So it's well established that most of this guy's work—The Trial in particular—is blatant commentary on the structure and nature of the church, right? Would anyone here actually argue that that wasn't the message he was trying to get across with The Trial and The Castle? It's basically unmissable.
according to him, the trial at least was based off of a hotel "trial" between him, his mistress, and his fiance
>>7701481
>the church
He was a jew so no.
i-isnt it about lack of accountability in government?
>tfw discussion on /lit/ is constantly framed by plebs who believe that texts are "about things" rather than being objects which reflect our own mental landscapes back at ourselves.
i know making fun of postmodernism is a meme here but can we at least ironically get the fucking point
>>7702284
Some texts clearly --are-- about things. It's just that the ones people presume to come up with these types of interpretations of are more opaque than those.
>>7702311
>Some texts clearly --are-- about things
This is what people think when their mental landscapes are similar enough to the author's that they pivot on the same nuances and recognize the same themes. That the reader and author reflect the same or very similar images is notable, but doesn't mean that that image is all there is to a text.
>>7702311
>It's just that the ones people presume to come up with these types of interpretations of are more opaque than those.
also this is impenetrable
>>7702247
Have you even read The Trial? The entire climax of the plot takes place inside a Catholic church. What, just because he was a Jew he couldn't have written commentary on the church or organized religion in general at all? Do you realize how stupid you sound? If you're white, are you not allowed to write To Kill a Mockingbird? The functioning of the court within The Trial is entirely an allegory for the complex, oppressive, enigmatic, and hypocritical nature of the Christian church—whichever specific denomination—and the evidence is blatantly spread throughout the book.
>>7702335
No, it's what people think when they read a simple story that's literally just about what they see in it, like children's books for example. I'm not talking about subtext.
>>7701481
Never call Kafka's work a "blatant commentary" the guy's not Vonnegut.
There's an idea that moving into the 20th century bureaucracy in a way became our religion, a never-ending route of appeasement to no discernible end. Once God was found to be dead the intangible procedures of religion found their way into bureaucratic engagements for the sake of people's pure enjoyment.
>>7702358
Not as stupid as you do for reading that hard into a setting of a story by one of the most opaque authors ever.
>>7702376
Have you read The Trial? Obviously not, unless you're reeeeally stupid.
>>7702359
I think you might be underestimating the diversity of minds but whatever it doesn't matter that much as long as you understand the phenomena i'm trying to point out
