Kafka Stories – Blog response

In “Before the Law”, Kafka represents the law as anonymous and faceless. Despite this ambiguity and oddness, the man insists and “prays for admittance to the Law”.

o Before the law – the law = faceless, anonymouso Obscurity of the lawo Is this present in the problem of our laws? Are the laws

represented as faceless? Or is it more open to interpretation?

The Problem of Our Lawso  In the parable, Kafka seems to be attaching importance

to the notion of “interpretation” in the course of achieving liberation from the dominance of the nobility. However, there are disadvantages involved during the interpretations; since not all people have a right to say in those interpretations. The law itself is unknown and it is made intelligible by the interpretations. 

In The Problem of Our Laws, Kafka portrays a society where the laws are created in order to benefit the nobility. Throughout the short narrative, the narrator repeatedly highlights the fact that “laws were made to the advantage of the nobles from the very beginning.” Paradoxically, whilst the majority does not even recognize “the very existence of these “laws,” they find great comfort and security living under these laws.

Another interesting point raised in this narrative is the difference between “the Law” and “the laws.” Kafka states, “The Law is whatever the nobles do.” This definitively emphasizes how the Law is restricted to the demands of the nobles. On the other hand, the laws that the majority abides by seem non-existent: “these laws that [they] are trying to unravel do not exist at all.”

From these definitions of the laws, does Kafka suggest that there is still possibility for the “Laws” to be overturned? Can the majority achieve salvation by challenging the nobles and repudiate the nobility or the lawmakers?

1) Do you think Law is supposed to be exclusive or inclusive? 2) Are death and Law anyhow interrelated?3) What is the metaphorical symbol of the doorkeeper shutting the gate of Law? 

In my opinion, the Law is supposed to be exclusive. Although ironically the man believes the Law “should surely be accessible at all times and to everyone,” the fact that he never gained entrance to the Law says otherwise. Despite the doorkeeper’s suggestion to go in, he does mention that there are several more

doorkeepers inside. The man’s attempts to be part of the Law fail as his bribery are simply taken by the doorkeeper to “keep [him] from thinking [he has] omitted anything.” This suggests that the Law is inaccessible; one is forced to live by the laws even if one does not know the foundations of it.To some extent, death and Law can be interrelated. As the man illustrates, one’s absolute faith in the Law may lead to a tragic and senseless death. Despite his attempts to reach the Law, the man only realizes the “radiance that streams inextinguishably from the gateway of the Law” moments before he dies. The doorkeeper seems to represent the Law as an authoritative figure. He decides whether one is worthy of entering the Law or not. By shutting the gate of the Law, which is specifically made for the man, the doorkeeper tragically ends the man’s wait for the Law’s admittance. In a metaphorical sense, this suggests that death awaits those who are not part of the Law. However, this can be argued as the doorkeeper is simply dutifully and simple-mindedly representing the Law. He has no superior power or motifs that can be equated to death.

Tragically