Blog Post 1: Responses to Kafka's "Before the Law"

    Franz Kafka’s “Before the Law” presents an abstract tale of a man seeking entry to the law. Because of the interpretability of the subject, my group utilized a Reader Response approach in analyzing the story. The approach suggests that elements of literature tend to be conceptual, offering different meanings to individuals based on their backgrounds; this proves evident in “Before the Law,” as Kafka never clarifies precisely what the law means in the context of the story, leaving it to the reader to decide. While some may view the law in a political sense, others might interpret it through the religious idea of divine law, or potentially as a simplified moral code of right and wrong. Also, the gatekeeper himself appears rather vague, save description of “his fur coat… his large pointed nose and his long, thin, black Tartar’s beard…” Even these characteristics fail to offer clarity on the gatekeeper, as there is no direct correlation between them or any specific figures of authority which may be relevant here. As a result, the reception of the gatekeeper is fully dependent on the reader. He could represent a judge, a deity, or any number of other possibilities. The flexibility of interpretations grants the story a universality, where people of different backgrounds and beliefs can read and enjoy it. Consequently, this also contributes to a lack of definitive meaning within the text. If most sources of evidence are abstract, there there is no solid foundation on which to form an argument for the text. There are pros and cons to viewing the story through the lens of Reader Response.

    A different method of criticism useful for analyzing “Before the Law” is Marxist, which studies work for examples of economic and class struggles. The gatekeeper presents a power struggle when he admits he is “‘powerful. And I am only the most lowly gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other. I can’t endure even one glimpse of the third.’” A hierarchy exists in world of the story, going from the most powerful of gatekeepers to the lowest, who exerts his power over the man, reminiscent of how richer people take advantage of the poor. Kafka furthers this comparison when the man “spends everything, no matter how valuable, to win over the gatekeeper.” This is a more specific image of the gatekeeper absorbing the man’s wealth with no offering in return. Based off of this evidence, Kafka makes an argument concerning the inequalities of wealth in capitalist economies. Even when the man spends all his time catering to the gatekeeper, he can never win him over and proceed beyond the gate, a metaphor for the struggles of men to climb the corporate ladder. Beyond that, the use of these gatekeepers to block passage to the law reflects the political advantages the wealthy have over the poor, as governments tend not to punish the rich to the same extent as those in poverty. However, this theory somewhat breaks down from the passage’s final sentence, when the gatekeeper reveals that “this entrance was assigned only to you.” This could indicate that the circumstances surrounding the man in the story are unique and cannot apply to the state of the economy as a whole. As with other approaches, there are certain factors that support and disprove the Marxist analysis of the story.

    Ultimately, the Marxist theory proves more convincing than Reader Response when examining the content of the tale. This is partly due to the fact that the Reader Response approach offers no real insight into what the story represents. There is no point in observing the passage this way when other methods exist which do provide solid meaning to it. The Marxist approach utilizes many aspects of the story to arrange a cohesive argument on the faults of capitalism; this falls apart in a Reader Response criticism when people may interpret the law entirely separate from who the gatekeeper or man from the country may be. Even though the Marxist method has its own flaws, they do not entirely wreck its meaning. Just because the entrance Kafka depicts belongs only to the man does not mean other people’s experiences with the law will not be similar. This merely raises some doubts about the validity, while never totally contradicting it. Meanwhile, the Reader Response technique emphasizes multiple points that directly invalidate each other, and fails to offer anything worthwhile about the story. Therefore, utilizing a Marxist method of criticism is the best way to analyze “Before the Law.”