jedyne co zrozumiałam to to że jozef gets so many bitches ale czemu to juz nie wiem

Ο Κάφκα δεν αστειεύεται. Σου βυθίζει το μαχαίρι στο κόκκαλο και παρόλα αυτά παρακολουθείς μουδιασμένος. Αφήνει στο στόμα την πικρή αίσθηση της ματαιότητας, του παραλόγου που είναι τόσο προφανές που καταλήγει αδιαπέραστο, ανίκητο. Παρουσιάζει ένα ολοκληρωτικού τύπου σύστημα δικαιοσύνης που συνθλίβει το άτομο σε μία ατέρμονη γραφειοκρατία από την οποία δεν υπάρχει διέξοδος, δεν υπάρχει διαφυγή.

Ο ήρωας του βιβλίου, ο Γιόζεφ Κ., συλλαμβάνεται με μία κατηγορία την οποία δεν μαθαίνει. Ποτέ. Στη συνέχεια, αγωνίζεται να αποδείξει την αθωότητά του απέναντι σε ένα απρόσωπο Δικαστήριο το οποίο παρότι βρίσκεται παντού, είναι ωστόσο αόρατο για τον κατηγορούμενο, ο οποίος δεν μπορεί να το κατανοήσει. Ο παραλογισμός στον οποίο βυθίζεται ο ήρωας, ο οποίος παρασύρεται στην αγωνιώδη προσπάθεια να αποδείξει ότι είναι αθώος (σε ποιον; για ποιο αδίκημα;) κορυφώνεται στη σκηνή με τον ιερέα, όπου του αποκαλύπτεται πλέον πλήρως και καθαρά ότι δεν πρόκειται να γνωρίσει τον Νόμο, δεν θα μπορέσει να διαπεράσει τις δομές του όσο και αν πασχίσει, όσα στοιχεία και εάν συλλέξει (στην πραγματικότητα βέβαια, καθόλη τη διάρκεια της Δίκης, ο ήρωας δεν καταφέρνει να συγκεντρώσει ούτε ένα αποδεικτικό στοιχείο, πράγμα πολύ λογικό αν σκεφτούμε ότι δεν έχει ιδέα ποιο είναι το έγκλημα για το οποίο κατηγορείται). Ακολουθεί πρώτα η απόγνωση και μετά η ολοκληρωτική παράδοση στη μοίρα του. Γιατί στον κόσμο της "Δίκης" δεν έχει καμία σημασία η ενοχή ή η αθωότητα, δεν παίζει κανένα ρόλο το είδος της κατηγορίας, το αν έχει κανείς δικηγόρο ή όχι, το αν ασχολείται με την υπόθεσή του ή την αφήνει να πάρει το δρόμο της ακολουθώντας την αδυσώπητη διοικητική μηχανή που κινείται ασταμάτητα.

Διαβάζοντας, ένα συναίσθημα με κυρίευσε και εμένα μαζί με τον Κ. σε κλιμακούμενη ένταση: η απόγνωση. Η συνειδητοποίηση ότι στον κόσμο αυτό της "Δίκης" δεν έχει καμία θέση ο κοινός νους, ο Ορθός Λόγος, γιατί το Παράλογο είναι παρόν και διεκδικεί (και κερδίζει) τον τίτλο της κανονικότητας.

Η απόγνωση που μέχρι το τέλος του βιβλίου έχει μετατραπεί σε τρόμο.

This book haunts me. I can’t stop thinking about it because I have questions, questions and more questions; I have so many unanswered questions that I will never know the answer to, and it’s slowly killing me!

What is the trial? Is K actually guilty or is he innocent? Is this novel a nightmare sequence or a paranormal encountering? Why are so many characters never heard from again? And who is that mysterious figure at the end of the novel that witnesses K's fate? There are just so many questions, but no damned answers!

This is frustrating, so frustrating. The novel leaves the reader with an overwhelming sense of perplexity. There is no definitive explanation as to what has actually happened; there is no logical sense of the events. But, then K doesn’t know either; he is just as confused by the strange happenings as the reader. The events are completely unexplainable and unfathomable; thus, Kafka’s trial will stay with the me for the rest of my life, as I ponder this bizarre novel again, and again.



There are no answers!

K wakes up on the morning of his thirtieth birthday; he goes outside his room and finds several men eating his breakfast. He is informed he is under arrest; the men don’t tell him why; they leave and he is able to go about his daily life although he must attend court next week. They give him a location, but no time. He arrives; he is accused for something they don’t inform him of. He storms out of the room and is hounded by the situation ever since. He attempts to prove his innocence, but what he is innocent of he doesn’t know. A year later, on his thirtieth birthday, two men arrive and sentence him; he is taken to a quarry and murdered. The reader has very little idea why it has happened.

"Someone must have been spreading slander about K., for one morning he was arrested, though he had done nothing wrong."

Indeed, the Trial uses fragmentation in its plot to further establish the ungraspable nature of K’s encounters, such as in chapter three when he attempts to save a washerwoman from an evil and lustful student. He chases the couple at the stair is where he encounters a fog and is forced to retreat. The event is never mentioned again. The situation is nightmarish, and like a dream, is forgotten about quickly. This tells us that no meaning will be had from the Trial; it tells us that there will never be any answers.

What exactly is this wierd court?

The court that conducts the trial is shrouded in even more mystery. Just who are these people that can psychologically manipulate with so little effort? They are a powerful order, which is indicated by their sessions always accruing on the highest floor of the building; this evokes their, strange, authoritative presence. There are even suggestions that this court hold sessions in each, and every, building in the city, which again creates more weirdness.

"The faces that surrounded him! Tiny black eyes darted about, cheeks dropped like those of drunken men, the long beards were stiff and scraggly, and when they pulled on them, it seemed as if they were merely forming claws, not pulling beards. Beneath the beards, however – and this was the true discovery K. made – badges of various sizes and colors shimmered on the collars of their jackets

  

Is this a dream?

However, one thing that remains clear through the novel is the characterisation of K. He is completely bland; he has no endearing qualities whatsoever, yet the women seem to throw themselves at him on multiple occasions. This resonates in the dream world, because only in a dream world could a man like K be such a womaniser. He is meek, powerless and accepting of his unjust fate, so only a dream could a shadow of a man like K be so attractive an irresistible.

"I recruit women helpers, he thought, almost amazed: first Fraülein Bürstner, then the court usher's wife, and now this little nurse, who seems to have an inexplicable desire for me."

In spite of his blandness and alienation, he is the only rational character within the novel. I like to think a little bit of Kafka comes through here. I’ve been reading up on his personal history, and he was a very segregated man; he was disbeliever amongst the Jewish religion; he was distant to his overbearing farther and the opposite sex. He didn’t seem to fit in, perhaps a little bit of Kafka comes through in K. Perhaps he wanted to show what it would be like cut off from the rest of civilization.

Overall, this is an iconic piece of literature; it is one that every serious reader should read before they die because it is completely unique. Its strange narrative resembles a dream; its events are pointless and impenetrable like a nightmare that stays with you forever. Indeed, this book will never be forgotten by those that have read it, as the unanswered questions will haunt for the rest of their days. I’ve quite literally been unable to sleep when thinking about this book, as the question “what exactly does it mean?” lingers in my mind.

Review Update: I bought a Folio Society edition of this and just has to show it off.....





Doesn't it just look great?

Of all the social and political interpretations of its many layers, the Trial for me is, first of all, a surreal nightmare story of a man who first denies, then tries to negotiate but later accepts the imminent death for which no one is ever ready ("Somebody must have slandered Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning."). The trial, in which, according to Titorelli, "everything belongs to the court.” is K.'s attempt to cope and reconcile with the approaching end.

n  (9 March, 2012)n

First, a quick summary of this horrible, horrible novel. Some jackass gets arrested, he does things you would not do, sees people you would not see and has thoughts you would not have. After that, a priest and a parable then, mercifully, the end.

Now my thoughts. K. is a pompous ass with a very important job - to him. The bureaucrats are the best part of the whole story, all job description, no brains (like now!). K's uncle, lawyer and landlady are very forgettable. Fräulein Bürstner is intriguing, so is Titorelli. The priest is a tool and his parable made me think I was reading the novelisation of "The Never Ending Story". The ending made me smile, it was the end after all.

بی شک کسی به جوزف کی تهمت زده بود، زیرا بی آنکه خطایی از او سر زده باشد، یک روز ص��ح بازداشت شد

وحشتناک ترین کابوس ها اونایی هستن که رنگ واقعیت رو به خودشون می گیرند ولی بی منطقی و غیرقابل توجیه بودن اتفاقات مغز رو دیوانه می کنه. درست مثل "کِی" که از خواب بیدار میشه (واقعا بیدار شده؟) و می بینه که برای جرمی که حتی نمی دونه چیه داره دستگیر میشه. جرمی که باید در برابرش از خودش دفاع کنه. جلوی کی؟ کجا؟ و اگر محکوم بشه چه اتفاقی می افته؟ نمی دونه

صحنه ها همه حالت وهم آلود دارند. اتاق ها تاریکند و کنتراست نور شدیده. جای پنجره ها تغییر می کنه و دادگاه در یک اتاق دود گرفته برگزار میشه. هیچ چیز واقعی به نظر نمیاد و در عین حال انگار به طرز دردناکی واقعیه. کِی در یک چرخه معیوب گیر کرده و دست و پا میزنه. گاهی کورسوی امیدی پیدا میشه و به همون سرعت محو میشه. شاید یک راه بیشتر برای فرار وجود نداره (مرگ؟ یا بیدار شدن؟ )

کافکا، یک بی‌خواب حرفه ای، رویاها و کابوس هاش رو در دفترچه ای ثبت می کرده. خواب هایی که سنگین نمی شدند و در اون برزخ عجیب بین خواب و بیداری می موندند. همونجایی که هم خوابی و هم بیدار. همون لحظه عجیب همکاری بین خودآگاه و ناخودآگاه برای رویابافی. داستانی که پیش میره و انگار تو کنترل اندکی روی بازیگرها و نمایشنامه داری. محاکمه داستانی از همون جنسه. داستانی که انگار کافکا از چنگال خواب بیرون کشیده و روی کاغذ آورده
داستانی که هیچوقت تمام نکرد تا چاپ بشه (درست مثل ذات ناتمام خواب) و حتی ترتیب درست فصل ها رو هم مشخص نکرد (درست مثل آشفتگی خواب)

محاکمه بدون شک نشان دهنده ی یک سیستم قضایی فاسد و بیوکراسی کمر شکن دنیای مدرنه. فهمیدن تا اینجا سخت نیست. جرمی که معلوم نیست، دادگاه و قاضی ای دیده نمی شن و وکیلی که کارش اثبات بی گناهی نیست، بلکه باید از نفوذش استفاده کنه تا به موکلش کمک کنه. تجربه ی در به در دوییدن در راهروهای طولانی ادارات یا درگیری با قانونی که به جای پشتت بودن همیشه جلوت ایستاده برای خیلی از ما تجربه ی غریبی نیست

ولی حس فلج کننده این داستان از ناامنی و ندانستن میاد. جوزف کی، که حتی هویتش با تقلیل اسمش به یک حرف کِی ازش گرفته شده، در صحنه اول کتاب از خواب بلند میشه و خودش رو در محاصره مامورانی می بینه که تحقیرش می کنند. امنیت فضای خانه اینطور برای همیشه از بین میره. بعد از اون ماموران و افراد مرتبط به "قانون" همه جا هستند و به محل کار و همه ی جوانب زندگیش رسوخ می کنند. و بدتر از همه، جوزف هیچی نمی دونه. حتی نمی دونه که دادگاهی که "باید" در اون حاضر بشه کجاست و همین حق ساده هم ازش دریغ شده. کافکا به بهترین شکل وضعیتی رو ترسیم می کنه که حس امنیت از فرد گرفته شده و با بی اطلاع نگه داشته شدن شکنجه میشه. به تصویر کشیدن این رنج زندگی در یک رژیم توتالیتر به نظرم دلیلی هست که محاکمه رو به یک کلاسیک تبدیل کرده که تا به امروز میشه درکش کرد و باهاش درد کشید

محاکمه کافکا در رابطه با مسئله کاراکترهای زن به هیچ عنوان خوب عمر نکرده. زنانی که به جز یک مورد (صاحبخانه، که نقشی مادرانه گرفته) همه نقش هایی بی اهمیت و جنسی دارند. همه معشوقه و بازیچه و در عادی ترین مکالمات مشغول دلربایی و جلب توجه هستند. از اولین زن که توسط کِی بوسیده میشه و انگار رسما از داستان حذف میشه تا زن در دادگاه و معشوقه/منشی وکیل. با توجه به اینکه کتاب قبل از ١٩٢٠ نوشته شده چنین نگاهی "عجیب" نیست ولی ذره ای از زننده بودن این قسمت ها کم نمی کنه

تجربه ی خوانش این کتاب برای من ترکیبی از افکار و احساسات ضد و نقیض بود. درد کشیدن از آشنایی این فضای سیاه و سوررئال که با وجود اینکه هیچ چیز منطقی نیست، همه چیز همونطور که هست پذیرفته شده (بخوانید زندگی این روزهای ما) و از طرفی احساس اینکه چیزی در این کتاب کمه، که احتمالا کافکا زنده نمونده تا این داستان رو واقعا کامل کنه. با همه ی این ها نوشته های کافکا بدون شک بهترین "خواب نویسی" ای هست که تا حالا خوندم و دقیقا به همین دلیل فکر نکنم تا مدتی دیگه سراغش برم. فعلا ترجیح میدم کابوس هام رو برای همون خواب نگه دارم

۱۴۰۰/۳/۱۰

n  "A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open."n
—Franz Kafka


**Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K., he knew he had done nothing wrong but, one morning, he was arrested.**
This famous opening line becomes yet more intriguing as it pitches us directly into a scene where the first protagonists are granted a degree of anonymity by the author, as he seeks to lure us into his philosophical daydream.
K is clearly under house arrest, but his perplexing captors aren't at liberty to tell him if he has been arrested. Who are they? K wonders. They look as if they might be policemen, but neither he, nor the reader, can be certain. They could be pranksters for all he knows. Even the country he lives in isn't name-checked.
So many unanswered questions:
Who is he?
Who are they?
Why has he been arrested?
Where are we?
Does time have a beginning or an end?
Why did the chicken cross the road?

This, my fine bibliophilic friends, is an enigma burritoed in a paradox.
There is something farcical about the situation he finds himself in; the ensuing cockeyed exchange of dialogue was almost Monty Pythonesque.
I shall paraphrase (apologies to Mr Kafka)...
"Take me to your superior!"
"He will see you as soon as he wants to see you."
"Who are you?"
"We're free, you're not, and you are going to be put on trial."
"On trial, for what?"
"Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, isn't it, eh? Beautiful plumage."

The absurdity continues.
There follows a kangaroo court and the comically surreal appearance of a whip-man, whose job it is to give people a damn good flogging. I don't know if I was meant to be outraged, but I found it really funny (there's something wrong with me, I'm sure of it).

Kafka uses existentialism like Banksy uses a spray can. K is trying to remain rational while the world around him has become irrational - something most of us have experienced at some stage in our lives.
As is also the case with Orwell's 1984, this book hints at the totalitarian regimes that were likely to follow.

I don't profess to understand much of what Kafka hoped to symbolise in this allegorical mystery (I suspect he didn't want anyone to unlock all of its secrets anyway), and one gets the feeling that he deliberately leads us into a literary cul-de-sac of his own choosing.

The blurb describes the book as being "terrifying’ and ‘chilling". I found it to be neither.
If anything, I found it rather droll.
Let me explain myself thus…
I have a lugubrious friend. His name is Mark.
Mark is so overly pessimistic and melancholic, that he creases me up with laughter each time he speaks. Then, when he asks me what it is that's so funny (with that glum look on his face), I crack up even more!
He's a hoot, and so is this book!
I thoroughly enjoyed being trapped in Franz Kafka's web and must revisit Metamorphosis, his crowning achievement.
I read it years ago when I was too young to properly 'get' it.
Not that I'm likely to totally understand it even now! : )

The book "The Trial" is a masterpiece by Franz Kafka that focuses on the human experience of being tried and sentenced without even knowing the crime that has been committed. The book sheds light on the complexities of human psychology by exploring issues of identity and the role of society in the formation of that identity.

The story follows a man named Josef K. who is arrested and charged with a crime of which he is unaware. The absurd nature of the trial process leaves K. perplexed, as he struggles to understand what is happening and why he is being tried. The book presents a world in which justice is arbitrary and the rules are not clear, generating a feeling of anxiety and paranoia in the protagonist.

Kafka's work is deeply existential in its analysis of identity, presenting a forceful confrontation with the idea of ​​a unified and enduring personality and perception of the self. K. is confronted with a series of meaningless tests that threaten his identity and self-understanding. The character experiences progressively more intense depersonalization as he is faced with impossible decisions. The book is a meditation on human nature, and suggests that attempts to define an individual's "true" identity can result in a reality check.

Psychology plays an important role in the work, from the point of view of the individual's existence in a social and political context. An intense and supernatural force seems to be behind the accusations and trials, which can be interpreted as social pressure and the expectations that society has of one. The whole society seems to be against K., which he often feels as continuous pressure. This experience is shared by many people and can be related to other forms of moral harassment and psychological oppression.

Freudian psychoanalysis is also evident in "The Trial", especially in the description of the dreams and the possible psychoanalytic interpretation attributed to them. It is possible that the character dreamed of his trial in order to deal with his anxiety and stress on an unconscious level, which raises both the notion of "working" through our problems in dreams and the possibility of an underlying preconscious psychology. in surface behavior.

Furthermore, the book introduces the concept of multidimensionality of personality. K. sees himself as a coherent and unified individual, but his own judgment process forces him to confront and accept aspects of himself that he did not know or that he tried to repress. This idea is also applied in psychology today, where personality is seen as an amalgamation of different traits, and instead the possibility of a single, defined identity is avoided.

The protagonist's anxiety and questioning also have implications for the psychology of psychosis. The book offers insight into how both K.'s disassociation from social norms and his struggle against the reality of which he is accused can result in a traumatic, intense and stressful experience in life. his staff.

Looking at K.'s confrontations with authority figures such as police officers and judges, one can see more connections to his psychology and problems. Kafka shows us how authority figures can be seen as an oppressive force, even if they ensure the status quo and social order. The judgments and policies of institutions have great power over society and the identity of its citizens. Kafka's work shows the need to question and resist mindless control and oppressive authorities, both in real life and in social psychology.

In conclusion, the book "The Trial" by Franz Kafka is a literary masterpiece that offers a profound reflection on psychology, society, power and the structure of personality. The book confronts audiences with the existential nature of identity, anxiety, the self, and reality. The vast interpretations of the work, including contexts from social psychology to psychoanalysis, demonstrate its value as a critical source and emotional meditation.

«وقتش رسیده کاری کنم که در زندگی‌ام نکرده ام و آن اینکه هیچ کاری نکنم.»

درست به مانند عُمَر ،شخصیت اصلی رمان «گدا» .این روز‌ها می‌خواهم به دفتر یک رواننشناس بروم بنشینم .او بگوید دردت چیست جوان؟ و من بگویم دکتر دردم این است که نمی‌دانم چه دردی دارم...
هرچیزی دارم دکتر ،سه تا خانه،ماشین،پول و هرچه فکر میکنی اما چیزی این وسط نیست .دکتر یک چیزی ندارم و دقیقا نمیدانم آن چیز چیست.!
دکتر من این روزها غمگینم اما نه با تعریف مشخص غمگین بودن و نه با تعریف نامشخص آن.نمی‌توانم بگویم چه حسی دارم ،چرا که بی‌تردید آنچه کسی احساس می‌کند را نمی‌توان به دقت بازگو کرد.

دکتر
هنوز کودک یتیمی در من زندگی می‌کند که تنها چیزی که می‌خواهد توجه است.می‌خواهد یک نفر به او گوش بدهد همین.بخاطر همین هم هست تو را در این متن ساختم .تو باید به من گوش بدهی دکتر ،این را من می‌خواهم همانطور که در تمام بچگی یک پدر خواستم تا به پسران پدرسگ محله بفهمانم اگر کسی مرا بزند یک نفر می‌آید...
هنوز منتظرش هستم دکتر.
پدرِ پدرسگم را نمیگویم دکتر ،حرفم را که می‌فهمی؟ نیازی هم نیست بفهمی دکتر!
هرکسی رنج می‌کشد تنهایی رنج می‌کشد.
راستی دکتر بابت این جلسه که پولی نمیگیری؟!
راستی دکتر من چرا دارم محاکمه می‌شوم؟

‎(المحاكمة لكافكا كما رايتها من وجهة نظري):
ملخص الرواية في كلمتين: وهي لعبة ( الحياة والموت)
حياه البطل هي المحاكمة وموته هو الحكم
الرواية فيها إسقاطات كثيرة متعلقة بعبثية الوجود وما هو سر الوجود والبحث غير المجدي للإنسان عن معنى لحياته، تطرح أسئلة حول الظلم وغياب النظام والعدالة. لماذا وجد الانسان؟ لماذا يتعذب؟ لماذا يموت بطريقة رخيصة؟
في هذه الرواية يتم تصوير الأحداث غير الواقعية بطريقة تبدو واقعية للغاية كما يحدث في الكابوس.
يتحرك البطل ضمن احداث عديدة تبدأ باعتقال جوزيف في يوم عيد ميلاده ، وتنتهي في اليوم الذي نفذ فيه حكم الإعدام طعنا بالسكين والذي يقع عشية عيد ميلاده ايضاً .
ان البطل جزء لا يتجزا عن الكاتب كافكا وكانه يعبر عن طريقة تفكيره في الكون والوجودية وكيف يرى ان ارادة الخالق هي ان يمارس سلطته ويطلب من الفرد خضوعا مطلقا فيصنع بعالمه ما يشاء بحيث يتصرف افراد الرواية وفقا لأوامره، ان المحكمة متواجدة في كل مكان تقريبا وليس للانسان سوى ان يلجىء طلبا لرحمة الله وعفوه ليتم انقاذه من الحكم وتقريبا هذا الاستنتاج نصل اليه عندما تنصحة ليني بان يعترف بالذنب لكي تستطيع مساعدته.
الذنب الذي لم يعرف ماهو وكان مجهودات الإنسان لإدراك معنى الكون دائما ما تنتهي بالفشل الحتمي. لقد كتب جوزيف ك التماس الدفاع عن نفسه كتب فيه جميع الذنوب التي قام بها في حياته ليدافع عنها في محاكمته ولكن دون جدوى.
اسطورة وقوف الريفي على باب العدالة توضح ان حارس الباب ماهو الا خادم مسير لتنفيذ الاوامر ولا يستطيع الدخول لكن الباب وجد من اجل الريفي بالتحديد المخير بالدخول.
الكاتب يصور فكرته بعدم الايمان بالعدالة الالهية من خلال فساد النظام ومن ثم القضاء وبالتالي فساد الحياة بكاملها حيث ان القانون هنا يرمز الى الوجود والسلطة ترمز الى الله حيث يركز الكاتب على ايصال فكرة العبثية الوجودية فعندما يدرك الانسان حتمية الموت تظهر فكرة عبثية الحياة.

Who Dared Seize Him?

Ever since first reading this novel in school, I've assumed the word "Kafkaesque" described an aspect of society analogous to living under a totalitarian state.

For much of this thoroughly enjoyable re-read, I persisted with this view.

However, when Joseph K. is arrested with no apparent justification, he is more surprised than an inhabitant of a fascist state. He asks:

"Who could these men be? What were they talking about? What authority could they represent? K. lived in a country with a legal constitution, there was universal peace, all the laws were in force; who dared seize him in his own dwelling?"

You'd think that, with all the hallmarks of a modern civilisation in place, you'd be free from the risk of arbitrary arrest.

A natural reaction is that it might be a joke. However, it's not funny for very long, certainly not for the twelve month process K. must endure.




Officials on High

Apart from the apparent absence of a reason for K.'s arrest, the atmosphere isn't as oppressive as I recalled. It's inexplicable for K., yet somehow routine and unremarkable for everybody else. It doesn't evoke an outcry (except, understandably, from K.). It's as if this turn of events is uncommon, but it could still happen to any of us at any time. Not because we live in a totalitarian state, but because we might have committed a crime. But what if K. doesn't believe he has actually done anything wrong?

K. isn't incarcerated pending trial. For all the empty formality of the Law, everybody he deals with is meticulous in their observance of etiquette. They're amiable, courteous, helpful and apologetic, not to mention sometimes obsequious and solicitous. Whoever is wielding this power, exercising this authority, is wearing velvet gloves:

"I don't in the least blame them, it is the organisation that is to blame, the high officials who are to blame."

Only he can't find any trace of these high officials. He only ever seems to encounter lowly officials. Still, power is exercised and punishment occurs at this level. One official says, with a hint of the banal:

"I am here to whip people, and whip them I shall."

The Danger of Indifference

All the power that is exercised against K. makes him wonder whether (like Mersault would later do in Albert Camus' "The Stranger") he should remain indifferent to his plight.

However, here, K.'s uncle warns him that he will have no chance of proving his innocence if he is submissive. He suggests that he flee the city and come to the country:

"I only made the suggestion because I thought your indifference would endanger the case..."

A Free Man in Chains

Joseph K.'s only crime seems to be that he is a free man, going about his own business. He is a risk assessor in a bank, presumably someone educated, an intellectual of sorts, a free thinker.

Early on, he says, "A man can't help being rebellious." Eventually, he reflects that "it's often safer to be in chains than to be free."

My Confession

After a while, I started to deliberate whether the novel was about authority and authoritarianism at a more generic level than the State.

So, what is it that places chains on mankind? The Courts just serve the Law. Is the Law wholly rational, or does it serve some other authority? Whose justice does it dispense?

"The Court is quite impervious to proof...You must remember that in these Courts things are always coming up for discussion that are simply beyond reason, people are too tired and distracted to think, and so they take refuge in superstition."

In the Cathedral

Bit by bit, as the novel progressed, I questioned whether Kafka's real target was the authority that religion has over our lives.

The penultimate chapter occurs in the Cathedral. Some of Kafka's language sounds almost biblical:

"The Court makes no claims upon you. It receives you when you come and it relinquishes you when you go...You see, everything belongs to the Court."

Yet what got me speculating most was sentences like this:

"Whatever he may seem to us, he is yet a servant of the Law; that is, he belongs to the Law and as such is set beyond human judgement."

It mightn't have been possible in the original German, but if you substitute "the Lord" for "the Law" (or "the Court") in these sentences, the result suggests that the greatest claim to authority is that of religion (even when it often claims to be above the Law).

Is God the unseen higher source of authority and the Church the organisation behind K.'s arrest? Was it God's churchwardens who dared to seize him?

Is life an ongoing trial under God's Law?

Original Sin

If this speculation has any legs, then "The Trial" might be concerned with the concept of original sin.

Is original sin a crime with which each of us has been charged without our knowledge, without any proof and without any guilt?

"In the end, out of nothing at all, an enormous fabric of guilt will be conjured up."

Free Will

By extension, if the idea of original sin derives from God, are we deluded in clinging to the concept of free will, when God sits above us all, exercising ultimate control, pre-disposing us to sin?

If so, the Trial might be a metaphor for the supernatural process of God looking over and judging us every moment of our lives, until we are granted permission to enter Heaven.

Ultimately, K.'s only crime seems to be the individualistic pride that makes him cling to free will and prevents him submitting to God's will and law. But in the eyes of the Lord/the Law, it is the greatest crime there is.



God Works Through Trials

"2 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials,

3 Knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience."

James 1:2-3

"Thank You Lord (For the Trials That Come My Way)"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQztF...

A.K.A. The Barrister's Song






The Throng of Gossip

I've always thought of this novel as a five star achievement. Re-reading it, I've realised that what convinced me of its status was probably the power of Kafka's vision and ideas.

What struck me this time was the quality of the writing.

For all the claustrophobic abstraction, Kafka grounds the novel in evocative and descriptive prose. There's even a bit of humour:

"Down the whole length of the street at regular intervals, below the level of the pavement, were planted little general grocery shops, to which short flights of steps led down. Women were thronging into and out of these shops or gossiping on the steps outside. A fruit hawker who was crying his wares to the people in the windows above, progressing almost as inattentively as K. himself, almost knocked K. down with his push-cart. A phonograph which had seen long service in a better quarter of the town began stridently to murder a tune."

مردی بابت جرمی نامشخص بازداشت و محاکمه میشود.فضای داستان تاریک و روند آن روان فرساست.کل داستان شبیه یک کابوس است.از معرفترین کارهای کافکا است که پس از مرگش و برخلاف وصیت نامه اش توسط ماکس برود تکمیل و منتشر میشود.