In “Before the Law,” by Franz
Kafka, there are many unexplained aspects of the story. For this reason, my
group chose to analyze this short story using the reader-response theory. By
having so many plot holes, like why the gatekeeper barred the man from
entering, the reader is forced to fill in the gaps left by the author. The
reader-response theory describes how the reader needs to fill in the gaps that
the author leaves because reading is a process and the passage changes as you
read. This response assumes that the reader will adopt a view point that helps
them make the most sense of a passage. However, the Marxist theory seems to be
a better analysis of this piece of literature than the reader-response theory. By
reading this passage from a Marxist’s point of view the reader is able to fill
in many more gaps and find more hidden meaning in the story. The Marxist theory
looks mostly at social status and how that affects peoples’ lives, and chances
for success. For example, the man that comes to the law is described as, “the
countryman” who was trying to reach the law. The countrymen’s clothes had fleas
and were not as well kept as the gatekeepers. The man was timid with the
gatekeeper, not wanting to bother him too excessively because he felt and knew
he was below him in status. The gatekeeper even goes on to say, “I am
powerful…” and talks about, “great men” versus just “people” like the
countryman. The gatekeeper would ask the countryman about his home as “great
men” do but still did not permit him into the law. So, by looking at this reading
from a Marxist approach it is clear that the countryman is of a lower class
than the gatekeeper and has no power or belonging that he could use as leverage
to get to the law. For a Marxist it would be easily explained that the
countryman was barred from the law because of his social status. He was poor
and he offered the gatekeeper all his most precious, valuable belongings, but
still the gatekeeper did not allow him to get to the law. This idea that
society labels us as haves and have nots and that we cannot go outside of our
ranks is a Marxist idea, which helps us understand the dynamic between the
gatekeeper and the countryman. This idea also sheds a light on the fact there
is inequality in society. Whether this is the point that the author is trying
to make in this story is up to the interpretation of the reader, but as a
Marxist reader one can assume that the author is trying to make some sort of
statement about harmful social statuses. Personally, I am better able to
understand the motivations of the gatekeeper and countryman if I analyze this
story from a Marxist point of view. I can understand how the countryman wants
to be in a higher position in society, because nobody wants to be a have not.
However, I also understand that the gatekeeper has a role in keeping people
segregated in their respective ranks in society. Overall, I do believe that the
Marxist theory does reveal more of the author’s intentions than the
reader-response theory.
I was considering the psychological theory when I read this story because it displays the countryman's desire to gain entry into the law as well as his state of mind. For example, at the end of the story, the countryman no longer cares about how he can get into the gate, but instead he wonders why there's only himself who has ever made a request. One possible psychological theory to explain this change would be that years of waiting has finally worn the countryman out. One step further, psychological critics can also make hypotheses of the unstated thinking inside the gatekeeper's mind.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read this story I thought is was psychological like Mingyu. Since the man was growing old and his mind and body were deteriorating, I believed this all led to a conclusion about going mad and about power.
ReplyDelete