After reading Kafka: Before the
law, I was confused on exactly what the "law" was. What was the reason
that the man wanted to go to the law? I had many questions and thought just by
reading the first few sentences when the man first approached the gate and denied
entry. I first thought that the
gatekeeper was making it up and just trying to see if the man would stop
actually go through the gates. Why did the gatekeeper tell him "If it
tempts you so much, go inside in spite of my prohibition? I questioned myself what would happen to the man
if he went through the gates and also why the country did not take that risk or
opportunity to go through the gates. I mean did not really question why, which
really shocked me. I wonder what was
behind those three gates. As I continued to read on the law seemed to become
more like an authority or maybe the gatekeeper had authority. The story’s
portrayal was that the man feared what the gatekeeper would do to him or really
thought if he waited he would one day gain entry. Whatever the case was the man
did not disobey the order of not gaining entry. He waited months to years just
to gain entry, he even lost his vision. I personally would have gave up and not let my
health fail me. Was he afraid of what may happen to him if he was disobedient? At the end, the man became weak and the
gatekeeper closed the gates and said that noon else would gain entry because
the entry was only for the country man. Why do you think that only the country
man could enter? Do you believe that the "law" really existed?
I was also confused when I first read "Before the Law" by Kafka, but midst the discussion in class on the story I came up with a slightly different outlook on what the "law" was. I saw the gate and gate keeper as being, metaphorically, the only thing standing between someone and unlocking their morals. At any point the countryman could have passed through the gate and discover his morals, just as it is easy for us to discover our morals mainly because they are inside of us. I interpreted the more powerful gate keepers as the restrictions and complications that can come with having morals or laws. As for the gate keepers authority, it seems to be that his power only came from the inner fear of the countryman as he approached something new, as he approached change. There was a time in the evolution of man that we probably were not intelligent enough to even fathom the difference between right and wrong, but then at some point the brain developed and allowed us to have these deeper thoughts and unlocking our morals occurred one individual at a time. This story is one individuals experience of trying to unlock those morals. Today we do not really have to unlock our morals because they are passed down from our parents or are just the status quo, but on some issues we develop different ideas than those before us. At some point we may become so set in our ways that we are no longer able to alter our morals, and that gate will close. I believe we still can unlock our morals by questioning what we have seen and already believe. Each of us can be like the countryman and stand before the law, whether we choose to enter or not will be determined by our willingness to embrace change.
ReplyDeleteI do not think this is a question of whether or not if the "law" ever existed, but where the law existed. The gate keeper said the man will find the law after the third gate, and that he may not pass or he would kill him. Upon first glance it would appear a simple enough tale, with an anti-climactic ending. However, upon deeper reading, it appears as though as if the law had been with the man the entire time. Through playing a submissive role to the gatekeeper, the man is following a law. In essence the man is striving for the knowledge of something that he already posses and practices. Why as for only that specific man could enter, I think it also goes with theme of obeying the law. It is the gatekeeper that said that the gate was specific to the man, yet it was also the gatekeeper who stated that the man will find the law after the third gate. the reader is just assuming the gatekeeper is just and honest. Since the man already had the knowledge of the law with him the entire time, who is to say that the gate was truly only meant for him. What if it was just another test of obedience.
ReplyDeleteIn order to determine whether or not The Law really existed in the story, I would have to understand what was meant by "The Law"--and I still haven't figured that out yet. As for the first gatekeeper--and he did not say that there were specifically three gates (there could be more than three, neither we nor the country man know)--as for him, I'm still trying to understand his character as well.
ReplyDeleteSince the story is told in a manner similar to a parable, fable, or fairy tale--many things being taken for granted and not described or even mentioned--I am left wondering what questions the country man did, or did not, ask the first gatekeeper.
The fact that it was a country man, specifically, who came to the gate, instead of someone specified as wealthy or learned, has led me to the possible conclusion that the story is actually a sort of social commentary; how in order to get justice, or go into it as a field of study, the underprivileged have to jump through hoops, and they may not even be able to manage one. The gatekeeper does not say that no, there is no hope for the country man ever to enter--only that it is not currently possible. This leads me to believe that, if the country man had tried different things (what, I don't know, but applying himself otherwise than was described, in some way--maybe asking different questions than he did?), it could have been possible for him to enter the gate. I do not think that the country man is representative of all humanity, in his trials in wanting to get to The Law; rather, that he represents a given social class. The gate is either specific to him alone, or to his class of persons in general, but not for the whole of humanity, in my opinion.
I my self had trouble reading this piece of work, yet by reading your blog and comments from fellow peers; I have come to understand the point of the story. its more about the decision for change and willingness to be obedient. the farmer has the key to "the law" the whole time but refuses to go through the last gate. it could have been his feared of being disobedient to the law, or perhaps he thought he was not worthy to go through the last gate.
ReplyDelete