Rating: 
Summary: Evocative, Engrossing, But Ultimately Frustrating
Review: Although not in the same league as some of the great literature that I've read over the years, Franz Kafka's "The Trial" is an evocative, engrossing novel, albeit, ultimately a frustrating one."The Trial" tells the story of a man, one Joseph K., that is accused of a crime of which he has no knowledge and must defend himself against, despite his increasing awareness of the improbability of an acquittal. It is a very human story. One can understand and sympathize with K.'s reactions to the absurd circumstances with which he is compelled to negotiate. We see K. attempt to deal with the situation in a range of approaches. Initially, upon his arrest, he is disbelieving and indignant. Then, when called to court for interrogation, K. attempts to be done with the matter once and for all with a zealous rebuke of the Court and the manner in which he has been handled thus far. But K. soon realizes that the proceedings cannot be brushed off so easily. Over the course of the coming days, weeks, and months, he becomes acquainted with others who have had dealings with, or who have tenuous relations with, the elusive Court. It becomes apparent that K. has no chance of winning his case without the help of others, who insist that the only way to help is behind closed doors, through the strength of their political ties, gradually convincing officials of K.'s innocence. K. is acquiescent at first, but becomes increasingly agitated and unpredictable when no apparent progress is being made. I leave the remainder of the plot to those who wish to experience it for themselves. The type of justice that we take for granted in the States - burden of proof, the sovereignty of "innocence before proven guilty" - is an alien concept to the Court in Kafka's "The Trial." What makes it all the more frightening is that, not long after Kafka's death in 1924, this type of "justice" became commonplace in Eastern Europe. This unfortunate reality makes "The Trial" a surrealistically prophetic novel, one of paramount importance and undeniable relevancy. In the end however, "The Trial" is a frustrating experience. As other Amazon readers have pointed out, the alleged crime is never disclosed. I'm quite sure that Kafka never meant to elucidate the nature of the transgression. The desire to find out what K. is accused of is part of what propels one through the novel, and the fact that it is never revealed is what lends the novel its surreal punch. Nevertheless, when you've spent the entire novel trying to guess and are left without an answer, it's frustrating. More frustrating however is the fact that "The Trial" was left unfinished. I suppose the fact that the novel was never finished is common knowledge among the literati, but it came as an unpleasant surprise for me. This incompleteness doesn't detract from the story until the very end. The "Dismissal of the Lawyer" section in Chapter 8 trails off in mid-paragraph. The conclusion to K.'s internal debate regarding whether or not to dismiss his lawyer never arrives. (Granted, the conclusion is assumed, but I would've liked to have followed K.'s thought process to completion.) It also leaves the question of the lawyer's true nature uncertain. The novel ends rather abruptly after the next chapter, "In the Cathedral." (One gets the feeling that the majority of the unfinished sections of the novel were between Chapters 9 and 10.) The reason behind Kafka's failure to finish the novel becomes apparent when reading the Appendix; Kafka abandoned "The Trial" in 1915, approximately nine years before his death, and as such never meant it for publication. I for one am glad the novel was published. Although we may never know how great this story could have been, we should feel fortunate to have it, even in unpolished form. P.S. The introduction to this edition by George Steiner is a dense and convoluted treatise on how Kafka is an inheritor of a Talmudic tradition of endless commentary... Only those well-versed in ancient Judaic literature (anyone?) need feel compelled to read it.
Rating: 
Summary: In this Trial, the defendant is the reader¿s patience.
Review: Franz Kafka. The author from whose name is derived the adjective "Kafkaesque." Would not such a novel, oozing into reality from the nonsensical, hideously grotesque nightmare realm, be naturally gripping, fascinating, and all the while intellectually stimulating? (Or ought my mind overhaul the adjective's connotation?) A man must defend himself against charges of which he is nescient; what an interesting premise for a plot! Would not the tale of this man's struggles to uncover and overcome the mysterious arraignment keep the reader alert and riveted until either the individual or the Law conquers the other? (Or ought I to realize that, no matter how great an idea, it is ultimately limited by the greatness of the writer?) As you can tell (and if you cannot, I'll tell you right now that you'll never comprehend Kafka's writing in the least) I began reading this novel expecting a startling, thought-provoking classic. Even after beginning to read it, I supposed it be heading in this direction. However, I soon recognized my misconception. After the trial scene, things fall apart and the center cannot hold--not only for protagonist Joseph K, but, tragically, for the novel as a whole also; the chapters form a series of tenuously connected longueurs in which characters appear, seem to be important, and then vanish; in which very little of substance occurs, and that which does seem significant, like the characters, soon fades; in which the plot fails to advance (and, for all practical purposes, ceases to exist). The only "court trial" in the novel occurs early; if the novel has a climax (I am convinced it does not), it occurs at this point, even though K's has only just entered the quagmire. So. . .pythia, no climax; any resolution? Ha! Oh, a ludicrous thought. Resolution, he he! Out of nowhere, the ending is just there--BOOM--and is over. Thus, the novel concludes with many loose ends still untied; however, quite frankly, the reader is so glad that something (anything!) finally happened to bring this nothingness to a close, that he does not even care about these unresolved issues. He can toss aside The Trial and forget all about it. Although literature need not necessarily a clear-cut plot to engage the mind (an example being. . .um. . .Edwin Abbott's Flatland), The Trial--aside from, perhaps, the parable of the Doorkeeper--is not provocative, not disturbing. Why? Kafka withholds so much that the reader had no foundation upon which to build thoughts. While a novel should leave much to the interpretation of the reader, it should at least provide the impetus! I still find the basic idea of this novel to be most intriguing; it is a shame that Kafka could not render it more effective. With more (many, many more) additions, deletions, and revisions, would this have been a worthy read? The world will never know. Kafka did not complete this novel, it is true, and that is exactly what one can deduce from reading it. If Kafka were indeed a great author, one might guess that this was merely the embryonic stage of what would have become an immense masterpiece but that the novelist, sensing his impending death, hastily truncated his work with a severely premature (and, therefore, confusing) ending. Nonetheless, people praise it as if it were complete, and, likewise, I denounce it as such. I anticipate those--critics who laud this novel, aficionados of expressionism and dadaism--who will contravene. "But, pythia, that is the way Kafka meant it to be. That is his whole blasted point!!" Therefore, in a little spurt of procatalepsis, I'll concede your point to a certain extent; yes, inescapably trapped in confusion and ignorance, the reader is led to empathize with Joseph K. However, in cases such as this I cannot help but think that a modicum of dramatic irony is vital. True, the crux of the novel is K's inability to do anything to defend himself against the Law; nothing is the case is ever resolved. Nothing, nothing, nothing--just like the reader's thoughts inspired by this novel! I shall not assert that Kafka does not excel at treating the reader in the same manner he treats his protagonist. However, the direct consequence of this is a dull, forgettable novel. Regardless of my distaste for this novel, I must asseverate Kafka's intelligence. Because of his ability to relate abstruse musings sucked from abyssal depths of existentialist philosophy? Maybe--as a marginal note, maybe--but most notably because of the intuition that inspired him to request the destruction of all writings unpublished at the time his death. Darn you, Max Brod! ~pythia~
Rating:
Summary: Equal To Joyce
Review: In the whole history of literature, no finer example of the absurd has been presented than through the details of this novel's plot. Written in terse, readable German prose, The Trial(underline) is one of the 20th century's most remarkable examples of literature. Though Kafka often is left in want of the style and complexity of Joyce, he posesses a remarkable literary weapon in his ability to see with an imaginary nightmare vision. Like most modern masters of letters, the legend built around his name is totally to the contrary of what he is deserving of. Often considered an esoteric and phantasmagorical madman, who's nocturnal writing produced inexplicable and frustrating plots, he is perhaps more misunderstood than any of the past century's other writers. Kafka is at heart a realist, and though the novel may seem fragmented and misconstrued, there is method in its madness. Any serious reader or writer must be able to challenge the problem of the absurd, lest they be lost in the whole world of literature through their own ignorance. And Kafka does at length provide the reader(despite his dreamlike style) with the fundamental theory of realism, which is to write literature of such magnitiude inasfar as realistic detail is concerned, that by nature the literature itself transcends realism. It took me only one day to read The Trial. From the opening sentence one must realise that the events that will occur in the novel will never be explained, and justly so. It is for this very reason that the whole of egalitarian America shys away from novels that are either deemed bizarre or are not supported by a definate philosophy. Though The Trial does have obvious philisophical motifs that reoccur during its course, it is as all great novels are not one devoted to theme, but to the total experience of literature. Thus the reader is able to ignore the idea if he chooses, and familiarize himself with the story. Very few writers seem to understand this concept, and the few that do are never Americans. Having said that, The Trial represents Kafka's finest work, far superior to his morose and unfinished The Castle, and inclusive of the epic scale that is not present in even the most precisely executed short stories: The Metamorphosis, In The Penal Colony, and A Hunger Artist. I encourage all those who have read this novel to reasses it and its place in the history of literature, and all those who have not, to impale themselves immediately on a pitchfork.
Rating:
Summary: Powerful and Frustrating
Review: Reading THE TRIAL is an exercise in pure frustration - which is probably what author Franz Kafka (1883-1924) intended. We meet Joseph K, an average citizen who is informed that he has been charged with a crime. Joseph K retains a lawyer and reports to the court as ordered. Despite his compliance, he cannot find what crime he is charged with, and the noose around him seems to tighten with every passing day. Kafka wrote this book in 1914, a few years before a fellow Austrian began leading the Nazi Party in Germany. It was as if Kafka was predicting the future. THE TRIAL has a powerful message, but it can leave the reader annoyed.
Rating: 
Summary: The mysterious crime
Review: This novel is amazing and does leave you as frustrated as Joseph K. Is it wrong to classify The Trial with such books as Brave New World, 1984, and Farenheit 451? The Trial captures not a strange period, but a strange view of the Law. Following K. through his life under "arrest" for a crime that never exists or shows it's face to the reader or the author. Again an amazing novel, and this edition has lots of information at the end. The Unfinished Chapters, The Passages Deleted by the Author, Postscripts from three editions, and Excerpts from Kafka's Diaries.
Rating:
Summary: You will be frustrated, just like the protagonist
Review: In some ways the Trial is one of the best books ever written. It speaks to the reader not just through character, dialogue, and plot, but by the way in which it affects the reader. K., the unnamed protagonist, is accused of a crime and he is unable to determine what it is or what to do about it. He becomes understandably frustrated. What makes this book so interesting is that Kafka writes in such a way that frustrates most readers. He leaves things out, he doesn't explain things that simply beg to be described. While I read this book, I was under the impression that I was being almost deliberately misled about what was actually going on. It wasn't until the end of the book that I realize that Kafka was putting me through an ordeal that gave me a glimpse into what his protagonist was enduring. That makes the Trial a brilliant book, but because it so successfully frustrated me and never really made amends for its evasions, I cannot say that it was a completely satisfying read. Kafka takes an oppositional stance toward his reader. He does this for good reason, but I am not used to combat with an author. The Trial is like an exquisite but cruel practical joke, played at your expense.
Rating:
Summary: What have I done?
Review: If any of you have ever screamed to the high heavens "Lord, can you just give me an answer?!" then you shall find a sympathetic friend in Kafka's Joseph K. The writing is beautifully simplistic, making for an altogether smooth read despite the dreary existential content, but what would you expect from a man who wanted all of his manuscripts burned after death? What is driving us on our futile search for truth? Is this truth even worthwhile? And what is it to live life without a sense of truth that is true for you? When reading, I found Kafka trying to explain these questions to himself with every written word. I'd only recommend this book to those brave, truth seeking souls, so for all you others, leave the spirit of Kafka in peace, because lord knows he had it hard enough in this life.
Rating:
Summary: The Trial
Review: If one does not like(love) The Metamorphosis, then reading any other Kafka text will result in displeasure. Yet, if the contrary is true, then this is perhaps Kafka's best novel, less dense and more interesting than The Castle, and more Kafkaesque and meaningful tha Amerika; this is for the curious Kafka reader. Not very animated, but if one likes intriguing psychological narration of absurd situations, then read The Trial. Also, one of Kafka's better short stories to be read is In The Penal Colony, which challenges Joyce's The Dead as the best 20th century short story.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining, and not necessarily "heavy" reading
Review: I don't think this book takes as much effort as some people think it might. Or maybe it does and I just don't know it. Either way, I enjoyed the book and I think others who enjoy the absurd will too. I've heard this book compared to Camus's "The Stranger," but I think it compares more closely to "Catch 22." A normal man in a surreal environment. Of course, it's not as farcical as Catch 22. Its humor is much subtler, and I wish there had been more, but a few scenes will stand out in my mind for years. For instance, when K. visits the stuffy law offices and almost faints because of the stifling air, he is helped outside by the office workers. As K. is revived by the fresh, outside air, the workers start choking on it, as they're used to the stale air. Understated, but funny. There's also a scene where two men are getting flogged in a room which is absurd. K. is incredulous, rushes away, and then, the next day, opens the door to that same room, expecting to find nothing -- and they're still there. My only complaint is the ending, which seemed to come out of left field. It's not even really that believable in the context of the story, because in all the law talk going on in this book, nothing like this was remotely even hinted at. Yes, surprise endings can be good, but this ending was way too abrupt and incredible. Also, there are not many paragraphs in this book. 229 pages. 122 paragraphs. (Yes, I counted.) So that's an average paragraph length of about 2 pages. Be prepared for this. Also be prepared for a 15-page paragraph or two. Other than a 10-page section of law exposition in the middle (tedious, yes), the book moves pretty quickly. That section I just mentioned really cut down the story's momentum for me, however, and I much more enjoyed the first half of this book. To the reviewer from Nov. 29: I think that allegory in the Cathedral chapter, though incredibly long, was basically just saying: no matter how hard he tried or waited, K. was never going to be "let in." He was never going to be priviledged to the inside information. He was on the outside and he was going to stay there forever. Maybe I'm wrong. Actually that allegory sounds like it was his inspiration for The Castle, which I haven't read yet, but will sooner or later.
Rating:
Summary: Enigmatic but fascinating
Review: Often we use literary terms as cliches such as calling a paradox a "Catch 22." Another such cliche is calling a surreal situation "Kafkaesque." If you wish to use this cliche, I recommend you read this book to understand the meaning of the term. This is an enigmatic, surreal novel of a man arrested but then allowed to carry on with his life freely, and he is never informed of the charges against him. The other characters and the occurances which take place are farcical and absurd. An example of one of many surreal situations is that he is summoned to attend a hearing on a Sunday at an address which is a large apartment building in a remote area. The hearing is held in a hard to find room in this large building. The main character, K, navigates these wierd situations as though they are normal, seemingly not appreciating the utter peculiarness of his life. There is very little, in this book, that takes place in anything resembling his trial. Rather, K goes through life dealing with the fact that he is a defendant and searching for ways bring about a favorable conclusion. Although he seeks to clear himself, he never deeply ponders the question of what he is accused of. This book is not light reading. It requires a lot of thought. For example, there is a protracted allegory about a gatekeeper. What does this allegory mean and what is the relationship to the story? I will continue to ponder this and other enigmas. And.. when I use the term "Kafkaesque," having read this novel, I will know from whence I speak. I recommend this great novel written by a genius. I wish I possessed the genius to better comprehend it.
|
