The Trial [A Review]

17 Apr, 2026

(My interpretation of this book is based off of this comment. Other interpretations exist.)

The Trial by Franz Kafka is a piece on doubt and impostor syndrome. I rate the book an 8.7/10 as while the book is thought-provoking, funny (in its pedanticness), and philosophically interesting, the book is unfortunately not my cup of tea (and it doesn't help that I read an English translation).

Spoilers below (How else am I going to review this book well?).

A Review

Kafka's work The Trial is about a trial. Specifically, this trial is a potentially never ending trial about a man who has apparently never done anything wrong. And while he is ultimately found guilty, it is only after a lengthy and confounding inquiry from which a verdict is issued.
Until the very end, this book is highlighted by its lack of closure as much in this book remains unexplained and bizarre. Furthermore, if one were to literally interpret the happenings in this book, they would simply go mad as this book is simply absurd. Lastly, it should be noted that this book is very conscious of itself; the main character of this book, Josef K, is very conscious about every little thing that happens, and we get an immense glimpse into his world just based on reading his verbalized thinking processes.

This book's heavy utilization of lack of closure / mystery / secrecy is genius in the sense that it alienates the individual from themselves and the world, as very quickly when things stop making sense, the main character Josef K (and the reader) is simply unable to assess the current situation accurately. Moreover, everything is unknowable; when reasons for a specific course of action are asked for (e.g. when K asks why he is arrested), deference to authority seems to be the final and only answer, and to almost any question, no real explanation is given. As such, given the lack of substance in every answer, questions soon become pointless, and soon enough, with there seemingly being no legible answer behind any event, happenings in K's world stop seeming like actual events intended to produce consequences and seem more like the result of random chance.
And I think that's a key point Kafka wanted to showcase: how viewed from the outside, the actions of a bureaucracy or any sufficiently entrenched organization seem to be more like random chance than a result of cohesive logical reasoning. In a sense, the concept of the institution usurped every individual inside it.

With regards to Kafka's Josef who is very socially conscious, Josef's vivid perceptiveness of all the social norms and expectations highlight a stark difference to Josef's trial. In the context of daily life, Josef seems to be able to pinpoint exactly why something was done in a certain specific way. In contrast, in the context of his trial, Josef (and everyone around him) seems to have no clue what the trial is about, and the more of the bureaucratic system he investigates, the more the system seems to curl up and hide its information.

Lastly, I want to touch on Kafka's absurdism. If we view the retelling of Josef's life through his lens, it seems that almost everyone he interacts with is stupid and unrefined and oblivious to the 'true nature' of things. Everything they say is subject to criticism from him, and there simply is no way of knowing whether their comments are sincere or deluded. As such, Josef does not seem to trust anyone fully and as a result he is very socially isolated; in the same way the trial gradually consumes K's life, the framing of the book seems to gradually turn from "Josef battles his case" into "Josef against the (potentially malicious) outside world". In this way, the book is absurd; it starts off with an absurd premise (K's arrest) that leads to an even more absurd series of events that eventually makes it seem like Josef is the only rational person in a world governed by chance, which is a very absurd situation to be in.

Throughout the story, it should be noted that Josef seems to be a very promiscuous man. While sexual harassment is not outright mentioned in the book (it might've been norm at the time), it definitely is a present. Anyways, a brief summary of the book can be found when you read the book itself (it's pretty brief).

Interpretation

My personal interpretation of the book is as follows:

• Josef K serves as a reflection of ourselves taken to the extreme. Although (hopefully) none of us are subject to a real, physical trial of ourselves, the self-doubts that creep up in our brains from time to time are analogous to Josef's "trial".
• The trial itself is a physical manifestation of the self-undermining questions that plague the (hypothetical) Josef. Examples of these questions are "Am I enough?", "Is this worthwhile?", and "What am I even doing with my life?".
• In the same way that the lower judges in the book are accessible in the courtroom, the lower judges represent lower levels of thinking that are directly accessible by thought. They can be "convinced" insofar as different parts of your brain can be swayed by different thoughts/reasons (e.g. you can convince yourself to eat some ice cream because you worked hard and thus you 'deserve' it).
• The higher judges represent inaccessible regions of thinking (subconscious mental processing) that may or may not exist. In the same way that our brain is currently a "black box" and the exact reasoning processes that happen in the brain are inaccessible, the higher judges are inaccessible to Josef despite his valiant attempt to go find them in the "judge's chambers" [todo: is this the right term for the attic in the book?]
• The painter represents the universal concept of art. In the same way that the painter is a breath of fresh air for Josef in his life and he finally fins some sense of stability in the painter's room, for one doubting themselves, the act of making art can free them from their doubts as art itself cannot be doubted (although art-adjacent topics can be). [idk maybe expand on this? idk]
• The 3 case verdicts (real acquittal, apparent acquittal, and posteponement) represent different ways of dealing with the impostor syndrome-y questions.
  • Real acquittal is isomorphic to truly "accepting" yourself for who you are and is a fully satisfying and entirely confident answer to the "Am I enough" question such that the question is dispelled from the brain entirely (and self-doubt leaves the brain entirely). In the same way that the book only rumors real-acquittals to be, to actually get a "real-acquittal" in practice is impossibly difficult.
  • Apparent acquittal is isomorphic to a temporary answer to a self-doubting question, an example answer being "yes I am good at math because [x], [y], and [z]". In the hypothetical answer given, while it does dispel the notion of your incompetency from the brain given that [x], [y], and [z] are "good enough" achievements, ultimately, since there's always something higher to aim for, something that someone did that you did, and someone out there doing 'cooler' things than what you're doing, this answer only functions as a temporary answer. As such, subsequent "arrests" (lapses into self-doubt) can still happen and as the answer is not definitive, some shred of re-evaluation of the given answer still happens in your brain (in the same way the case "bounces up and down the lower courts").
  • The postponement is simply that what it is; a postponement. Rather than tackling the question head on, we simply leave it on hold and answer it another time and tackle it then (which may lead to another postponement and so on). Thus, in the same way the painter says, "the postponement means that the trial is permanently kept at the lowest stage," the self-doubt that plagues you will always be kept on your mind, and the never ending process of keeping the "case" at the lower levels via deferment inevitably leads to a mental burden on the part of the individual.

As such, Kafka's answer(s) to the meaning of life viewed from the perspective are exemplified by the different case verdicts: a real acquittal is a true, actual answer; an apparent acquittal is an answer from which the individual can hide behind (that is inevitably demolished, according to Kafka), and a postponement is simply the avoidance/deflecting of the question of the meaning of life itself.¹

Ultimately, The Trial is a book written by Kafka which was published posthumously after his death. As the manuscript itself remained largely unpolished and unchanged when published (with one chapter remaining unfinished), it is not the most cohesive piece of writing and could definitely be distilled and refined. Nevertheless, just like my blog posts, The Trial is a rough and unpublished piece of writing that still does a good job at capturing the essence of The Bureaucracy.