wild goose chase through this expansive rat trap of halls and stairs on a search for a random man who is his closest thing to a contact in this confuddlement of system he happens upon the room in which his first “hearing” is suppose to take place. Upon his entrance he is accused of being and hour and a half late and is then assigned a position in front of the magistrate of the court. Behind him is situated an audience of sorts that is split into two parts, one part is uproarious and uncouth, while the other is almost silent and observant. There are no explanations, and only vague suggestions as to what is suppose to take place. Herr. K for in reaction to the utter lack of formality or guidance then begins to articulate his feelings of innocence, abandonment and confusion to the court. The hearing is deftly brought to an end and Herr. K is asked to return again on the next Sunday. On his return he goes to the same room only to find that there is no one there and his hearing is not happening that day.The story goes on from there in the same air of pretense and ingenerated abandonment to eventually lead Herr. K through much tenacity and mystification and eventually his death. I assume that from this brief analysis of Kafka’s the trial you can undoubtedly perceive the true absurdity of the contents of the story (besides I’m sure you’ve read it for yourself and come the same, if not similar conclusions.)Its quite a challenge to derive specific examples of the absurd from a book that is riddled, if not completely composed of the illogical, but by that same cognizance it should be less than easy to do so. I think that the most striking aspect is the formless and indistinct composition of the authoritative system that was responsible for the interrogation and trial of Herr. K. First of all it is quite clear that there is some form of a bureaucratic system and structure, but conversely there are no customary sanctio...
