"Before the Law" : Reader-response or Psychological Approach

Kafka's piece, Before the Law, is not written in such a way that the approach needed when reading it becomes unquestionably obvious; many of the approaches are reasonable options. When discussed as a group, it was decided that the best way to read the story was using reader-response theory. What this meant was that the story would have different meanings and interpretations based on how the reader filled in the gaps and the filling of those gaps differed based on the knowledge, view and way of thinking of the reader. It was decided on this theory upon realizing every group member had settled on a different theory but had used the same elements to backup the choice made. This showed how gaps were being filled in dependence of the reader. It wasn’t that the story was telling each one of us a different story but that each one of us was interacting back with the text differently.

For example, one of the group members had decided on Marxist theory. One of her reasons was because the gatekeeper was representing the powerful and the country man was representing the oppressed. The way she filled in the gap made sense because it fit. The country man wasn’t able to advance and gain entrance to the law because of the gatekeeper and the power he represented, much like the marxist theory suggest there will be. Another group member settled on the historical criticism. She also used the gatekeeper and the country man and how obvious their differences in status were. She thought this was the best choice because she filled in the gap by thinking through a perspective of history and how throughout it can be seen a very outlined social system, which also fits well. As it can be seen, both critical approaches fit well they are simply fitting in gaps using different views which is why we settled on reader-response.

There is another approach, however, that works better than the reader-response and that is the psychological theory. If the story is read using this theory then the story can be interpreted as follows. The law represents people’s dreams; the country man represents an everyday person; the gatekeeper the obstacles that may come up on the way. In the story the country man is tempted to just walk in seeing as the door is open, even after being told no. it isn’t until the gatekeeper warns him of what will happen if he tries that the man backs down. This shows what psychological effect the idea of being encountering obstacles has on someone. The country man, instead of going on and attempting to make his way in, waits for the gatekeeper to give him permission. This represents the idea that people have about things coming to them instead of them going to their goal, something that also has to do with a person’s psychology. As the man waits for his entrance to be granted a lifetime goes by and death reaches him, never getting to enter the law. At the end he is told that no one else ever attempts to enter because that “entrance was assigned only to [him]” which can be interpreted as to be telling the reader how, sometimes things are put out specifically for them, like certain opportunities, but aren’t take advantage of because of fear (Kafka 39). The open door representing this opportunity and the gatekeeper the possibility of struggle for he never actually demonstrates the power he supposedly has.  

This last element of the story, the open gate and the fact that the entrance was only for the country man is what makes the psychological interpretation the best theory to use with this story between the two. The psychological theory offers a clear, well fitting interpretation of the ending while the reader-response does not. It is the one that provides a more complete translation of the story overall. It can be said that choosing reader-response is the best because it includes all, including psychological but that is not the case because choosing reader-response is saying that the best way to read Before the Law is by having the reader make their own best interpretation but that is not the case.The best way to interpret the story is by using a psychological approach because that will allow for a complete interpretation. If all theories offered a wholesome way of reading Before the Law then reader-response may have been the best choice but that is not true.