Blog 1 - Eden

               In Franz Kafka’s parable “Before the Law,” a man from the country seeks entry into the law but is told by the gatekeeper that he cannot be granted entry at that particular moment. Depending on the reading given, the tale can be interpreted in many different ways. My groups reading used Marxist criticism as the method that gave the most convincing argument. The main reason my group chose this approach as due to the clearly different social standings of the countryman and the gatekeeper. One example was the appearance of the gatekeeper, in his with his fur coat along with well defined facial features; the countryman based his judgement on these factors that he should wait for the permission of the gatekeeper before heading inside the law. There was a clear distinction of a higher class than the countryman’s own through the mentioning of the gatekeeper’s garb. Another example was when the gatekeeper mentions that should the man from the country try to ignore his prohibition, that he was powerful and that there were many others beside himself that were each more and more powerful. My group thought that this was a clear reference to a socioeconomic hierarchy, in which the country man was at the very bottom and that meant he was quite powerless in face of the gatekeeper who was above him, along with many others in the rungs overhead.

               Another type of reading that could apply to the parable is the psychological literary criticism. The gates to the law are stated to be standing open, as always, and the countryman himself thinks that the law should always be accessible for everyone. However, the gatekeeper denies him access to the law. Within the countryman’s mind, there is never the thought of just brazenly going through the gate; the gatekeeper has never made any physical attempts to block the countryman, only verbal. This may indicate that the only thing keeping the countryman access to the law is his own mind. The countryman is set on getting the gatekeeper’s approval that he spends his time waiting. This fixation drives him to the border of his sanity as he even resorts to asking the fleas on the gatekeeper’s fur coat to help persuade the gatekeeper. The repeated denial of his entry into the law drives the countryman to madness as he keeps to his stubbornness of seeking permission. When the countryman is on his deathbed and asks why there was no one else who requested entry, the gatekeeper tells him that the gate was for his use only. Even the last thing the gatekeeper says to the countryman could be an allusion to the mental block of his own mind. The countryman always had access to the law but the only thing keeping him from it was himself. The man thought the law was anyone’s to use but he sought permission to gain entry to it, making it seem that the law was not in fact for everyone when it was.

Word Count: 500

Blog Post #1 Topic #1 - Tara Saljooghi

Blog Post #1 

When discussing “Before the Law” by Franz Kafka, my group had different opinions on which literary theory fit best with this short story. We decided that the Marxist theory encompassed all aspects of exposing the inequalities and the imbalance of power that occurs amongst the countryman and the gatekeeper. The main struggle that the countryman faces is getting access to enter the gate, in which I think the gate represents the law. Kafka stated “…the law should always be accessible for everyone…” which seems to be a common Marxist idea. Though the law states it is accessible to everyone, it is shown that it is only accessible to the people who can afford it and belong to a high social class, shown by denying the countryman entrance. The story continuously shows the imbalance of power between the countryman and the gatekeeper which illustrates a sort of ladder as if the gatekeeper is on top, “…But take note: I am powerful’”. The gatekeeper is looking down on the countryman who is struggling to climb the ladder. By having the title of “gatekeeper” I think it gives him an unspoken power. This makes it harder for the countryman to communicate with the gatekeeper because the gatekeeper has a mindset that he is better than the countryman. Another idea that my group came up with is the powerless victims from the Marxism theory. Though the gatekeeper accepts all the countryman’s possessions, he is still not allowed past the gate, further proving that as a countryman, he holds no power or ability to get past the law, “the man, who has equipped himself with many things for his journey, spends everything, no matter how valuable…but, as he does so, says, ‘I am taking this only so that you don’t think you have failed to do anything.’”. it is clear that the countryman has given what seems like his all into getting past the gate, but is still unable to do so.

A different approach is the psychological theory. One way of looking at this is that the gates could represent “God”. In a sense that we all have different fates and paths and at the end of our journeys we enter the “gates” into heaven. This doesn’t fit the Marxist approach because the higher power does not intend for people to have inequalities of power nor does it intend for people of lower social classes to be banned from entering the gates.  Another way this theory incorporates itself is that the gates could be looked at as subconscious barriers to the countryman’s success—he is the only one that can unlock the gate. These thoughts are personal to his fears which are keeping him out of the gate, “…he decides it would be better to wait until he gets permission to go inside”. The countryman’s’ own conscious is denying him access to enter the gates because he is, instead, looking for permission that he will never receive.

While the psychological theory shows comprehensive evidence of how it could perfectly fit the short story, I believe that the story is better achieved through the Marxist theory. There is more symbolism shown about the inequalities and the imbalance of power that affect the countryman and his inabilities to get past the gate rather than the psychological mindset blocking his path.

Word Count: 554

Blog Post 1 - Max Weng

Topic 2: Argue for or against this statement: Bartleby’s behavior is a reasonable response to his circumstances.

“Bartleby, the Scrivener. A story of Wall-Street” is a short story written by Herman Melville in 1853. Bartleby’s actions could be justified considering that he used to work at the “Dead Letter Office” according to the Boss. The miserable job at the Dead Letter Office may have caused him to withdraw into his miserable state, but I still believe that his behavior towards the circumstances around him are still unacceptable.

The Boss, narrator, has offered Bartleby numerous opportunities for him to bring his life back together. Bartleby is the main character that generates problems in the story, but more importantly the conflict lies within Bartleby himself. The fact that Bartleby often uses the word “prefer” which is surrounded by ambiguity that could represent his own inability to make a decision. When Bartleby is provided with an opportunity from the Boss, he resides to a firm and cold response of “I prefer not to”. My interpretation of this phrase seems as if Bartleby is a person who is on the verge of jumping off a bridge in order to end his own misery, yet he hopes that someone would come and stop him from doing so. This would better explain the ambiguity and the vagueness in his responses. The self-torture that Bartleby imposes on himself through starvation is also an interesting method of gaining attention, as if he is seeking for glimpses of hope.

From my understanding, Bartleby is subjected to a repetitive labor that a machine would do as a scrivener, and often Melville would describe Bartleby as a character that lacks emotion and feelings displayed through his ‘gray eyes’. However, the Boss does try his best to bring Bartleby back, he makes his effort to work with Bartleby and tries to understand his motives. The Boss also recognizes Bartleby as a hard worker and even protects him from hurtful comments made by Nippers and Turkey. Furthermore, Bartleby is treated with generosity and respect by the boss, “I owe you twelve dollars on account; here are thirty-two; the odd twenty are yours. -Will you take it?, yet Bartleby still refuses to accept the opportunity. The motives of the Boss to help Bartleby are evident as the story is told through his perspective. Another example of how the Boss is willing to help Bartleby is from his consideration of relocating the office. Since Bartleby has been continuously taking shelter in the office, leaving the office means that Bartleby will have no place to stay. After establishing his office at another location, the Boss still constantly thinks about Bartleby and somehow hoping that Bartleby might unexpectedly show up in his new office. This was the Boss’ last resort of getting rid of Bartleby after trying his best to understand Bartleby.

The examples mentioned above provides a few reasons of how I find Bartleby’s behavior unreasonable response to his circumstances. Bartleby was given chances to piece himself back together, but he still refuses to cooperate due to his ignorance and still chooses to dwell in his own misery.

Topic #1 by Patty Swing

Franz Kafka’s “Before the Law” is about a countryman trying to gain access to the law, but he is being blocked by a gatekeeper. He waits for days and months and years until he grows old and never makes it past the gate to the law. In order to analyze the short story, my group agreed upon the Marxist critique that relates to socioeconomic classes, however, another reading that is more convincing is the formalism critique.

            The theory of social classes in the Marxist Critique can easily be connected to the relationship between the countryman and the gatekeeper, with the former being the powerless victim and the latter being the powerful oppressor. “[The] law should always be accessible for everyone,” the man thinks to himself and it sounds like a rational assumption. However, that is not the case. He is given limitations with no clear way to overcome them. The man was prepped for this journey and he had “[spent] everything, no matter how valuable, to win over the gatekeeper,” a gesture that was futile. I compared this to the idea of the American Dream. The law is dangled in front of the man, much like the American Dream is dangled in front of immigrants. They move their entire life and prepare themselves to reach this goal, which is the law in the country man’s scenario, only to be met with barriers due to their socioeconomic class. It puts a stop on their journey, much like the gate and its keeper holds the countryman from continuing on his journey. This critique fits like a puzzle piece until the end where the gate closes when he is near his death. It would make more sense if the gate stayed open, but because it was just meant for him and not the likes of him, it made the reasoning seem inadequate, which is why I believe the formalism criticism is more fitting to use as a study.

            In class, someone explained how “Before the Law” can be a metaphor for someone trying to overcome their obstacles, except shows an opposing scenario. The story presents the countryman, a character with a destination and goal in mind, who encounters an expected obstacle that only leads to even more, even harder obstacles—the other gates and their gatekeepers. However, while reading the story, the gatekeeper tells him he can go through the gate, but he warns him that there are more powerful gatekeepers ahead. The man, hearing this, does not even bother to go through. He believes that getting the permission of the gatekeeper would help ease the journey, but that is not the case. In a real-world comparison, this man symbolizes anyone who thinks they will get to their goal by going down the easier path. Frankly, it will not get anyone anywhere, except for the few lucky ones. He could have gone through the gate and faced the other gatekeepers, despite how powerful they were, but at least he would have gone somewhere. His life would not have been diminished to that tiny and lonely stool with an obstacle that humors him. When he finally finds out that the gate was only his overcome, it was too late and the gatekeeper, seeing how helpless the countryman had grown to be, the only next step he could do is close it. I believe that this manner of reading is a little more hard-hitting than any of the others.

Word Count: 574