isn't an absolute system, it's subject to change, it's artificial, you can question it. If you couldn't question the "modern world" you couldn't write a critique of the modern world - therefore, your interpretation is self-contradictory.

Btw. read pic related.

Adding to your comment, the divine nature of guilt is something you can also see in the metamorphosis.

>Also nice strawman but even in Crime and Punishment the title is still relevant because the character undergoes their "punishment" throughout the entirety of the book after the "crime" is committed.
Good start. Now take the word "punishment" in this sentence and replace it with "trial". Voila.

...

Someone say more about Kafka and kabbalah

I picked up Amerika as my first Kafka. Probably a mistake, but either way I put it down just a few pages in. It just fell like another banal modernist. I should probably start with his short works first, or Metamorphosis to get a better, fresher grasp of his style.

DFW is pretentious.

He's right about Americans not understanding Kafka's very black and dry sense of humor but to say that it's because of "MUH ENTERTAINMENT" and "MUH HORRIFIC STRUGGLE" is fucking retarded. It's because the majority of Americans are normie as fuck and are raised on normie humor.

I appreciated it a lot more when I reread it. First time through I was a little underwhelmed.

The Trial is Kafka's best.

Kafka predicted both Foucault's societies of discipline and Deleuze's societies of control.

I think you're being narrow-minded about the modern world

and why are they normies user?

Bro everything you said is just plain wrong.

>There is only one chapter where any form of "trial" takes place
I'm sorry that a book isn't what the title says. It's not like it could have some metaphorical meaning. Did you actually start reading it because you wanted to attain some deeper knowledge in legal trials?
>Character spends most of the novel with the threat of this ubiquitous court shadowing over him but tbqh his life really doesn't feel that affected by it i.e. still gets laid, still makes stacks at the bank, still has freedom to walk around etc
It gets affected, slowly but surely. His outward look might be neat, but his inward is rotting.
>the ending, while beautiful, felt so rushed that it really reinforced how unfinished the book is.
By the way he didn't finish it because he didn't want to. He burned most of his works by his own choice. And yet, with incomplete works, he is still better than 99% of the writers.