Talk:The Trial/Archive 1

Archive 1

"where he got his story"

Folks. We got a problem here. A single scholar somewhere says that Kafka simply stole the shape, structure, and content-skeleton from Dostoyevsky, and this is worthy of wikipedic inclusion? This is absurd, and there definitely isn't enough information given in the wiki to justify including this pap. It's misguided and obsessive to ask "Where did the author get his stories?" You can search far and wide, for any author, and eventually find some similarities elsewhere, and make the delusional/pathological argument that the author simply didn't innovate anything but merely stole it from somewhere else. For example, WHERE DID CRIME AND PUNISHMENT COME FROM? Is some scholar going to make a mission of finding where THAT was stolen from? Because I'm sure if you look hard enough, you'll find something vaguely resembles it, and you can start putting forth the incredible argument that Dostoyevsky simply stole it from that source. (Addiotionally Dostoy and Kafka both lived as authors within modern western civilization, it's not surprising that some of their characters or even scenarios have vague abstract resemblences. The same can be said for practically any two pieces of literature written within about 50 years of each other.) Franz Kafka was an artist of the highest level of achievement, and it's insulting and outrageous to argue that The Trial's content comes from Crime and Punishment. Especially considering there's not even the SLIGHTEST HINT of this in any of Kafka's records, or from any of the insights that Max Brod has been able to offer, owing to his friendship and confidence with Kafka.

I have to admit I too found the claims far-fetched and a little hard to verify. One problem is that at the moment, almost a third of the article is dedicated to a single persons research. I suggest trimming the content down, and making more NPOV to indicate that this view doesn't yet have wide acceptance.--Brendanfox 11:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The End

We recently read The Trial in one of my classes and the professor told us that there is some controversy over the ordering of the chapters. Specifically, many scholars do not believe that the last chapter was intended to be the last chapter; instead, it was meant to go in the middle somewhere as a dream. They argue (among other things) that one of the points of the trial is that it goes on forever, and such a solid conclusion is not in line with what Kafka was trying to convey. I'm not familiar enough with the scholarship on this text to add this information myself. However, it would be nice if someone else who knew what I'm talking about went in and added it at some point. -- Zawersh 16:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right about the controversy, and to be honest no-one can really be sure of anything when it comes to Kafka's unfinished works, but if one is to believe what is said in the foreword of the edition of The Trial I have (a recent Swedish one, published by Bakhåll) the order of the chapters in that particular edition are based on the Kafka's own sorting of the original documents, and thus it is likely that this was Kafka's intention.

In addition, although based on my own opinion, "The End" has the feel of an ending chapter and certainly the qualities of one – even if not meant as one I consider it to be the best ending in the history of literature – and so I believe it to be perfectly viable that this is what Kafka intended. Although, as said, we can never know. //XXX XXXX, 26 April 2006

Given the points you acknowledge above, I think it's important to at least make reference to that controversy and uncertainty in the article. (Especially since so much space is given to the Crime and Punishment school of thought.) We can't know what he intended. The ordering that the papers happened to be in at his death isn't necessarily meaningful--who's to say he put them in that order for the reasons we assume, or for any reason at all? Regardless of his intention, literature is as much about interpretation as intent. Putting "The End" in the middle gives rise to very different interpretations than putting it at the end, and since we have no idea which is "correct", providing the foundation of both schools of thought seems the best approach for a balanced, encyclopedic article. (Too bad I'm not enough a student of literature, or Kafka, to add something about it myself. Oh well.) -- Zawersh 08:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

disambiguating

theres a song and an episode of dilbert also called The Trial. im not quite sure about the procedure for this, but would there be a disambiguation page or just references at the top of these pages? Tobias087 07:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Good call, I went ahead and put in the disambiguation. -- Zawersh 15:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons with other works

{{spoiler}} I have edited this, as it was incorrect - Nineteen Eighty-Four does not end with the protagonist's death. Rather, its final words express the utter submission of Winston Smith's will to that of the Party bureaucracy and Big Brother. His forthcoming execution is only implied. --Scrilly 11:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm affraid not. The last words of Wiston are uttered as he feels the bullet entering his head from behind.

He was walking down the white-tiled corridor, with the feeling of walking in sunlight, and an armed guard at his back. The longhoped-for bullet was entering his brain.

See http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-24.html#twentyfour. Regards, --Abu Badali 13:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you've got that quite right. Winston is imagining his execution. See e.g. http://groups.google.nl/group/alt.books.george-orwell/msg/5ffab2cc70405c69 for a good explanation. 80.126.17.187 20:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It sounded a little bit like speculation to me. But not a completely invalid point. Anyway, that's still someone's interpretation. --Abu Badali 18:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Can comparisons of The Trial to Oldboy and The Count of Monte Cristo be said to be really relevant based solely on the fact that someone is somehow imprisoned in all of the works? //XXX XXXX, 26 April 2006

I don't see how this is at all relevant either. I'm removing the section entirely, since all it has at the moment is this (very weak) comparison. neckro 10:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Evaluation

I cannot see how a scene in Welles' film adaption (it should be noted, however it is not important for my point, that his adaption is controversial and neither very reverent or true to the original novel. For example, Anthony Perkins is executed by the means of explosives. Even if film adaptions had been a good way to analyse books, Welles' adaption is, in other words, not a very reliable source) is relevant for the evaluation and analysis of Kafka's novel.

I therefore suggest that the passage on Christianity added the 21st of June is either rewritten, with references to Welles' film excluded, or completely removed. If Kafka even had any religious motives with his works, then Max Brod's Jewish interpretation (that of the court in the Trial being the 'divine court') is for more or less natural reasons a more probable theory. What is said about guilt and judgement however, is presumably a correct approach. Staretsen 09:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Over three days have passed, removing section until adequate response from author. —Staretsen 13:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The film The Trial and the book to me and others is a depth psychological prologemena to Christian Faith and understanding of the law on an existential basis. I am not the Kafka scholar that you are but I will work on a revision to my initial entry.

(Icybluedge)

"The Whipping"

I'm not going to edit the article directly as I don't have time to look for citations, etc. But I had a much different interpretation of the chapter where the flogging happens. While it may have been staged to show K. the court's power, I think that the setup is less important than the question it asks: who is more responsible, the corrupt individual or the corrupt organization? K. tries to buy their freedom, and the flogger assumes it is a trap. Most importantly, the policemen ask K., "we’re only being punished because you made a complaint against us. Nothing would have happened to us otherwise, not even if they’d found out what we’d done. Can you call that justice?" (Note: the translation I've quoted is an ebook from the University of Adelaide that's available under a CC license) - John C

The translation we've been using is by Willa and Edwin Muir, and is complete and unabridged. In the Whipper chapter, we have "As he passed the lumber-room again on his way out he could not resist opening the door. And what confronted him, instead of the darkness he had expected, bewildered him completely. Everything was still the same, exactly as he had found it on opening the door the previous evening. The files of old papers and the ink-bottles were still tumbled behind the threshold, the Whipper with his rod and the warders with all their clothes on were still standing there, the candle was burning on the bookcase, and warders immediately began to cry out: 'Sir!'" So, once again I'm going to revert the changes of the editor who keeps removing this part of the novel...Brendanfox 23:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Parable

The section labeled "Parable" is a direct quote of the website it cites. Personally, I don't think it's worth keeping, but I don't want to delete it simply because I don't like it. -Mihoshi 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I've just made a few changes to the article as a whole, if there's any issues please just post here, and we can discuss them. Thanks. --Brendanfox 06:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It needs to be clarified that the entire Interpretation section is taken from one person's personal blog, and it is therefore inappropriate to have that as the only opinion mentioned. It would be much more useful to have some information from an actual literary critic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.211.244.242 (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A novelist's take

I would suggest anyone who has read this book to read the essay by Milan Kundera in his collection "Testaments Betrayed" or in "The Art of the Novel" (not as boring as it sounds I assure you!). I think I agree with the idea he presents - it is not a parable, but a piece of dense, but extremely dark ironic prose. Some Pup (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)ps i forgot the apostrophe!

Characters

'If the novel had been finished, we might have heard more from Titorelli.'

This sectio has a few unsubstantiated comments like this and unencyclopedic language such as the nurse being "on fire" for the protagonist. I think it could do with some cleaning up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.194.194 (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree and removed that offending quote - given that the great majority of characters and events lead nowhere in the novel, I think speculating that any character might have been of greater import is unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightsoil (talk • contribs) 18:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

This article would benefit from a "Plot summary" section, perhaps 500-1000 words. --Elonka 21:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, where is the synopsis???Sanitycult (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Details missing

Name of publisher of novels?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aebarschall (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Frau Grubach's Insinuations"

In the summary for the first chapter, it states that Frau Grubach mistakenly offends K. by saying that perhaps the arrest has to do with a theorized illicit romance between Fräulein Bürstner and K. However, the text doesn't state this at all in any translation I know. Rather, Grubach simply gossips to K. about Fräulein Bürstner's dating habits. Should this be changed?

I thought the same, but it may be that she alludes to a relationship between the two by means unobvious to the reader. I think it should be kept in, but the language ought to be changed to indicate that it's speculation. Unless, of course, someone has read another version - perhaps in the original German - which is clearer on the issue, and can definitively say otherwise. - Shoejar 18:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have the german version in front of me right now. There is no mention or implication whatsoever that K. and Frl. Bürstner have any relationship. Frau Grubach merely states that she has seen Frl. Bürstner with two different men in short span of time, probably implying that Frl. Bürstner prostitutes herself but not with K.He then defends her vehemtly (sp?), altough we have been told that he hardly even knows her. That's all. 130.133.134.35 12:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Cheers, Tobias

I think K. just get's offended that Grubach would make such a harsh observation about any of her boarders, and because the idea of Bürstner with other men threatens him sexually, him being attracted to her and all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.19.60 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing the "Interpretations" section

I removed the "Interpretations" section per the no original research policy. The entire section read like an essay of a person analyzing the work on his or her own. Interpretations of works need to come from reliable secondary sources. There is no reason to keep the section as is. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Help with new section

I would very much like to create a section discussing the interpretations of this novel which claim to have found the answer to K's arrest and seeming persecution. Ritchie Robertson argues in "Kafka: Judaism, Politics, and Literature," (Clarendon/Oxford 1985) as follows:

"One could perhaps describe [Kafka's] procedure by saying that he has taken expressions like 'the moral law' literally. Suppose the moral law were not an abstract imperative but a law for which one could be arrested and tried for breaking? Suppose it had an entire legal system, with its own courts, lawyers, and policemen, even its prison chaplain and its professional executioners, and suppose that these functionaries, though in the service of something absolute, were themselves human, fallible, and prone to misbehaviour?"

When you read the novel with these questions in mind, what immediately jumps out at you is Josef K's astonishing rudeness, immense ego, and lack of control over his sexual desires. With Fraulein Burstner: " "I'm just coming," K. said, rushed out, seized her, and kissed her first on the lips, then all over the face, like some thirsty animal lapping greedily at a spring of long-sought fresh water. Finally he kissed her on the neck, right on the throat, and kept his lips there for a long time." This could not be more clearly the description of a vampire.

Q: Of what can someone be completely unaware, and yet unarguably guilty in everyone else's eyes? A: Moral ignorance. Of the seven deadly sins, K. is clearly guilty of Pride, Lust, and Anger. He doesn't seem guilty of Covetousness, Gluttony, or Envy, but as for Sloth, consider that he spends much of the first scene of the book in bed, not worried about getting ready for work.

Why do I not create this section? Well, I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia or footnoting. But if one of you reading this is interested in exploring these ideas further, I'll be only too happy to help.Powerlifterbaritone (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is as soon as that kind of section on interpretations gains any kind of depth, some slubburp guy comes along and slashes it down saying "Uh-huh, fluff! Original research! Bad-bad!" See the section just before on this discussion page. Some people plainly want any article about an influential novel, a film, a painter or a classic work of music to take the form of a nondescript patchwork of raw facts that have been culled from various sources but which don't form a coherent or understandable whole. So the only kind of writing that is allowed to stay that relates to motives, interpretation and influence is stuff that you can cut and paste as direct statements saying just that from some elementary textbook. Predictably, the very simple or very blunt. Serious critics don't like to talk in declarative, big-type statements all the time, neither when giving their own discussions of levels of meaning or imagery in a work, nor when recapitulating what's been said by others, so their interpretations are hard to get in with these guys hanging around.

schizophrenic hallucinations?

When I read the trial I was always wondering about the degree to which the events are paranoid delusions. It reminded me of the schizophrenic state portrayed in 'A beautiful mind'. Any argumments for or against this interpretation? User:Ike9898

I've read it a few times, it always reminds me of a dream. People act so strangely and no one seems to notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.19.60 (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

When reading any novel, esp Kafka, it is important to question whether we can trust the narrator... Josef does not seem to be a very trustworthy narrator. He seems paranoid and suspicious of everyone. The fact that he seems to have no friends or family supports this. However, judging from the fact that the novel starts at a waking moment suggests it is a dream.----BubblegumBlossom

I think the novel would be pretty boring if is "just" a dream or a particular state of mind. The beauty in Kafka's work is that it is real and unreal at the same time, mirroring us the world we live in. If it would be just a dream K. could just wake up. But then there is no urgency in it - what would be the point? I think one shouldn't read Kafka's work too naturalistic and too much looking for the real world in there. It's a different world - and yet so close to ours. Besides, the behaviour of the people in The Trial is not that extraodinarily strange, it's just heightened and exxagerated. Also I like to point out that Josef K. is not the narrator of the story as suggested by BubblegumBlossom. It's a third-person-narrator.--Dyynamic (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Name of "Josef K"

I changed the plot overview to use K everwhere instead of varying between Joseph or Josef K. Perhaps it should use K. instead. Any thoughts? -- Autopilot (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know if the name has been hypothesized to be connected to the birth name of Joseph Conrad? Conrad was born Jòzef Konrad Korzeniowski, and while he always used the name Joseph Conrad as a writer, it's not inconceivable that Kafka may have known about his birth name, as Conrad's father was the well-known Polish poet and patriot Apollo Korzeniowski. Apollo had taken part in preparing the ground for the Polish revolt against Russia in 1863 and while his work was suppressed for some time in Russia, it was probably legal in Austria-Hungary. Kafka sympathized with the nationalist movements undermining the Double Monarchy and it wouldn't be far-fetched to think that he knew A.K. and so knew about the connection to the English writer. Strausszek (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The Trial

(intro section)

"the nature of his crime never revealed either to him or the reader."

Surely it is his relative social advantage which is shown to dominate and harm his accusers? Am I the only one who realized that? 137.205.56.18 (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

apparently. but I am sure if it were ascertained specifically that he was Jewish, you would have numerous editors who would agree with your thesis. Stellarkid (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, me again replying. I did read a preface to his story A Little Woman, a story about a woman's irrational hatred and disgust for a man she knows, which had been considered possibly a barometer of pre-holocaust anti-semitism. My own feelings, reading The Trial, were that the protagonist is actually insensitive to the notion that others actually are living in disadvantage. It happens every day that we are in supermarkets where there are poor people, barely able to buy any food. We don't give them some of ours, we ignore them. My own (as yet unjustified) sense about The Trial is that it is about the concept of a legitimate unease about the rules of social advantage implicit in trade, implicit in capitalism. Whereas A Little Woman is about an ethnic disgust of someone who, again, is in a superior position. I think about the chapter in The Trial where his own inquisitors are beaten for his lack of cooperation. His opponents in The Trial are vulnerable, real people with real feelings and real suffering. Whereas his opponent in A Little Woman is an irrational hater. Anyway, I will read the Wikipedia article about A Little Woman w/r to your comment. 89.240.171.158 (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What the person quoted at the start was saying is, I think, that nothing is ever 'explicitly* said about the nature of the offence, and that Josef K. doesn't reach any final, clear idea of what it is. It can still be implied, of course. In the same way, Camus' The Stranger has Meursault put on trial for killing the Arab, and he is condemned to death, but the *real* reason for his being morally condemned and sentenced to death (not prison, which would have been more likely in French Algeria in such a case) is that he comes across to the court and the public as a cold and amoral man, a bad son who smoked on his mother's funerary wake and who is unrepentant and doesn't want to see a priest. That's implied, but never said openly. I would add myself ~(subjectively, and moving to the philosophical side of the book) that he dies because he is unable to grasp the theatricals of everyday life, to look behind what people say, to read the roles. That's a real reason first why he lands in the situation where he will shoot the nameless Arab and then why he makes such a lame figure at the trial. Meursault doesn't realize when other people are pitching something to him or talking about him, possibly because he has never learnt to move beyond the here and now.

I don't know if Camus had read Kafka in 1939/40, or even knew of him at the time, but there is a definite affinity between the two novels (not in style though!) Strausszek (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Surrealism in the novel

I'm quite surprised that there's no mention in the article of the novel's surrealist tones. Some have in this discussion mentioned that the novel feels quite "dreamlike", and that is absolutely true. However, that doesn't necessarily indicate that the plot itself is a dream, but is rather simply a characteristic of Kafka's signature style which was known to be very surrealist (e.g. "Metamorphosis", "The Penal Colony", "The Castle"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.176.219 (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Interpretations

"The parable within Kafka's masterpiece highlights perfectly the essence of his philosophy. Assigned unique roles in life, individuals must search deep within the apparent absurdity of existence to achieve spiritual self-realisation. The old man, therefore, is the symbol of this universal search inherent to mankind. 'The Trial' is not simply a novel about the potential disaster of over-bureaucratisation in society; it is an exploration of the personal and, particularly, spiritual, needs of human beings."

What the hell is this? Seriously, who writes these things? Anyway such interpretations don't belong in an encyclopedia entry even if good and competent. Someone should either severely alter the whole section under which it appears or delete it altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.236.224 (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't but, actually, I like it very much! Maybe you have far better suggestion? 213.240.254.69 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

German Title

Wanted to point out that the German title is actually "Der Prozess" not "Der Process" as is currently on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.157.41 (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

See the article's footnote #1. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Evaluation of impact

There are no sources explaining why the book had so much impact? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing Some of the Pain by "The Trial" - Only a Tip

By The Trial, you may want to consider "Legal Process" and "Litigation" to let of some worry and mental steam! Merry Christmas! Cheers! 109.189.67.182 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

More content needed

Various editors seem to have removed the majority of this article's content. I imagine they were quite right to do so, yet none the less there is a severe lack of content, especially regarding interpretations, analysis and criticism. For example the introduction mentions 'certain inconsistencies' in the plot (resulting from the incomplete state of the novel), yet none of these are mentioned in the article. You can learn more about the Trial reading through the discussion page than you can the article. I don't feel I know the text well enough to add to the article though, so I can't really complain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.50.249.89 (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you can find the same problem at many articles on famous novels, films and works of art here on WP. I think this is because serious literary criticism, literary biographies and reviewing - as opposed to the schlocky kind you find in tabloids and broad mass market outlets - tend not to be written in the way many WP editors would like it to be, if it is to be used as a source. Most critics and literary historians don't habitually toss out ostentatious, blanket statements in the vein of "it is the first/the only book that tells of X...", "Earlier critics thought that he was influenced by X in describing A, but this can be safely discounted", "X dies because of so-and-so" etc. That kind of toss-up, declarative, talk-show type statements is simply not how most critics express themselves when discussing a book or a film, especially not a book or a writer that's a century old already - but those kinds of statements are precisely the sort that are easiest to use as building blocks for articles here, due to policy, or some people's view of WP policy.

In most in-depth discussions of literature by critics or academics, the kinds of conclusions they're after - the interesting stuff - are semi-implied, couched within a chain of discussion and argument, or qualified and tempered, rather than spelled out like big headlines. You can tell what they mean, but it's hard to quote or reference in a way that makes it a quick, unchallengeable soundbite here on WP. So, most of the interesting and even established views on a novel likeThe Trial (or Joyce's Ulysses for that matter) are dificult to fit in without having them removed by someone who walks in and says "uh, this isn't said just like that, in plain letters by a reliable source", "most RS don't mention this view so it can't be notable" or "I have another source who says nothing about this shit"... 83.254.154.164 (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Metaphor for Being Between Cultures

I have wondered whether the confusion of the law was a symbol of Kafka trying to adjust to multiple cultures. He was a Czech living in the Austrian Empire (and writing in its language) and a Jew in a Christian society. Each of these groups had laws of its own, and it would be confusing to keep track of all of them, let alone comply with them. 50.180.19.238 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess there are as many interpretations of his works as there are people who read them...anyway Talk pages are no discussion forums. You might post such things in Goodreads book groups or other literature forums. Also I'm not sure if you're referring to the literal juridical law of each of these cultures or their norms, peculiarities and culture (see also: Culture shock & Paris syndrome). The latter would make some sense. And I guess most interpretations do to various degrees as after all Kafka is the subject of many influences that each to some degree might reflect off his work. But as you wrote "keep track of all of them, let alone comply with them" I guess you actually referred to the former. I really think people read his works way to over-interpretative in a symbolic, "what does the author want to tell us with that?" way. I think his books are supposed to be read as surreal, anxious, alienated, absurdist, existentialist, atmospheric pearls of the subconscious (and not under constant "metaphor"-searching-perspective -> the book's content is in so far "metaphoric" as it's the undirected [in the sense of symbolic intention] expression of the subconscious and hence all its content has its roots/correspondent in the real external and internal/mental world). --Fixuture (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Fringe

User:Shadowjams removed a section "Relationship between The Trial and Crime and Punishment" on 11 January 2010 with the edit summary: "remove cruft in middle that was commented out". The commenting-out was done by User:LMB on 9 October 2009. The material was originally added here (and in the German article) by User:Nicanor5 on 4 October 2005. That section has now been re-inserted by 5.12.240.160 with the edit summary: "Added an important section that was stupidly removed a few years ago. If you can't find references, use "citation needed" brackets. The new book was recently translated into English as well and can be found on Amazon under the name The Trial Rediscovered.". The edit by User:Guisantru may be related.

I agree with the removal from 2010 as Guillermo Sánchez Trujillo's theory seems to fall under WP:FRINGE unless further material discussing it, preferably in English or German, can be included. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm the person who reincluded that section. According to Wikipedia's policy, fringe theories can be mentioned but not given a misleading weight by making them seem like they are accepted by consensus. Therefore, I don't see why it should be removed. Perhaps we could change the wording to explicitly mention that it's not a widely know theory? Regarding references, except for some random articles that I wouldn't use as a reference either, I've only seen (a) articles in Spanish and (b) the book's preface, which is available in both Spanish and English (the book has been translated as of 2015). 5.12.208.34 (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless there is some material from reputable sources discussing Trujillo's theory, the section – which was much too long (WP:UNDUE) – should stay removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Different translations

I am currently reading The Trial and find that the basic information in the synopsis is correct, but that many of the details are incorrect. Therefore, I wonder if the differences are a result of translational differences or other differences between editions resulting from the use of the original manuscripts. I certainly would not want to make changes that are completely accurate in other editions of the book. Da 'Sco Mon 09:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What language are you reading it in? Does you edition give the name of the translator? ike9898 14:42, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

K.'s Uncle

In the spoilers it says K.'s Uncle is a friend of the Clerk of the Court, however does he not just meet him when they go and visit the lawyer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.205.89 (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

order of chapters

There is no real order of chapters in The Trial, and it makes no difference which one you read first. See my added section "existence". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.83.182 (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Where? Ironically your "existence" section does not exist... IS this some kind of existential joke? 2A00:23C8:8F9E:4801:313D:A040:B7C:F11B (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)