The Trial - what does it mean to you?

In interview, the writer Margret Atwood was asked about her multi-award winning novel "The Handmaid's Tale" - (which is about  a super-religious male government that effectively enslaves the entire female population). She said she could not believe how differently it impacted on the readers in different countries.  She said when the UK public read "The Handmaid's Tale" they loved it. They thought it was such a great story about an entirely fictional world which could never happen: and perhaps it could never happen because great female authors and artists like Atwood would stop it.  When the Canadian public read it - they too loved it. They thought it was a warning about what might happen if they let the Canadian Government (or Canadian men) go too far.  They eyed their partners suspiciously and looked more carefully before voting...  When the American public read it, they panicked. They thought: "A Government run by men turning women in to slaves? Wait a minute.... It's real! Quick, pack the bags! is it already too late to get out???"

I suppose, in the end, Atwood was saying that some people just thought the book was fantasy, some thought it was a parable to learn from and some thought it was a timely wake up call.

Now that was some time ago, so let's hope the American reading public have since changed their minds about their government, but the principle that interests me:
The same story can be interpreted as being closer or further away from reality - depending on how you feel about the world.

Which do you think The Trial is? -

A) a fantasy, completely made up? - something to entertain us.

B)  A grim parable  warning about letting society become too dehumanised?  - Something to learn from.

C) A vision of the Universe where life is just an absurd, pointless thing? - Something which is actually true and inescapable for us all.

I cannot believe in answer (A) because I can think of much more entertaining scripts to direct "for entertainment".

I could possibly go for answer (B) but I don't feel this is right.  I think if this were true the play would need a character or institution or event to get angry about.  I'd expect to find a shred of a hero somewhere - or even the slightest possibility of Joseph K being rescued.  Or may be, if there had been a meaningful relationship in the story somewhere - so although his life ends, new life begins... but I can find no scrap of real light at the end of the tunnel.  There is nothing to learn unless it is that life is pointless.  I suppose you might argue that his plea at the end should stir something in the audience and make them want to react against those who are punishing this poor creature for an unnamed crime.  Thing is, the faceless nobodies who do the killing are nameless, as is the power that sent them.  There is no one to react against.

So I believe one of the play's functions is to depict life as essentially petty, meaningless and random.  I think Kafka genuinely thought Mankind was like a man waiting forever, pointlessly, at an open door.

Unlike The Handmaid's Tale (and Brazil;  Gattacca; V for Vendetta; Fahrenheit 451; 1984...etc...etc) government  is not the obvious cause of the K's unhappiness. In the play, Law and Religion begin to blur at the end when K finds himself in a cathedral facing the Prison Chaplin who "belongs to the Law".  You might say that for Kafka, the chief problem for man (i.e. for Joseph K)  is that we all commit the crime of being born. It is as if he is saying "It is nothing personal, Joseph K. You were sentenced to death the moment you were born. We all are."  This means "The Trial" is essentially about existing: We call this existentialism.

This could be summed up like this: We all exist, so we all have to die. We are all Joseph K.