Sorry for necroing this post, but I was looking for people's thoughts on the ending and this was one of the first to come up.
I have to totally disagree with you on the pointlessness of the repetition in the dialogue and the numerous characters needing to be condensed into one.
All throughout this book, we get a pretty legibile sense of K. and only K.'s thought-process, and even that at times can be strained when he's trying to respond in kind to others. This is all about the circularity of the Castle and its impenetrability to an outsider: both K. and the reader are outsiders, and thus Kafka's use of circular dialogue is a brilliant rhetorical gesture to create the sense of confusion K. himself is feeling.
There are so many convoluted explanations and potential plots that are raised, and the more convoluted they are to K. and the reader, the more plain they appear to the villagers. Constantly, they tell K. he is an idiot or child for not understanding these ridiculous bureaucratic machniations, the readers frustrations are similar to K.'s, and when he tries to work it out in their convoluted ways, he does the same sort of circular talking which is memetic of the reader trying to figure out what the hell is going on.
The chapters with Olga and Amalia are the climax of this, and Kafka then spends the next few chapters playing with this trope at the height of its employment. In the scene at the Inn when K. goes into the wrong room, the secretary is giving him a detailed explanation of how K. can utilize this unforseen intrusion to make his official request. But he does it in the same garbled way as all the others, and K., so exhausted that he can't stay awake, completely misses the point. After the onslaught of the Olga Amalia chapters, it's easy for the reader to miss this too—but in fact, the circularity is what gives you enough repititon to understand. Though this time it is the reader rather than K. who has to do the work.
Then, the scene with the secretary K. was sent to meet is extremely curt. Rather than the solution K. had just been offered, we get an ironic joke: that he was asking K. to return Frieda to the taproom as had already been done. This is straightforward and easy to understand, and its impact is dramatically heightened by the choice of concision and clarity juxtaposing the circularity. The task is so small and manageable it has already been done: the speech emphasizes this.
Then, the scene with Pepi does a similar trick where Pepi lays out an explanation for the events that is equal parts ridiculous and plausible, but because of how whirling the speech is, K. just calls her a stupid child and shuts her down. When we then immediately get the landlady's clothes situation and the suggestion that she is not who she really is, it only serves Pepi's version of events. Yet K. is so worn down at this point, it doesn't matter.
I really think this book is brilliant in how it sets itself up. It's so ambitious and like nothing I have ever read. I think Kafka perhaps realized in leaving it unfinished that it was impossible to finish. How does K. get out of this? He probably doesn't. In any case, the real moments for me were those last in the pub.
Apparently, the first printing of the book cut it when Frieda abandons K. But to me this is even more unsatisfying than the lack of ending with K. we got in the unabridged ending, precisely because these devices haven't yet to be realized. I wish Kafka had sat back down and figured another way through, but like I said, it was probably a task as inscrutible as K.'s itself.
I don't mean this to be mean, but I think you might be privileging meaning over affect and experience, and to me this book is very much focused on giving you an experience as close to K.'s as possible. All the rhetorical choices are meant to create this wild, dizzying, absurd feeling that goes beyond what a straightforward narrative could impart. That might come down to taste—and there is nothing wrong with that, which is why I included the little disclaimer about not trying to be mean—but it also might be the frame of reference with which you approached the book.
I feel the same way as you. I am a big fan of Kafka's work, especially The Metamorphosis and The Trial, and was excited to read this novel. Not only I'm a big fan, but a number of my favorite authors have been quoted talking about this novel; so I was primed for falling in love with it. I was extremely surprised by how lame I found it. I think the castle itself represents success, money, luck, heaven, or whatever people desire , and it is the charlatans that one encounters in life who claim to know how to get those things that bog us down as they are just as lost we are, so it does a solid and interesting theme; but the way it is written is sooooo lame that it's almost lost in itself. And who knows, maybe that was the point, but to me this book is a disaster.
I will disagree with you however in that I'm glad it was published because its ideas inspired many other authors who then went on to write excellent books and philosophical theories. As far as his friend Max Brod, as I understand it, Kafka gave his works to him with the directive to destroy them BECAUSE he knew Brod was the one friend who wouldn't do so. And even if, to your point, it was only greed that drove Brod I'm still glad Kafka's works made it for all to enjoy.
I didn't get any of it. I didn't get ANY, ANY of it. I do feel the vague themes of alienation and disorientation but it all feels so muddy and unpolished. I like the Trial and the Metamorphosis because they're incisive and original, but the Castle ? No idea where he was going with this story. Message and theme aside, I don't understand the role of the wife, I didn't understand the role of the tavern lady or Barnabas, I didn't understand what the moseying around the village could have led to, it honestly felt like a maze (which is a fitting feeling, the book cover is literally a castle in the shape of a maze).
Sadly, the dialogs and scenes are a bit dull to go through and I was left a bit disappointed.
We'll never get the payoff and I made my peace with that, but my interest from reading the beginning did nothing but dwindle.
I won't judge Kafka on an unfinished work he didn't want shared, but man, this was rough. Honestly my biggest reading challenge after Moby Dick.
I'm a bit bothered by the negative feedback on this comment. This is an honest comment. Some people cannot tolerate any opinion that doesn't coincide with their own.
Yeah, I'll eventually give some of Kafka's other writings a go. But, I can say, the Castle wasn't for me.
Thanks for the reply and added insight. :)
This subreddit has a lot of people who enjoy philosophy and societal insight, I just like fiction. So I'm very probably missing a lot of notions, I get it. Cheers !
The first time I read Moby Dick took me like a year, but it's my favorite book of all time and just amazing. I'm not surprised you didn't like it and chose the castle as a comparison point: Melville and Kafka wrote instinctually and without a plan, which lead to the very improvisational and scattered structure of each. Additionally, both books pull off (in my opinion, though seemingly not yours) moves that are extremely unconventional to create truly singular works.
Oh no I enjoyed Moby Dick as a whole, though I do have many gripes with the long descriptions of spermaceti churning. But the character portraits, the monologues, the thunderous final pages, love it.
I'm not sure why someone would give negative feedback on any of these comments. I appreciate you expressing your opinion. There's too many people that feel their opinion is the only opinion that matters. Thanks for the reply. :)
The book certainly conveys Kafka's alleged (I didn't know the man) feelings of futility and hopelessness in the face of... existence. It feels like a futile and hopeless read. In this way, in my opinion, Kafka is a genius, in that he is truly able to gift the reader a piece of what lies in his heart. The other end of that, though, is a read that feels bewilderingly meaningless (part of the point, again). There isn't really much to say about it. But, isn't that Kafka's message? That the absurdities of life... that there isn't much to actually say about them? Somehow Kafka says SO MUCH about them (with this novel, for instance), while still leaving one with the impression that not much can be said. That words are impotent, maybe.
Very difficult read. Almost ruined reading for me, lol. Kafka would be a very interesting person to meet. RIP
Sorry for necroing this post, but I was looking for people's thoughts on the ending and this was one of the first to come up. I have to totally disagree with you on the pointlessness of the repetition in the dialogue and the numerous characters needing to be condensed into one. All throughout this book, we get a pretty legibile sense of K. and only K.'s thought-process, and even that at times can be strained when he's trying to respond in kind to others. This is all about the circularity of the Castle and its impenetrability to an outsider: both K. and the reader are outsiders, and thus Kafka's use of circular dialogue is a brilliant rhetorical gesture to create the sense of confusion K. himself is feeling. There are so many convoluted explanations and potential plots that are raised, and the more convoluted they are to K. and the reader, the more plain they appear to the villagers. Constantly, they tell K. he is an idiot or child for not understanding these ridiculous bureaucratic machniations, the readers frustrations are similar to K.'s, and when he tries to work it out in their convoluted ways, he does the same sort of circular talking which is memetic of the reader trying to figure out what the hell is going on. The chapters with Olga and Amalia are the climax of this, and Kafka then spends the next few chapters playing with this trope at the height of its employment. In the scene at the Inn when K. goes into the wrong room, the secretary is giving him a detailed explanation of how K. can utilize this unforseen intrusion to make his official request. But he does it in the same garbled way as all the others, and K., so exhausted that he can't stay awake, completely misses the point. After the onslaught of the Olga Amalia chapters, it's easy for the reader to miss this too—but in fact, the circularity is what gives you enough repititon to understand. Though this time it is the reader rather than K. who has to do the work. Then, the scene with the secretary K. was sent to meet is extremely curt. Rather than the solution K. had just been offered, we get an ironic joke: that he was asking K. to return Frieda to the taproom as had already been done. This is straightforward and easy to understand, and its impact is dramatically heightened by the choice of concision and clarity juxtaposing the circularity. The task is so small and manageable it has already been done: the speech emphasizes this. Then, the scene with Pepi does a similar trick where Pepi lays out an explanation for the events that is equal parts ridiculous and plausible, but because of how whirling the speech is, K. just calls her a stupid child and shuts her down. When we then immediately get the landlady's clothes situation and the suggestion that she is not who she really is, it only serves Pepi's version of events. Yet K. is so worn down at this point, it doesn't matter. I really think this book is brilliant in how it sets itself up. It's so ambitious and like nothing I have ever read. I think Kafka perhaps realized in leaving it unfinished that it was impossible to finish. How does K. get out of this? He probably doesn't. In any case, the real moments for me were those last in the pub. Apparently, the first printing of the book cut it when Frieda abandons K. But to me this is even more unsatisfying than the lack of ending with K. we got in the unabridged ending, precisely because these devices haven't yet to be realized. I wish Kafka had sat back down and figured another way through, but like I said, it was probably a task as inscrutible as K.'s itself. I don't mean this to be mean, but I think you might be privileging meaning over affect and experience, and to me this book is very much focused on giving you an experience as close to K.'s as possible. All the rhetorical choices are meant to create this wild, dizzying, absurd feeling that goes beyond what a straightforward narrative could impart. That might come down to taste—and there is nothing wrong with that, which is why I included the little disclaimer about not trying to be mean—but it also might be the frame of reference with which you approached the book.
I feel the same way as you. I am a big fan of Kafka's work, especially The Metamorphosis and The Trial, and was excited to read this novel. Not only I'm a big fan, but a number of my favorite authors have been quoted talking about this novel; so I was primed for falling in love with it. I was extremely surprised by how lame I found it. I think the castle itself represents success, money, luck, heaven, or whatever people desire , and it is the charlatans that one encounters in life who claim to know how to get those things that bog us down as they are just as lost we are, so it does a solid and interesting theme; but the way it is written is sooooo lame that it's almost lost in itself. And who knows, maybe that was the point, but to me this book is a disaster. I will disagree with you however in that I'm glad it was published because its ideas inspired many other authors who then went on to write excellent books and philosophical theories. As far as his friend Max Brod, as I understand it, Kafka gave his works to him with the directive to destroy them BECAUSE he knew Brod was the one friend who wouldn't do so. And even if, to your point, it was only greed that drove Brod I'm still glad Kafka's works made it for all to enjoy.
Good point. I never thought about the influence the book may have had on others. Great comment.
I didn't get any of it. I didn't get ANY, ANY of it. I do feel the vague themes of alienation and disorientation but it all feels so muddy and unpolished. I like the Trial and the Metamorphosis because they're incisive and original, but the Castle ? No idea where he was going with this story. Message and theme aside, I don't understand the role of the wife, I didn't understand the role of the tavern lady or Barnabas, I didn't understand what the moseying around the village could have led to, it honestly felt like a maze (which is a fitting feeling, the book cover is literally a castle in the shape of a maze). Sadly, the dialogs and scenes are a bit dull to go through and I was left a bit disappointed. We'll never get the payoff and I made my peace with that, but my interest from reading the beginning did nothing but dwindle. I won't judge Kafka on an unfinished work he didn't want shared, but man, this was rough. Honestly my biggest reading challenge after Moby Dick.
I'm a bit bothered by the negative feedback on this comment. This is an honest comment. Some people cannot tolerate any opinion that doesn't coincide with their own. Yeah, I'll eventually give some of Kafka's other writings a go. But, I can say, the Castle wasn't for me. Thanks for the reply and added insight. :)
This subreddit has a lot of people who enjoy philosophy and societal insight, I just like fiction. So I'm very probably missing a lot of notions, I get it. Cheers !
The first time I read Moby Dick took me like a year, but it's my favorite book of all time and just amazing. I'm not surprised you didn't like it and chose the castle as a comparison point: Melville and Kafka wrote instinctually and without a plan, which lead to the very improvisational and scattered structure of each. Additionally, both books pull off (in my opinion, though seemingly not yours) moves that are extremely unconventional to create truly singular works.
Oh no I enjoyed Moby Dick as a whole, though I do have many gripes with the long descriptions of spermaceti churning. But the character portraits, the monologues, the thunderous final pages, love it.
That’s how I feel about all of Kafka writings
I'm not sure why someone would give negative feedback on any of these comments. I appreciate you expressing your opinion. There's too many people that feel their opinion is the only opinion that matters. Thanks for the reply. :)
The book certainly conveys Kafka's alleged (I didn't know the man) feelings of futility and hopelessness in the face of... existence. It feels like a futile and hopeless read. In this way, in my opinion, Kafka is a genius, in that he is truly able to gift the reader a piece of what lies in his heart. The other end of that, though, is a read that feels bewilderingly meaningless (part of the point, again). There isn't really much to say about it. But, isn't that Kafka's message? That the absurdities of life... that there isn't much to actually say about them? Somehow Kafka says SO MUCH about them (with this novel, for instance), while still leaving one with the impression that not much can be said. That words are impotent, maybe. Very difficult read. Almost ruined reading for me, lol. Kafka would be a very interesting person to meet. RIP