Where the events of Kafka's castle take place. Franz Kafka "The Castle": book review

You are not from the Castle, you are not from the Village. You are nothing.
Franz Kafka, The Castle

Franz Kafka's unfinished novel The Castle, recognized as one of the main books of the 20th century, remains a mystery to this day. Since its publication in 1926, a variety of interpretations have succeeded each other: from considering the conflict of the novel in a social key (the struggle of the individual against the bureaucratic apparatus that has set the teeth on edge) to psychoanalytic interpretations of the plot, which, according to a number of researchers, reflects Kafka's complex relationship with his father, brides and the surrounding world.

On a separate shelf is the novel by the existentialists, who saw in Kafka the forerunner, who for the first time spoke about the tragedy of being and the existential loneliness of man. To say that one of the interpretations is correct is to reduce the vast novel to a particularity. Thus, the French writer and philosopher Roger Garaudy wrote about Kafka's novels:

At the most, it can hint at a lack, an absence of something, and Kafka's parables, like some of Mallarmé's or Reverdy's poems, are parables of the absence of something.<…>. There is no possession, there is only being, being that requires the last breath, suffocation. His response to the assertion that it may have owned, but did not exist, was only a tremor and a beating of the heart.<…>. Incompleteness is his law.

All this is, in general, understandable. But there is another view of the novel, which considers the complex relationship of the hero K. with the Castle as a projection of the relationship of man with God. It is this interpretation that he considers in his amazing book Lessons in Reading. The Scribe's Kama Sutra » Literary critic, essayist and deep critic Alexander Genis. Why do we suggest reading it? Genis is convinced that the question of God is somehow present in every literary work, even if God himself is not in it. It is through this prism that he looks at Kafka's "Castle", helping us to look at the brilliant novel (and all literature) from a completely different angle. And it's interesting, I must tell you. So go ahead.

But if you can't write about God, you can read it. We can read it into every text and subtract it from any<…>. Such a tactic cannot be hindered even by the absence of God.

So, Franz Kafka, "The Castle" and the problem of God.

Talking about god

While reviewing Mr. Fitzpatrick's Thoughts on God, Chesterton remarked that it would be much more interesting to read God's Thoughts on Fitzpatrick.

It is difficult to argue with this, because there is nothing to write about God. After all, about Him, that one, with a capital letter, in essence, nothing is known: He is on the other side of being. Because God is eternal, He has no biography. Because He is everywhere, He has no home. Since He is one, He has no family (we will keep silent about the Son for now). Since God is obviously larger than our ideas about Him (not to mention experience), everything we know about the divine is human.

But if you can't write about God, you can read it. We can read it into every text and subtract it from any - as Salinger's heroes did:

They sometimes look for the creator in the most inconceivable and inappropriate places. For example, in radio advertising, in newspapers, in a damaged taxi meter. In a word, literally anywhere, but as if always with complete success.

Such a tactic cannot be hindered even by the absence of God. If there is no Him for the author, then we want to know why we will not rest until the book explains to us the gaping in the most interesting place. After all, literature, and indeed a person, has no more exciting occupation than to get out of himself and get to know the unknowable. Even without knowing anything about the otherworldly, we definitely use it. Like an ax under a ship's compass, it changes the route and abolishes maps. It is not surprising that, striving for inaccessible, and perhaps non-existent knowledge, we hope to find in books what we have not coped with in life.

In vain, of course. Everything that is possible has already been told to us, but those who know for sure always inspire doubts. It would seem that the easiest way to read about God is where it is supposed to be, but I have never been able to do it. At the university, I did the worst in scientific atheism, but only because the program did not have the Law of God. God, like sex, avoids a direct word, but each page, including the erotic one (“Song of Songs”), wins if it always speaks of Him in equivocal terms.

How Kafka did it. He created the canon of the agnostic, on which I have been building my doubts since the fifth grade. I remember the day my father returned with the loot, a plump black tome of stories and The Trial. In 1965, getting Kafka was more difficult than getting a ticket abroad. Although we didn't yet know they were the same thing, the aura of mystery and the halo of prohibition was awesome, and I gasped as my father swaggered his signature on page 17, which he explained was meant for a library stamp. Since then, he may not have revealed Kafka, but he certainly did not part with him. This fetish of the old - book - time was inherited to me, and now the volume stands next to the others.

Buying Kafka now is not a trick, the trick is always to figure it out. However, judging by how many books have been written about him, it is not so difficult. Like any parable, Kafka's text is fruitful for interpretation. One thing is said, another is meant. Difficulties begin with the fact that we do not quite understand not only the second, but also the first. As soon as we are convinced of the correctness of our interpretation, the author twists out of it.

Under Soviet rule, it was easier for the reader: “We were born,” as Bakhchanyan said, “to make Kafka come true.” I knew this aphorism long before I became friends with its author. Then everyone thought that Kafka wrote about us. It was the well-known world of a soulless office that demanded to follow the rules known only to it.

On the eve of the death of the USSR, I arrived in Moscow. Two Americans stood in line at the customs officer - a novice and an experienced one. The first one came too close to the window and was yelled at.

“Why,” he asked, “not draw a line on the floor so that you know where you can stand and where you can’t?”

“As long as this feature is in the head of officials,” said the second, “it is in their power to decide who is guilty and who is not.

Kafka put it this way: It is extremely painful when you are governed by laws that you do not know.

What we (and certainly I) did not understand was that Kafka did not consider the situation correctable, or even wrong. He did not rebel against the world, he wanted to understand what he was trying to tell him - life, death, illness, war and love: In the struggle of man with the world, you must be on the side of the world.. At first, in this duel, Kafka assigned himself the role of a second, but then he took the side of the enemy.

Only by accepting his choice are we ready to begin reading a book that tells as much about God as we can bear.

Castle, - Oden said, our Divine Comedy.

K. goes to the Village to be hired by the Duke of Westwest, who lives in the Castle. But, although he was hired, he never managed to start it. Everything else is the intrigues of K., who is trying to get closer to the Castle and ingratiate himself with him. In the process, he gets acquainted with the inhabitants of the Village and the employees of the Castle, to get into which neither the first nor the second helped him.

In the retelling, more noticeable than in the novel, is the absurdity of the enterprise. Describing the vicissitudes extremely accurately and in detail, Kafka omits the main thing - motives. We do not know why K. needs the Castle, nor why does the Castle need K. Their relationship is an initial given that cannot be disputed, so we are left to find out the details: who is K. and what is the Castle?

K. is a surveyor. Like Adam, he does not own the earth; like Faust, he measures it. A scientist and official, K. is above the villagers, their labors, worries and superstitions. K. is educated, intelligent, understanding, selfish, self-centered and pragmatic. He is overwhelmed by a career, people for him are pawns in the game, and K. goes to the goal - albeit unclear - without disdaining deceit, temptation, betrayal. K. is vain, arrogant and suspicious, he is like us, but he never likes himself an intellectual.

Worse, we see the Castle through his eyes and know as much as he knows. And this is clearly not enough. You are appallingly ignorant of our affairs here,- they tell him in the Village, because K. describes the Castle in the only system of concepts available to him. Having adopted Christianity, European pagans could not recognize God as anyone other than a king. Therefore, they even painted Christ in royal robes on the cross. K. is the hero of our time, therefore he depicts the highest power as a bureaucratic apparatus.

No wonder the Castle is disgusting. But if he is hostile to man, why does no one but K. complain? And why does he want it so much? Unlike K., the Village does not ask the Castle questions. She knows what is not given to him, and this knowledge cannot be transferred. You can only come to him yourself. But if there are many roads from the Castle to the Village, then there is not a single one to the Castle: The more closely K. peered into it, the less he saw, and the deeper everything sank into darkness.

The castle is, of course, Heaven. More precisely, like in Dante, the whole zone of the supernatural, otherworldly, metaphysical. Since we can understand the unearthly only by analogy with the human, Kafka supplies the highest power with a hierarchy. Kafka wrote it out with that scrupulous thoroughness that so amused his friends when the author read chapters of the novel to them. Their laughter did not offend Kafka at all.

“His eyes were smiling,” recalled Felix Welch, a close friend of the writer, “humor permeated his speech. He was felt in all his remarks, in all judgments.

We are not accustomed to considering Kafka's books funny, but other readers, such as Thomas Mann, have read them that way. In a certain sense, the "Castle" is truly divine comedy full of satire and self-irony. Kafka laughs at himself, at us, at K., who is able to describe the higher reality only through the lower and familiar.

The service ladder in the "Castle" begins with obedient lay people, among whom the righteous-rescuers from the fire department stand out. Then come the officials' servants, whom we call priests. Dividing life between the Castle and the Village, they behave differently upstairs than downstairs, because the laws of the Castle in the Village no longer apply. Above the servants is an endless succession of angel officials, among whom there are many fallen ones - too often they limp, as befits demons.

The pyramid is crowned by God, but Kafka mentions Him only on the first page of the novel. I don't see the Earl of Westwest again. And, as the most radical - Nietzschean - interpretation of the novel says, it is clear why: God is dead. Therefore, the Castle, as K. first saw it, did not make itself felt by the slightest glimmer of light. That's why flocks of crows circled over the tower. Therefore the Castle none of the visitors like, and the locals live poorly, sadly, in the snow.

The death of God, however, did not stop the activity of his apparatus. The castle is like the city of St. Petersburg in the middle of the Leningrad region: the former government has died, but this news has not yet reached the provinces from the capital. And yes, it's hard to accept. God cannot die. He can turn away, withdraw, be silent, limiting himself, as Enlightenment persuaded Him, to creation, and leave its consequences to the mercy of our difficult fate. We do not know why this happened, but Kafka knows and explains the trouble.

The causes of the disaster are revealed by an inserted, from K.'s point of view, but central to the history of the Village episode with Amalia. She rejected the Castle's claim to her honor and insulted the messenger who brought her the good news. Refusing to be connected with the Castle, Amalia rejected the share of the Virgin Mary, did not accept her martyr's fate, did not submit to the highest plan of the Castle about the Village, and thus stopped the divine history, depriving her of a key event. Amalia's terrible punishment was the silence of the Castle and the revenge of the villagers who were left without grace.

K., preoccupied with his trade with the Castle, cannot appreciate the tragedy of the world, which missed the chance of salvation. But Kafka, acutely sensing the depth of our fall, considered it a retribution for an unsacrifice.

Probably we - he said - suicidal thoughts that are born in the head of God.

Is it possible to learn more about God from Kafka than we knew before we read it?

Certainly! But not because Kafka multiplies theological hypotheses, changes established interpretations, renews the theological language and gives actual names and nicknames to the eternal. The main thing in Kafka is the provocation of truth. He questions her, hoping to wrest as much truth from the world as it can reveal to him.

You stroke the world - he said to the young writer, instead of grabbing it.

The action takes place in Austria-Hungary, before the November Revolution of 1918.

K., a young man in his thirties, arrives in the Village on a late winter evening. He settles for the night in a yard, in a common room among the peasants, noticing that the owner is extremely embarrassed by the arrival of an unfamiliar guest. The son of the castle caretaker, Schwarzer, wakes up K. who has fallen asleep, and politely explains that without the permission of the count - the owner of the Castle and the Village, no one is allowed to live or spend the night here. K. is at first perplexed and does not take this statement seriously, but, seeing that they are going to kick him out in the middle of the night, he explains with irritation that he came here on the call of the count, to work as a land surveyor. Soon his assistants with instruments should drive up. Schwarzer calls the Central Chancellery of the Castle and receives confirmation of the words of K. The young man notes for himself that they work in the Castle, apparently, in good conscience, even at night. He understands that the Castle "approved" for him the title of land surveyor, knows everything about him and expects to keep him in constant fear. K. tells himself that he is clearly underestimated, he will enjoy freedom and fight.

In the morning, K. goes to the Castle, located on the mountain. The road turns out to be long, the main street does not lead, but only approaches the Castle, and then turns off somewhere.

K. returns to the inn, where two "assistants" are waiting for him, young guys he does not know. They call themselves his "old" assistants, although they admit that they do not know land surveying work. It is clear to K. that they are attached to him by the Lock for observation. K. wants to ride with them on a sleigh to the Castle, but the assistants say that without permission from outsiders there is no access to the Castle. Then K. tells the assistants to call the Castle and seek permission. Assistants call and instantly get a negative answer. K. picks up the phone himself and hears strange sounds and buzzing for a long time before a voice answers him. K. mystifies him, speaking not in his own name, but in the name of assistants. As a result, a voice from the Castle calls K. his "old assistant" and gives a categorical answer - K. is forever denied access to the Castle.

At this moment, the messenger Barnabas, a young lad with a bright open face, different from the faces of local peasants with their "as if on purpose distorted physiognomies," sends K. a letter from the Castle. In a letter signed by the head of the office, it is reported that K. has been accepted into the service of the owner of the Castle, and his immediate superior is the headman of the Village. K. decides to work in the Village, away from the officials, hoping to become "his own" among the peasants and thereby achieve at least something from the Castle. Between the lines, he reads in the letter a certain threat, a challenge to fight if K. agrees to the role of a simple worker in the Village. K. understands that everyone around him already knows about his arrival, peep and get accustomed to him.

Through Barnabas and his older sister Olga, K. gets into a hotel intended for gentlemen from the Castle who come to the Village on business. It is forbidden for outsiders to spend the night in the hotel, the place for K is only in the buffet. This time, an important official Klamm is staying here for the night, whose name is known to all the inhabitants of the Village, although few can boast that they saw him with their own eyes,

Barmaid Frida, serving beer to gentlemen and peasants, is an important person in the hotel. This is a nondescript girl with sad eyes and a "pathetic little body." K. is struck by her look, full of special superiority, capable of solving many complex issues. Her look convinces K. that such questions concerning him personally exist.

Frida invites K. to look at Klamm, who is in the room adjacent to the buffet, through a secret peephole. K. sees a fat, clumsy gentleman with cheeks sagging under the weight of years. Frida is the mistress of this influential official, and therefore she herself has great influence in the Village. She made her way straight from the cowgirls to the position of barmaid, and K. expresses admiration for her willpower. He invites Frida to leave Klamm and become his mistress. Frida agrees, and K. spends the night under the buffet in her arms. When in the morning the “imperiously indifferent” call of Klamm is heard from behind the wall, Frida twice defiantly answers him that she is busy with the surveyor.

K. spends the next night with Frieda in a little room at the inn, almost in the same bed with assistants, whom he cannot get rid of. Now K. wants to marry Frida as soon as possible, but first, through her, he intends to talk with Klamm. Frida, and then the landlady of the inn Garden, convince him that this is impossible, that Klamm will not, cannot even talk to K., because Mr. Klamm is a man from the Castle, and K. is not from the Castle and not from the Village, he is - " nothing, alien and superfluous. The hostess regrets that Frida "left the eagle" and "got in touch with the blind mole."

Gardena admits to K. that more than twenty years ago, Klamm called her to him three times, the fourth time did not follow. She keeps as the most expensive relics a bonnet and a handkerchief given to her by Klamm, and a photograph of the courier through whom she was summoned for the first time. Gardena married with the knowledge of Klamm and for many years at night spoke with her husband only about Klamm. K. has never seen such an interweaving of official and personal life as here.

From the headman K. learns that the order to prepare for the arrival of the surveyor was received by him many years ago. The headman immediately sent an answer to the office of the Castle that no one needs a land surveyor in the Village. Apparently, this answer got to the wrong department, an error occurred, which could not be recognized, because the possibility of errors in the office is completely excluded. However, the control authorities later recognized the error, and one official fell ill. Shortly before K.'s arrival, the story finally came to a happy end, that is, to the abandonment of the surveyor. The unexpected appearance of K. now nullifies all the years of work. The correspondence of the Castle is stored in the house of the headman and in the barns. The headman's wife and K.'s assistants shake out all the folders from the cabinets, but they still fail to find the necessary order, just as they fail to put the folders back in their place.

Under pressure from Frida, K. accepts the mayor's offer to take the place of the school watchman, although he learns from the teacher that the village needs the watchman no more than the surveyor. K. and his future wife have nowhere to live, Frida tries to create a semblance of family comfort in one of the school classes.

K. comes to the hotel to find Klamm there. In the canteen, he meets Frida's successor, the blooming maiden Pepi, and finds out from her where Klamm is. K. waits for the official for a long time in the yard in the cold, but Klamm still slips away. His secretary requires K. to go through the “interrogation” procedure, to answer a series of questions in order to draw up a protocol, filed in the office. Upon learning that Klamm himself does not read the protocols due to lack of time, K. runs away.

On the way, he meets Barnabas with a letter from Klamm, in which he approves of the land surveying carried out by K. with his knowledge, K. considers this a misunderstanding, which Barnabas should explain to Klamm. But Barnabas is sure that Klamm will not even listen to him.

K. with Frida and assistants are sleeping in the gymnasium of the school. In the morning, their teacher Giza finds them in bed and makes a scandal, throwing the remnants of dinner from the table with a ruler in front of the happy children. Giza has an admirer from the Castle - Schwarzer, but she loves only cats, and she tolerates an admirer.

K. notices that in the four days of living together with his fiancee, a strange change takes place. Her closeness to Klamm gave her "mad charm", and now she "fades" in his hands. Frieda suffers, seeing that K. only dreams of meeting Klamm. She admits that K. will easily give her to Klamm if he demands it. In addition, she is jealous of him for Olga, Barnabas' sister.

Olga, a smart and selfless girl, tells K. the sad story of their family. Three years ago, at one of the village holidays, official Sortini could not take his eyes off his younger sister, Amalia. In the morning, a courier delivered a letter to Amalia, written in "vile terms", demanding to come to the hotel to Sortini. The indignant girl tore up the letter and threw the pieces in the face of the messenger, the official. She did not go to the official, and not a single official was pushed away in the Village. By committing such misdeeds, Amalia brought a curse on her family, from which all the inhabitants recoiled. Father, the best shoemaker in the Village, was left without orders, lost his earnings. He ran after the officials for a long time, waiting for them at the gates of the Castle, begging for forgiveness, but no one wanted to listen to him. It was unnecessary to punish the family, the atmosphere of alienation around her did its job. Father and mother with grief turned into helpless invalids.

Olga understood that people were afraid of the Castle, they were waiting. If the family hushed up the whole story, went out to the villagers and announced that everything was settled thanks to their connections, the Village would accept it. And all family members suffered and sat at home, as a result they were excluded from all circles of society. They tolerate only Barnabas, as the most "innocent". For the family, the main thing is that he be officially registered in the service in the Castle, but even this cannot be known for sure. Perhaps the decision on it has not yet been made, in the Village there is a saying: "Administrative decisions are timid, like young girls." Barnabas has access to the offices, but they are part of other offices, then there are barriers, and behind them again offices. There are barriers all around, as well as officials. Barnabas does not dare to open his mouth, standing in the offices. He no longer believes that he was truly accepted into the service of the Castle, and does not show zeal in transmitting letters from the Castle, doing it late. Olga is aware of the dependence of the family on the Castle, on the service of Barnabas, and in order to get at least some information, she sleeps with the servants of the officials in the stable.

Exhausted by insecurity in K., tired of an unsettled life, Frida decides to return to the buffet. She takes with her Jeremiah, one of K.'s assistants, whom she has known since childhood, hoping to create a family hearth with him.

Secretary Klamm Erlanger wants to receive K. at night in his hotel room. People are already waiting in the corridor, including the groom Gerstecker, whom K. knows. Everyone is happy about the night call, they are aware that Erlanger sacrifices his night's sleep of his own free will, out of a sense of duty, because there is no time for trips to the Village in his official schedule.

The action takes place in Austria-Hungary, before the November Revolution of 1918.

K., a young man in his thirties, arrives in the Village on a late winter evening. He settles for the night at an inn, in a common room among the peasants, noticing that the owner is extremely embarrassed by the arrival of an unfamiliar guest. The son of the castle caretaker, Schwarzer, wakes up K. who has fallen asleep, and politely explains that without the permission of the count - the owner of the Castle and the Village, no one is allowed to live or spend the night here. K. at first is perplexed and does not take this statement seriously, but, seeing that they are going to kick him out in the middle of the night, he explains with irritation that he came here on the call of the count, to work as a land surveyor. Soon his assistants with instruments should drive up. Schwarzer calls the Central Chancellery of the Castle and receives confirmation of the words of K. The young man notes for himself that they work in the Castle, apparently, in good conscience, even at night. He understands that the Castle "approved" for him the title of land surveyor, knows everything about him and expects to keep him in constant fear. K. tells himself that he is clearly underestimated, he will enjoy freedom and fight.

In the morning, K. goes to the Castle, located on the mountain. The road turns out to be long, the main street does not lead, but only approaches the Castle, and then turns off somewhere.

At this moment, the messenger Barnabas, a young boy with a bright open face, different from the faces of local peasants with their "as if deliberately distorted physiognomies," gives K. a letter from the Castle. In a letter signed by the head of the office, it is reported that K. has been accepted into the service of the owner of the Castle, and his immediate superior is the headman of the Village. K. decides to work in the Village, away from the officials, hoping to become "his own" among the peasants and thereby achieve at least something from the Castle. Between the lines, he reads in the letter a certain threat, a challenge to fight if K. agrees to the role of a simple worker in the Village. K. understands that everyone around him already knows about his arrival, peep and get accustomed to him.

The next night, K. spends with Frida in a room in the inn, almost in the same bed with assistants, whom he cannot get rid of. Now K. wants to marry Frida as soon as possible, but first, through her, he intends to talk with Klamm. Frida, and then the landlady of the inn Garden, convince him that this is impossible, that Klamm will not, cannot even talk to K., because Mr. Klamm is a man from the Castle, and K. is not from the Castle and not from the Village, he is - " nothing, alien and superfluous. The hostess regrets that Frida "left the eagle" and "got in touch with the blind mole."

In the corridor, K. accidentally runs into Frida and tries to win her over again, not wanting to give her to the "unappetizing" Jeremiah. But Frida reproaches him for treason with the girls from the “dishonored family” and for indifference and runs away to the sick Jeremiah.

After meeting with Frieda, K cannot find Erlanger's room and goes to the nearest one, hoping to take a short nap. There, another official, Burgel, is dozing, who is glad to have a listener. Invited by him to sit down, K. collapses on his bed and falls asleep under the official's reasoning about the "continuity of official procedure." Soon he is demanded by Erlanger. Standing at the door and getting ready to leave, the secretary says that Klamm, who is used to getting beer from Frida's hands, is hindered by the appearance of a new maid, Pepi, in his responsible work. This is a violation of habit, and the slightest interference in work should be eliminated. K. must ensure the immediate return of Frida to the buffet. If he justifies the trust in this "little business", it may be useful to his career.

Realizing the complete futility of all his efforts, K. stands in the corridor and watches the revival, which began at five o'clock in the morning. The noisy voices of officials outside the doors remind him of "waking up in the poultry house." The servants deliver a cart with documents and, according to the list, distribute them to the officials in their rooms. If the door does not open, the documents are stacked on the floor. Some officials "fend off" documents, while others, on the contrary, "pretend", snatch, get nervous.

The owner of the hotel drives K., who has no right to roam here, "like cattle on a grazing." He explains that the purpose of the night calls is to quickly listen to the visitor, whose appearance during the day is unbearable to gentlemen officials. Hearing that K. visited two secretaries from the Castle, the owner allows him to spend the night in the beer hall.

The red-cheeked Pepi, who replaced Frida, laments that her happiness was so short. Klamm did not appear, and yet she would have been ready to carry him to the buffet in her arms.

K. thanks the hostess for the night. She strikes up a conversation with him about her dresses, remembering his casual remark that offended her. K. shows a certain interest in the appearance of the hostess, in her outfits, reveals a taste and knowledge of fashion. Haughtily, but interested, the hostess admits that he can become an indispensable adviser for her. Let him wait for her call when new outfits arrive.

Groom Gerstaker offers K. a job at the stable. K. guesses that Gerstacker hopes to get something from Erlanger with his help. Gerstaker does not deny this and takes K. to his house for the night. Gerstacker's mother, who is reading a book by candlelight, gives K. a trembling hand and sits her next to her.

retold

Completely pointless book. I do not understand many of the oohs-ahs - the rest of the readers. Yes, it seems that you are not reading a book, but seeing someone else's dream, but the author's ridicule of the entire bureaucratic system of power is understandable, and stunted humor slips in places. But, forgive me of course, the book is deadly boring, even taking into account the above listed advantages. A flimsy plot, cumbersome dialogues - by the end of which, you forget the beginning, and the final chord of the action ... Oops, but he's gone! The manuscript is poorly finished. Of course, fans of this writer, in unison, let's yell that it is not necessary here. Perhaps it's for the best, otherwise the book stretched on for God knows how long, and the number of people who read it - NOT fans of Kafka, would be reduced by half.

Rating: 1

In short, this is a different book.

Starting to read, you need to understand that everything written there happens as if in a foggy dream, and the further you go, the more the text sinks into a deep failure of semi-delusion. Maybe the near death and illness of the author, the medications taken, who knows, had an effect. The style is sustained and sustained to the last line. No need to look for reality, no need to take it literally, no need to delve into the dialogues, everything that is there is embedded in the interline (which is typical of Kafka's style). The castle draws in like a swamp drowning in a quagmire, it seems that you are trying to get out, but you understand that it is useless. And most importantly, after reading, it pulls back to this enveloping and clouding state of the brain.

The fact that there is no end ... so after all, dreams tend to be interrupted unexpectedly. When did you see your dream to its logical end!? So with this, everything is even correct, it was not necessary in a different way.

You can try for a long time to understand what the author meant, how many autobiographical plots are included in the text, how many veiled thoughts about religion are here ... all this has a place to be. The author certainly felt his approach to the gates of heaven, hence his thinking "out loud".

So I consider the most reliable comparison of the Castle with the inaccessible paradise promised for earthly suffering. Officials with angels and demons, ghostly invisible intermediaries between this and this worlds. Villagers with God-fearing people blind to reality. They live their lives, playing their roles dutifully, because it’s necessary, it doesn’t even occur to anyone to think, but who actually needs it.

The castle, this is something that everyone aspires to know nothing about it for sure, like here he is, hold out his hand, but if there is something inside or is it just a wall erected by the people themselves, shrouded in myths and intimidating tales, entwined with mystery and a forgotten history and how and with whom it all began, but in fact there is nothing inside. Is there a Count (God) whom no one has ever seen, no one has told him what he does and what he does. Does the Count exist with his heavenly office at all. Everyone considers the Count and the Castle to be great and holy a priori, just like that, because otherwise it is a sin and thinking otherwise you will be punished, but no one knows how. The gray mass of the intimidated, narrow-minded village people does not understand the attempts of K. (Kafka) to find out the meaning of the established rules, to talk with officials, to get into the Castle alive, to see the office and get to the bottom of the meaning. Maybe because it doesn't exist...

Pysy. If you liked the book, be sure to watch "Giorgino" with Mylene Farmer, an excellent film, although not based on a book, it was inspired a lot and there is a similarity in sensations.

Score: 10

No other book in my life has ever made me feel like this. Depression after the "Castle" lasted 3 months.

I saw in this work the bureaucratization not so much of society as of the world order in general. You will get everything you wanted, but when you no longer need it. And the Forces that govern this world cannot be reached. Because they are too far from a person, and a person, an insect, is indifferent to them. Maybe he was in that state then, I don't remember. But that's exactly what I felt. Complete hopelessness, hopeless darkness, resistance is useless.

I love Kafka madly, but I don't want to re-read it. Once was enough.

I discovered a work similar in spirit and structure - "Invitation to the Execution" by Nabokov. Also deep feelings wrapped in surrealism. The bottom line: just achieved something, and it is taken away from you, everything develops from bad to worse, and nothing good shines for you.

Score: 10

The castle is an image of an impregnable, exalted stronghold above the rest of the world. For those who live in the lands adjacent to the castle, this fog-covered fortress is the center of the universe, a place where people who are powerful by definition, regardless of their position in it, live. Of course, the difference between a high official and an assistant castellan is obvious, and yet each of them is powerful only because he has the right to be in the territory forbidden to mere mortals. To a stranger from foreign lands, this state of affairs seems incomprehensible and absurd, but a stranger for and for the villagers is no one, and for the office of the castle - in general, a mistake. Kafka exaggerates the image of the castle, allowing the reader to plunge into an alien world, unlike the real one, but nevertheless being its reflection. Village - office - castle. It seems that quite a bit, but at the same time, a metaphorical image of the relationship between the people and the authorities is born. Bringing reality to the absurd in order to show the wrong side - this is Kafka's method, which works more than perfectly.

First of all, the reader will be struck by the original style. Kafka is a writer who develops a topic through dialogues, lengthy discussions and arguments. From this, the book may seem boring to people who are used to reading about the actions of the characters, because there are almost none here, and if there are, then this is just an excuse to start a pretty dialogue of about ten or twenty pages. Moreover, Kafka often repeats and writes about the same thing in several formulations, which sometimes pleases, but sometimes annoys, but invariably makes you remember what exactly was discussed and not forget about the problems that worry the characters for a long time. All together it turns into a kind of poetry, where one thought follows another, alternating and turning into something new.

Heroes of Kafka are definitely successful. They have something to say, and this "say" takes up the lion's share of the novel. And in each dialogue, K., the main character, struggles with the established system. The book takes place in verbal duels, revealing new details and explaining oddities. Kafka is not as absurd as it seems at first glance, maybe he builds an unusual world for us, but nevertheless, all relationships, whether it's Frida's windy love, or Barnabas' dog devotion, or an unacceptable attitude from the villagers, or simplicity and stupidity assistants, all this will receive logical explanations and will not remain just an assumption. Special mention also deserves Klamm, the man who was discussed throughout the story, who was the subject of every dispute, and whom no one ever saw, except for one silhouette in the keyhole, and even then it is not certain that it was him. .

The struggle leads the hero into a vicious circle, one success is replaced by disappointment, and the next attempt may not be an attempt at all. It is useless to talk about the plot, you can only enjoy it and follow these endless attempts and dialogues, the eternal struggle for a place in the sun and the choice of method, everyone has to build on their own, weave a complex intrigue, gathering attention around themselves, go through the gap without retreating a single step. step or just sit and wait for someone to pay attention to you. Until the end. Unfortunately the ending is tragic, but it's not about the heroes. Kafka died of tuberculosis in 1924, without finishing any of his three novels, and let him guess the outcome of the struggle of the protagonist of The Castle, let the climax pass, and the writer told Max Brod about further events, after all, no one will say better the poet himself!

Bottom line: a work for an amateur, if you are not scared off by dialogues from monologues for several pages and some lengthiness, then reading will turn into a pleasure that is hard to refuse.

Score: 9

The Castle is a novel by Franz Kafka, which tells about a hero named K., who, for unspecified reasons, wants to enter a castle on a mountain, near a village, with settlers who are very unusual in terms of behavior and views.

It should be noted right away that it is not known how the novel will end, since Kafka cut him off in mid-sentence, but, focusing on the other works of the writer, it can be assumed that K. would never have reached the castle. It would be entirely in the spirit of the author to bring disappointment or death to the protagonist, although, in fairness, it should be noted that the hero here is a very bright personality, with a strong character and an ironically haughty look at others, which distinguishes him from other characters in other works of the great prazhets. And although this is not the strongest argument, but still such exclusivity, perhaps, could serve as a pretext for a non-standard ending. And who knows if this discrepancy was the reason for the brokenness of the novel - what if, with its originality, it simply did not fit into the formula typical for the rest of the work.

To give an idea of what happens in the novel, a few words about the plot. The protagonist wanders around the village, trying to find a reason to look into the settlement towering on the mountain, called the rest of the "castle". Some semi-legendary people live in this attractive place for K.. On the one hand, this is just a government, on the other, something more, overgrown with rumors, fueled by human reverence. This topic is well outlined, although it is not central, as, for example, in the “Autumn of the Patriarch” by G.G. Marquez. People of a primitive warehouse, of course, see in the "Castle" only a bunch of "power - society", but Kafka almost always has a deeper one, and here it is not about metaphorizing objective phenomena, but about expressing the author's vision of reality. In other words, from the point of view of the layman, the characters of the work do not have names. The government of the village here is not a religion, not a state, not rulers and not officials. And at the same time, they are a conglomeration of all this - plus something more, intangible for those who are blind to the author's worldview.

What does the author illustrate, and what happens in the novel? K. goes into houses, communicates with people, establishes contacts and finds out details about those who live on the top of the mountain. Here the author reflects various spheres of society, ridiculing both bureaucracy and groveling before the authorities, and much more. But much more interesting for the reader are the settlers themselves, whose reactions, actions and words are so unlike the usual for the normal course of events. In The Castle, everything is so unusually exaggerated and hyperbolized that it turns out not just a semblance of a dream or delirium, but a whole independent world with other laws, but laws that are not spontaneous, but flow according to their own cause-and-effect mechanisms. And here is the unique charm of this novel. Getting involved in the life of this extraordinary society, the reader spends time with interest, which distinguishes this work from the same monotonous "Process".

The plot has amazing twists and turns. They are unpredictable, and their absurdity is explained in terms of logic over time. It turns out everything is very thought out, worked out and interconnected. The novel now and then turns inside out, swapping black and white, completely destroying any attempts to predict the development of events and the motives of the characters. This reflects Kafka's amazing manner of seeing in the ordinary - exceptional, and not just one thing, but an unexpected layering. Metaphorically, it can be represented as follows: a chest with a treasure is suddenly found under a pile of garbage, but all the gold turns out to be fake, however, as it soon turns out, the chest itself is of particular value, but it will not be possible to sell it, because ... etc. etc., the novel again and again will wrap up seemingly exhausted situations with new facets, striving with their diversity to some kind of almost perfectly spherical form.

Not to mention the dialogues. This is a separate advantage of the "Castle". Despite their verbosity, the replicas of the characters sound charmingly convincing and realistic.

In this regard, one can only regret that this novel remained unfinished, because the manner and style of expression found in it is a really advantageous way for Kafka to create large works.

Score: 9

The absurdity in the "Castle" rests, for the most part, on the attitude of people and on their understanding, in fact, of the Castle and the officials who live in it. The first pages are presented to us as something completely unnatural, but as you read, you become imbued with the worldview of the villagers, and everything becomes almost logical. But not to such an extent as to say: yes, this could well happen. But in the world - it is improbable. What about in the human soul?

Kafka is certainly one of the elephants on which the multi-layered planet of modernism rests. But, as for me, he is more accessible than, for example, Joyce, more interesting, specific and, as far as this fashionable word fits this review, atmospheric. His work is like some kind of exotic - extremely rare, but, although a little alien, nevertheless, intriguing and, somewhere in the depths - even close. And in modernism it is the only way - the alien may well turn out to be close. No one will ever get an unambiguous understanding.

K.'s actions, his adventures, events can be perceived from different points of view. He has an interesting character, although we often expect completely different behavior from him. And, more importantly, we can observe a subtle psychological game - within the world created by Kafka, its own psychology also operates, on the basis of which the familiar one, ours, is perceived. But psychology is a superficial element!

Actually, the novel (unfortunately, not finished) made a tremendous impression on me. There are many smart words about him, but is it worth it? I don’t know - as for me, Kafka is only worth reading, and if you analyze it, then not directly, with your mind, but somehow subconsciously, first of all, just enjoying reading.

Score: 9

An amazing novel - a kaleidoscope of horror, absurdity, comedy (black comedy), satire. The novel is both difficult and easy, at the same time, in its reading. The novel is difficult with curls of its absurdity, weaves of intrigue and nuances, little riddles and dead-end exits from them. But at the same time, it is easy, because all situations are familiar to an ordinary citizen of any country who is faced with a clear and direct contact with the bureaucratic apparatus of the state.

The novel is civil, and reflects all the irony of the everyday affairs of a citizen, toiling in the ups and downs and labyrinths of corridors and offices. Smile and sadness, grief and annoyance - makes the reader experience all the "opportunities" of the hero's misadventures. So in the end, the novel is amazing, and it needs to be read in order to understand and see the whole world with clear eyes, and not through the prism of rose-colored glasses.

Score: 10

Have you been abandoned in an unfamiliar corner of the earth without repaying the promise? Did the bureaucratic system eat you up, did it bite your bones, did the fibers of your meat remain on its teeth - when there was nothing left for you but the hope of protection? Kafka described too accurately what will happen to a little man when the system designed to protect him suddenly does not even deserve a glance. The moment when she doesn't look back at him is when she's blank. Endless bureaus, piles of papers, apathy - not carelessness - in relation to human life; the influence of this cold, arrogant apparatus on the life of society, views, ambitions - all this can be faced by any person now, not only K., who was not the first to try this path, and he will not be the last to fall.

Yes, K. is the only being that the reader will have to believe, because only those who arrive from the outside can see where the imperfect mechanism, due to its flaws, holes, entails human delusion, and then faith in the inviolability of power, obedience to its silence.

Kafka knew where to cut. He knew that with the years of his assertion, his reflection of the relationship between man and power would arise in life, that he pointed to this - perhaps an intermediate, but - result. He probably saw it already then - working in insurance companies, as a small employee with a doctorate in law. He felt the approach of the outcome, when the government, its system will become higher than the human dignity that it is designed to protect.

"Castle" - this is a novel that is difficult to relate to in any way. It is hard to read, and at times it seems that you never bother him, that there is no rational grain in the actions, and you follow the text, it is difficult to wander further and further into the water, moving away from the shore - it is harder to walk, the stronghold is not visible in front, but you already feel the cold, which is not so easy to get rid of, it will remain with you, even if you leave everything halfway. Put the book aside - and you still feel it, the intentness and absurdity do not disappear, these images dance around you, they still hate you because you are different, everyone is surprised at your stupidity, absurdity.

And I must say that you will have to look for answers without resorting to the author's explanations. If you want to get them immediately after reading the last pages - better leave it. To the general surrealism, one must certainly add the fact that the novel is not finished, most likely by a whole third. "Castle" was supposed to be a large-scale canvas. It is enough to look at how much storylines remained behind the scenes, how many unrealized opportunities the phrase "This is where the manuscript ends" left. Kafka should not be blamed for this, he does not scold you, he does not try to confuse you, he did not ask you to burn the manuscript out of a good life. Do not be deceived, Franz only knew that he simply would not have time to complete his oppressive picture of a man against the backdrop of an overwhelming mechanism of power.

Score: 10

I continue my dosed acquaintance with the work of Kafka. I had previously read "The Trial" - and it seemed quite burdensome, completely uninteresting. With the "Castle" things were better for me.

For all the severity of the story, through multi-page monologues and long chapters in a couple of paragraphs of which you just had to wade through, it was addictive and did not want to let go. There is something attractive about all this. But what? Trying to judge sensibly, I understand that there are no original ideas, no intriguing plot, no bright characters in the usual sense in this novel. It attracts the absurdity of what is happening, the grotesque, sometimes the reader's misunderstanding of what is happening at all. And the atmosphere of some kind of insecurity, depression, tightness. It's like the walls are pressing on you.

I don’t want to talk about how skillfully the author showed the bureaucratic system in its extreme manifestation. And before comprehending something more, I, probably, have not grown up and can only speculate. Therefore, for me, Kafka's work is attractive primarily on a subconscious level.

Score: 7

I finished reading Kafka's "Castle" to the words "This is where the manuscript ends." Unexpected setup. But now I can rightly use the phrase "Kafkaesque motives" to denote the highest degree of bureaucratization of society. Claims to the text, in addition to the fact that the novel is not finished and even all the main plots are not indicated, are the following:

It is not clear why K. was so eager to enter the castle. Frida told him “Let's leave here and live a normal life somewhere else” - but no, the stubborn K. continues to peck at closed doors and look for ways to communicate with officials. Rave. Thus, the main motive of GG is not clear.

It is difficult to read, not even because of the turbidity, but because of the rare division of the monolith into paragraphs. But in general, of course, if you live in a low blue house, squeezed between others of the same (only of different colors) on the Golden Lane in Prague, something else will happen to you - in general, the tightness of life inevitably spilled over into the tightness of the text.

In general, the theme of the little man in the fight against bureaucrats immediately reminded me of the school curriculum in literature and our classics. There was no desire to read.

Score: 6

Another, reverse, facet of the same nightmare that was in Alice in Wonderland. A normal person who has fallen into a world in which the laws of physics, logic and society do not apply. Only if there the space around the heroine changed unpredictably, then here it predictably does not change. A straight path that turns into a vicious circle; you scream, but no sound is heard; you run, but you cannot move; to any logical thought, they sympathetically pat you on the head and say that you are a little fool and do not understand anything.

And I cannot, do not want and have no right to talk about deep philosophical implications. Because the form itself - a nightmare - frightened me so much that I was the least likely to think about interpretation. The only desire was to wake up sooner.

Score: 3

Difficult to read and understand. By and large, this is something like a hologram; whether there is any meaning in the novel, whether there is none - it all depends on what angle to consider. In my opinion, the novel shows, albeit slightly painful, ugly, but because of this even more truthful relationship “man-power”. Moreover, this power is so stupid (both in the literal sense and in its construction) that you are amazed. At the same time, she is omnipotent. The castle is that power - you can’t get into it, you can’t become part of it, and therefore everyone who belongs to it, even formally, acquires seemingly inhuman properties and some kind of Volond power over the minds. People from the village literally worship people from the Castle and any of their even unspoken desires is a pretext for them to act. And this connection takes on the most perverse forms and consequences (as Frida from an old, ugly maid turns into a beauty in the eyes of the hero, since Klamm slept with her). And those who dared to resist (like Amalia of Barnabas) do not even have pity for those. And the authorities are so divided with ordinary people that even the sight of ordinary people is unbearable even for some castle secretary. In the Castle itself, a hellish bureaucratic mess is going on, from which a normal person will go crazy. And in this paperwork, destinies are decided (like the case of a land surveyor - a small piece of paper, perhaps the one that was torn by the bellboys in the hotel to finish work early) and the servants of the masters become the main ones, in fact, solving all matters as they please. Complete bureaucratic chaos. And the struggle of the protagonist... What is he fighting for? Want to change something? No, all his struggle is in order to get into the castle himself, thereby gaining power over ordinary people. And all this taken together is overflowing with delirium, painful and impossible, but the worst thing is that all this actually exists - here, now - exists and will exist, probably forever. And those who do not believe - damn it! Turn on the TV and watch carefully!

Reading a novel is not so much difficult as boring. But here I am aware that this may be due to the fact that I read the novel after watching the film of the same name, and I knew and remembered all the plot moves. And so there is some kind of intrigue (who is this K? It’s not a land surveyor for sure), but because of the huge paragraphs and frequent repetitions, it would seem that one and the same thought cannot be restrained from yawning. In general, because of this, I don’t know, but the whole novel resembles some kind of half-dream. Perhaps this is the author's idea, and everything is specially shown in such a half-sleep state, as if the dormant brain analyzes everything seen and gives out the truth in the form of a grotesque dream. The last few chapters become completely unbearable to read, everything is too long (a conversation with Burgel and a conversation with Pepi). And the romance ends...

Would I read a sequel if it existed and was a separate book? At the end, there is a hint that K’s case was close to a successful conclusion, since he still had, albeit senseless, but a conversation with two secretaries and, therefore, acquired some power over the villagers (this is evident because both Pepi and the innkeeper and Gerstaker immediately needed him ). But ... Hand on heart - I would not. With me and what is enough. In this case, I give a rating of "7" only for this demonstration of the senselessness of the existing and existing government.

, January 17, 2013

My daughter introduced me to an interesting analysis of Kafka's work by a Jewish literary critic. I myself have never considered Kafka's writings in this aspect. “Trial” is an allusion to the Last Judgment, “America” is our life in the real world, “Castle” is the wanderings of our souls in the world after death, “In a penal colony” is one of the circles of Hell, a traveler jumps into a boat to sail away from him along some Dante's river. It is very typical for Jewish criticism in general to correlate well-known stories with parables and Old Testament traditions. (In an Israeli literary magazine, I read that the story of Robinson is a paraphrase of the legend about Jonah in the belly of a whale. 1 - Robinson violated the taboo, disobeyed his father, for which he was punished by isolation on the island, 2 - having been in the belly of a whale, Jonah returned to Robinson left the island and ended up in his homeland. My mother noted that he sailed with the aim of engaging in the slave trade, and was punished precisely for this.) Be that as it may, for any plot, Jewish criticism offers a midrash - an interpretation that allows one to deduce from the text halakha, the law that corresponds to the spirit of the Old Testament. Thomas Mann wrote about the metaphysical search for God, allegorically represented in Kafka's work, but it seems to me that it is rather problematic to link Franz's work with the Jewish religious tradition. It is known that the service and education of the writer were secular, he wrote in German, spoke Czech, and practically did not know the language of his people. He became interested in traditional Jewish culture shortly before his death. Man is a set of complexes, Kafka is interesting in that he realizes these complexes and voices them. Therefore, I am impressed by the analysis of his works, which is close to psychoanalysis, and not to the search for echoes of Talmudic images and plots in the literature of the 20th century.

Rating: no

I read it three times.

The first time - in high school, in ancient Soviet times. It was fashionable then to read such books, it was prestigious. At that time, I didn’t understand anything, there was a slight regret about “... either everyone is lying about the book, or I’m stupid, however ...”. But - in hindsight already, on mature reflection - I can say for sure: reading such books (and Kafka in general) when the soul doesn’t ask for anything special and doesn’t expect anything special is pointless and stupid, it’s a pure waste of time.

The second time - at the end of the last century, at the suggestion of one of the then political loudmouths: "... everything that happens in our country, with all of us, is pure Kafkaism ...". Then I realized that the screamers were right. Understood and felt. But ... somehow detached, without much mental anguish, at the level of a certain fact or statement. I well remember my surprise at a certain “artificiality” of the situation: “... why are they rushing about with this Kafka ..., well, absurdism, well, the philosophy of fear, well, yes, original, probably, maybe even beautiful in terms of intellectual but ... yell something like that - what?

The third time - right after "Snail on the slope". Because - even while reading this "Snail ..." I realized that there is a certain resonance, that the motives are painfully consonant, that the motives are almost identical. And only THEN - when the soul fell ill not with the acute pain of rebellion or indifference, but with a severe itch of empathy, understanding and belonging - only then it became clear WHAT this book is ABOUT. It is for altered states of consciousness, which are already a fact. It cannot be a means for these changes. And understanding is possible only after the fact, like a reflection in a mirror, when the very process of “peeping into the mirror” is so interesting that it gives the most intellectual pleasure. Outside of these frameworks, the book is about nothing.

Score: 8