Kafkaesque - The Trial

The book was written in 1914 and was only published in 1925, after Kafka died. For some reason one chapter in the middle is complete. The book has ten chapters. To begin with, let me confess that I didn’t like the book. But hold on! It’s only up to a certain point in the book I didn’t like. I had read Kafka’s ‘The Metamorphosis’ and had enjoyed it. It was great writing; I have reviewed it here.

When I had read up to chapter 7 (of The Trial). I was tired of the dull and meaningless narrative. I was trying to rattle my brain if there was a deeper meaning that I was missing out. I couldn’t find any and concluded that Kafka was an overrated author. I even wrote on a Group Discussion Board on Goodreads, “

I forced myself to complete chapter 8. Up until then, K, the main character had been arrested (as the story began) without being told of any reason. Strangely, he is freed the same day, but he has to attend court and face trials. The judges also have no idea about the charges. The justice system is lopsided. Lawyers are not permitted, but they are there, all the same. Everywhere you go, vague courtroom scenes are being played out. It is a foregone conclusion that every accused will be convicted. The trial goes on for years. Different people try to help K, but each one is certain that there is no way other than ending up convicted. There are three methods of ‘acquittal’, but then, no one has ever been acquitted in history. The judges speak nothing. K, or any accused, for that matter, only deals with lower level judges, no one ever gets to meet the higher level judges. And it seems most characters are somehow connected to the court.

Such a plot, with lack of a more profound meaning went on and on; and then I came to chapter 9. One parable in it opened up everything. A sudden understanding hit me. I think I got the whole theme, or so I believe. That is what is called ‘Kafkaesque’- it’s is a proper word in the dictionary – to describe a confusing situation (adjective).

A narrative by a priest, in the form of a parable, comes nearly at the end of the book. The priest tells K the PARABLE – A certain man wanted to get into the court of law, but doorkeeper didn’t let him. He said, “Not now, but possibly later.” He offered the man a stool to sit and wait. He treated him with consideration, but never let him in. The man waited for years outside the door, until he died. He only saw a flash of light inside, but never could go in. Just before dying, the man asked the doorkeeper why was it that in all these years of my waiting, no other man tried to go in through that door. The doorkeeper replied, “Nobody else could have got in this way, as this entrance was meant only for you.” And that was my moment of epiphany.

The arrest implies man being dragged through life, not exactly at the time of his birth, but as soon he becomes independent enough to face life. The courtroom drama, which goes on and on endlessly, implies the rigmarole and drudgery of life, with no one knowing what it is all about. No one ever escapes the final judgement. The judges, lawyers, painters, and such others are characters we come across in our lives, none of them are any wiser about what is happening, though all are keen to offer advice. There is just one door for each to get through, the other side is unknown, and you may only get through in the end.

At the cost of spoiling the ending, I might as well say (because I doubt many readers would come this into my review, but if you do, please let me know) that in the end everyone is convicted and punished with death. There is no escaping, although people talk about some forms of acquittals, no one has seen it. It’s sad, the equanimity with which K knows and accepts the executioners, with no resistance.

I need to reread this book to get an understanding of the hidden philosophy.