Review: The Trial

The Trial by Franz Kafka
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

The Trial is the quintessential "Kafkaesque" story, in which a man called Josef K is accused of a crime, but is never told what crime he committed; and is then tried in secret, in absentia, and without recourse; all the while he tries to either ignore or take action against the trial; until (view spoiler)[ he is ultimately condemned (hide spoiler)]. (I will note that although I marked this as a spoiler, the preface/introduction itself already spoils the ending - it was pretty annoying actually!). It is a caricature of an inefficient, corrupt justice system, and a metaphor for inhumane government bureaucracies all over the world.

The book was put together by Kafka's friend after his death. It was assembled from several passages, ordered and edited to try to make a cohesive story. I am not sure it did. In fact, after the conclusion of the story, there are a number of "fragments", additional chapters or scenes that didn't make the cut; and they point to a lot more story and character development for the protagonist. Some of the parts that are in the main narrative also seem to point to a larger story, that just didn't get written. For example, there is a passage about a visit to the cathedral that brings a whole new dimension to the story, linking the court with the church; but that just ends abruptly.

On the whole, it is a very strange piece of literature, mainly because the way the characters behave is weird. Examples: the way they talk about the court, always in a non-committal way; how the issue of what K is accused of is dropped right after chapter 1, and never brought up again; how he has forced himself on a woman (his neighbor), out of nowhere; how most of the women in the story (with the exception of the neighbor) are constantly throwing themselves at him. This last one is particularly mystifying; how is that happening? Is that normal for the author? Is this protagonist supposed to be irresistibly attractive? At least K (the protagonist) and his lawyer remark on that, so I guess it is meant to be weird. It's also surprisingly sexist, I think. Sometimes I think it might be because it's calling attention to sexism, as a criticism of sexism; other times it's hard not to take it at face value, so it feels very sexist.

At first, due to a remark made by one of the characters, I thought the point of the book was going to be that even normal, good people, can make an inhumane machine in the name of some ideology (similar to the concept of "the banality of evil"). But then I realized that it was not that - or at least not just that. I started seeing that the way that the characters behaved was not only weird, but absurd. The judges are absurd, the process is absurd, the lawyer is absurd. Everyone behaves in a childish way, don't know really know what is going on, and more importantly, don't care - this is how it is and that's it. This made difficult for the book to convey any message about the real world. I then started to realize that this is not purely absurd, but *modern*, in the *modern art* sense of the word - in which the reader's interpretation is crucial to what the piece of work conveys. Hence the absurdism of the story and characters - it's exactly so that this cannot have a singular interpretation, a single meaning. It's like one of these modern paintings, that looks like just a bunch of random strokes of paint on canvas, until you look at it long enough that you start seeing the patterns and the meaning - even if it's your own mind projecting this meaning on the piece. It's also a discussion piece - exactly because it defies singular interpretation, it invites the readers to not only figure out what it means, but to discuss what it all means. I realized this exactly when, while reading, it conjured up in my mind a period in my life that had very strong parallels to this, and I thought this work was a pretty good metaphor for it. I then realized that I was projecting, and no way that this was a universal interpretation.

(for reference: I saw the similarity of the trial to when people are gossiping behind your back. You get accused of something, but you don't know what it is, because no one will tell you what it was said. They say it's not their place. There is just the rumor that you have done something, but you have no idea what people are talking about. Once the "court" makes the accusation, you're done for, there is no acquittal. Any effort to clear up your name will just backfire - "he does protest too much" kind of thing. But if you try to ignore it, it doesn't go away either, it just keeps popping up again. See? It kind of fits the narrative. But I also know it's not the point of the book.)

I also thought it was noteworthy that the main character was a fairly well-off guy - he was the CFO for a bank, a man of some importance, going up in the world. He is arrogant, elitist, and sexist (i.e. forces himself on women). It's not easy to sympathize with such a character like that, if you want to cast him as the hero fighting against an inhumane bureaucracy.

View all my reviews