Interpreting Kafka’s “Before the Law”: Reader’s Response or Historical Criticism and New Historicism Approach?

Upon initial reading of Kafka’s “Before the Law”, readers may be baffled as to what message the author is trying to convey as Kafka introduces a bizarre tale of a man who is trying to gain entry into the gate of the law. By employing the critical reading strategies suggested in the reader, I was able to deduce meaning from the story through analyzing it using a historical criticism and new historicism approach.

The historical criticism and new historicism critical approach suggests one to investigate the historical backdrop of when a text was produced or into the author’s background to better understand the meaning of a text. In “Before the Law”, Kafka seems to be using symbolism and metaphors in his writing to allude to possible political tensions during his time. His statement, “To this gatekeeper comes a man from the country who asks to enter the law. But the gatekeeper says that he cannot grant him entry at the moment.”, suggests that people during his time may have wanted to gain entry to the law in order to implement reforms, which was a difficult task to do. The gatekeeper also explains to the man that each room has its own gatekeeper, and so the man, noticing how intimidating the gatekeeper is, “decides that it would be better to wait until he gets permission to go inside”. This statement may symbolize that there are multiple obstacles for an individual who is looking to gain entry into the law or the government since there are so many powerful figures that can block an outsider’s way. As a result, often times, many people would choose to avoid conflict and to not confront government leaders in order to protect their home, jobs, and family. The story goes on to explain how the man uses all his possessions in an attempt “to win over the gatekeeper”. The gatekeeper accepts these gifts as a gesture to let the man believe that he had not failed to do anything. This scene alludes to the possibility that the government at the time would listen to the complaints of its people but would not take any action. Instead, the government acted only on the interest and personal gain of its members.

When my group and I discussed our interpretations of “Before the Law”, we soon realized that each of us had approached the story using different critical perspectives -psychological theory, Marxist criticism, historical criticism and new historicism, and reader-response theory. After much debate, we decided that the reader-response theory seemed to best encompass this pattern that was appearing among ourselves; our situation was a perfect example of this critical approach in that each reader brought their own unique insights to interpreting the text. Furthermore, a reader-response critic strives to understand the meaning behind a text through other people’s perspectives since differences in life experiences, values, previous reading experience, and beliefs all contribute to varying viewpoints.

After much thought, I believe that reading “Before the Law” using the reader-response theory approach seems more fitting than just employing the historical criticism and new historicism approach. While utilizing the latter critical approach helps to connect and explain a majority of the components in the story, it does not explain certain elements. For example, at the end of the reading the gatekeeper says “Here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you. I’m going now to close it.” If the entrance could only be entered by the man in the story, then why was he not allowed entry all those years? Also, if the gate to the law was open all this time, exactly when would it have been considered the appropriate moment for the man to enter after waiting so long? Moreover, why would a person just wait for someone else to give them permission to enter? To answer these questions, the reader-response theory allows one to apply other critical theories in order to better understand the context of the situation. For instance, by viewing this portion of the story using a psychological perspective, the man’s reason for not entering the gate despite it being open may have been because he had the mindset of feeling inferior and afraid of the gatekeeper who had a domineering appearance with “his large pointed nose and his long, thin, black Tartar’s beard.” Furthermore, the portrayed difference in power and control between the gatekeeper and the man from the country highlights contrasting social class positions as seen through Marxist critics. Overall, the reader-response approach seems more useful in analyzing Kafka’s “Before the Law” since it allows for combining various critical approaches to fill gaps in understanding in order to make meaning of the entire reading.