A mostly spoiler-free one this time, since my major problems with this are due to structure.
I went into this book with no expectations either way. While I saw the blurb about Kafka, I ignored it, because such blurbs are marketing, not anything else. If I were to describe this book in one word, it would be "unfocused."
First, I am well-aware that this is a translation. And there are a few things that crop up due to the translation issue, such as untranslated words (like the clothing called galabaya) and the issue of event/events. There are two "Disgraceful Events," yet each are referred to in the plural, even with the use of ordinal numbers. "Second Disgraceful Events" is not grammatically correct. It's also frustrating, since the events in-setting are singular incidents. Even if that's a direct translation, there should have been some changes, since such usage is incorrect in English.
All my other problems with this book have to do specifically with how this reads as an unedited first draft, not a book published in multiple countries and having received official translation.
The characters all have some very major problems as characters. Most dystopias tend to follow one character around. This offers some kind of stable perspective for the reader and and such a character undergoes a full character arc about the circumstances they find themselves in. In this, we have at least six characters who are going through character arcs on the page but, because of the format and lack of depth for any characters, none of these stories are particularly compelling. This is a serious problem for a dystopia, because of the nature of the subgenre requires you to care about the characters and the circumstances.
This becomes even more of a problem when someone ends up in a watered-down version of Room 101 but only isolation and darkness, but we're supposed to assume she was tortured so badly that she pulls a full Winston and loves Big Brother, essentially. It doesn't work because of how short that part of the story is and because we're not given a timeline.
Characters also sound notably similar. This is a problem, since we have a doctor, someone with a sociology background, a schoolteacher, a working woman who cannot read, and so on, with some differing views on religion and so on, yet their internal dialogue all sound the same. The characters also lack depth, being only a few surface traits.
The lack of focus also turns up with the political issues dealt with. Dystopias by their nature are a political genre, a warning the author gives about a specific extreme or insane ideology they fear will come to pass. The problem with this one is twofold. First, the author is dealing with all sorts of different topics, but doesn't properly logically connect them in the story, thus it comes across another problem with her focus.
Second, the logic is the insane troll logic of conspiracy theories. 1984 and The Trial and other good dystopias make a point that it's only a minority of the population that's incredibly heavily observed and trapped in the hellish system, because otherwise it encounters the major problem of any dragnet. In this case, they surveil everyone, despite how inefficient that would be for them. I also had a moment where I went, "You know, this is exactly like conspiritards." Most conspiracy nuts tend to go on about how the conspiracy is so vast and powerful, yet fail to kill the nut in question, despite the nut supposedly exposing them for all to see and having the power to fake all sorts of crap.
The religious and ideological issue is an issue where it's not pinned down. What I mean is that, in dystopias and similar stories, the religious or ideological reasoning needs to be explained to some extent. Otherwise, it comes across as too vague. Who is fighting whom for what? What are their arguments? It causes problems because, while I absolutely loathe the idea of theocracy on principle, the point of a dystopia is to warn. It's very hard to warn if you do not explain anything and leave it too vague, to the point of being as insubstantial as vapor.
Why didn't they just kill the man who was shot? They had no problems murdering/unpersoning anyone else. Why not just give him the surgery and tell him never to talk of it again? They had no problem doing that with others.
The timeline is incredibly hard to pin down and that is more from poor writing. It reminds me too much of the Handmaid's Tale's bad timeline, since it's like both want to have their cake and eat it, too. That is to say, having this system that few question and the few who do get unpersoned, which would require decades of a cultural shift and conditioning, but also having this be the start of the dystopia, within a few years of its inception.
Another major problem is the issue of showing versus telling. There is almost no dialogue in the novel, almost all conversations instead being summaries. The same goes with much of the character arcs and perspectives, where we're told a good many things, but we rarely see the things as they actually happen, instead just getting a summary of actions. There are also scenes with characters remembering things that we could have been shown in the story, since the events in question take place during the story. It comes across as sloppy. This makes The Queue come across more like a summary for a much larger novel than a novel in its own right.
Edit: Before I forget, my final problem with it as an unfocused story is the jump of perspectives. There are often jumps between paragraphs in each chapter to different characters. However, it's so constant that it makes the text even more jumbled. Due to all the different factors, it's like the writer could not focus on anything in particular and chased after whatever struck her fancy at a given moment.