the trial by franz kafka

[Anonymous No.19384093]

i'm not gonna pretend to be smart enough to understand this book.
but genuinely why is it lauded about as a masterpiece ?
i went in expecting fitzgerald and dostoevsky levels of writing and subtext but all i got from it was a confusing mess that didn't really say anything.
it didn't feel like a 200 page novel, it was monotonous and uneventful and didn't really offer anything other than "woah this is crazy, nothing makes sense, wooooaaahhhh, i didn't commit a crime, the legal system is corrupt, wooo000aahhhh"
this book was a easy 2/10.
any anons feel like telling me why I'm a smoothbrain and couldn't enjoy it ?

[Anonymous No.19384097]

>>19384093
But he did commit a crime.
The high crime of simping.

[Anonymous No.19384120]

I agree. I wouldn't say its bad but its such an obviously unfinished book, which people unfortunately argue "its his style". Its not his style, the books was obviously meant to be way longer and the ending is so fucking predictable. I was extremely disappointed by it as well.

[Anonymous No.19384133]

Come back to it when your spirit has ripened

[Anonymous No.19384187]

>>19384093
It’s a very interpretative book which lends itself to a lot of analysis. I personally found it biblical at times. Especially the conversation with the chaplain. It’s one of my favorites. I used to hate Kafka but now he’s in my top 5, so I would recommend trying him again in a few years with a different mindset

[Anonymous No.19384200]

it's a good book. It's meant to have a nightmare/anxiety dream type quality to it and the monotony is intentional. also Joseph wasn't innocent

[Anonymous No.19384226]

Read it again in a few years. I really wasn't into it (or anything else of his) either the first time around.
At some point in your life it will click for you, and it'll be a glorious moment, and only then will you see his influence on pretty much everyone who followed him.
Maybe that sounds pretentious to you and maybe it is, but he isn't revered as one of the greats of the 20th century for no reason.

[Anonymous No.19384240]

>>19384187
thats the thing.
I don't have an issue with interpretive books and as a concept I grasp that, at least from my own interpretation, it isn't really corruption in the legal system the novel is trying to tackle.
to me it felt like he was trying to portray the system as a parable on how quickly the uncertainty and confusion of life can engulf you and leave you powerless to defend against it.
but it just felt so disjointed, needlessly confusing and disinteresting i absolutely started to loathe reading it.
thats why i'm wondering if there's something wrong with how i interpreted it, because it gets absolute 10/10 recommendations everywhere but i really didn't enjoy it.

[Anonymous No.19384241]

>>19384093
Kobo Abe>Kafka

[Anonymous No.19384243]

>>19384093
>a cofusing mess that didn't really say anything
congratulations anon, you realized why it's regarded as a masterpiece.

Literally no one knows what the fuck is going on, not one character can name the crime commited by the protagonist yet he has to do all these retarded processes without even knowing what he did.

[Anonymous No.19384817]

>>19384200
>Joseph wasn't innocent
what do you mean by this. Do you that he actually commited a crime?

[Anonymous No.19384850]

>>19384240
I would give it another shot in a few years. I hated Kafka when I first read him and couldn’t finish his books. Now he’s a favorite. I interpreted as more religious. Josef k was a super rational person in an irrational world. In the book “trials” seem to be deeply personal. I found the theme of faith to be integral to the story as different people tried to find different ways to understand and survive in a strange, harsh world. Almost like religions. Ultimately there is no one correct interpretation, and that is what makes reading great. Books become very personal to the reader

[happiness !!a/OIDIldPy9 No.19384965]

>>19384240
>I don't have an issue with interpretive books and as a concept I grasp that, at least from my own interpretation, it isn't really corruption in the legal system the novel is trying to tackle.
>to me it felt like he was trying to portray the system as a parable on how quickly the uncertainty and confusion of life can engulf you and leave you powerless to defend against it.

Both interpretations are fine. Classics books are open to many interpretations and many discussions can stem from it, otherwise they'd be long forgotten or be reduced to a historical footnote.

In my case, I love the trial. I like it because how it reflects, for me, the absurdity of the system we are thrown into, the fact that even for the most elementary tasks specialists (lawyers) are required. The main scene it the laywer I found it to be hilarious: nowadays being a doctor or a laywer hold high status, and this is likely to be nothing compared to Kafka's time - how mighty it is presented never fails to make me smile.

And every time I need to do some paperwork with the government I always end up thinking about Kafka. This bit in the novel especially, which I don't remember where it appears but it was something like: we need to send the papers of your case, but note that even if we send them they may not be the correct papers (we don't exactly what we need to send either), and we don't know where so they might end up in the wrong place and we'll have to send them again, and even if we send the correct papers to the right place they may not read them at all.
Unless you have a friend in the government, I've seen this happen too many times.

[Anonymous No.19385078]

>>19384965
>ANOTHER fucking tripfag
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.19385133]

>>19384187
>>19384226
>>19384850
>>19384965
I think you guys will like this.
https://youtu.be/aDxQXzT_9F4

[Anonymous No.19385148]

>>19384187
This. Kafka is mythopoetic. Probably the greatest author of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.19385185]

>>19384817
nah I was joking around, the narrator says in the opening line that he hasn't done anything wrong. But there are some more esoteric interpretations that his 'crime' is wasting his life, giving in to the alienation and mediocrity of modern bureaucratic society and that's why he allows himself to get arrested, dragged through the court system and executed. Of course there can be other explanations, like just because the narrator says he hasn't done anything wrong doesn't mean he hasn't broken any laws.