When I first read it many years ago, I believed the man could only pass through the door after he had died, and the door closing at the end would close behind him when he passed on. Thus the secrets of the law are revealed to him only after death.
When I reread it earlier this year in Prague, I had a different reading: that the door was always open to him, despite the claims of the doorkeeper, and he need only walk through it. Perhaps the doorkeeper represents the man’s inner doubt, which was the only thing preventing him from passing through. What do you think?
My interpretation was that it’s about the individual. You are responsible for yourself and only you can carve the route through life that you want. I think the man is letting his mind, perhaps anxieties and doubts (personified by the gatekeeper), stop him from proceeding in his own life. He verbally questions the gatekeeper but applies no action or drive to get out of his current situation. He takes what the gatekeeper has said as the ‘law’ without pushing the boundaries himself.
In terms of the ‘law’ aspect, I think the same can be applied in part. I feel the story could be about the slightly bigger picture of the strictures of society. Sometimes we accept things unquestioningly.
My understanding is that He always had the 'power' to enter, he just had to do it. The gatekeeper, keeps the door open and steps aside, the man peers through. The Gatekeeper says--he can't grant admittance 'at the moment'. A moment seems a very short wait, but this man chooses to wait his whole life.
The Gatekeeper laughs when he says he is powerful, but the man believes him.
In fact the Gatekeeper seems to have no purpose or power except to take what ever he can from the man. (It is implied perhaps by giving everything to the gatekeeper, the man might decide to risk and go--the gatekeeper says, "I am only taking it to keep you from thinking you have omitted anything."
The man becomes obsessed the Gatekeeper and gives him all of his power. He seems to forget about getting through the gate and 'before the law'. He spends his life incomplete and shrinks away.
I'm not sure what it all means, but I like to think that I went through my gate a long time ago. Not that it means I know where I am now, except that I know there is no gatekeeper keeping me from living my life.
So, Kafka was not strictly speaking relilgious, but he was called by his peers a "secular Jewish mystic". And even if he didn't fully follow the Jewish tradition, he was certainly well aware of it. And in Jewish tradition, the only real Law is God's law, and in fact the words "Law" and the word "God" can be somewhat synonymous (I am simplifying, but let's roll with it).
So "Before the Law" is "Before God", and the story is arguably about finding God. So, what is the problem, who is the gate keeper to finding god? Take note on how Kafka describes him, in a lot of detail. He talks of "his fur coat, with his big sharp nose and long thin, black Tartar beard". The gate keeper is not mystical, he is very much human, in fact, the gate keeper is humanity, that bodily aspect of humanity. This is the main obstacle to finding god. The man has to literally sidestep his own humanity to get to God. And there are other gatekeepers too, but we can forget about them; they are even more unsurmountable obstacles. And of course, the gate to God is individual to everyone, and if the person doesn't get to God in his lifetime, this gate is now closed.
So, that's one thought I had.
2. West vs East comparison
A very common trope in Eastern tradition is the trope of a student that came to a monastery/guru to learn. And the gatekeeper doesn't let them in, and they have to sit at the gates and wait. This is a test, and with enough patience and perseverance, it will be passed, and the student will be accepted to the monastery. This is so common, I am fairly certain Kafka might have read a version of this.
So he might have written his own answer to this trope. And of course, he was a modernist writer and he was living in Europe of the early XX century, so his worldview and his answer were formed by what he saw and experienced. There is no test. There is only pointless suffering, and red tape. Note that the gate keeper implicitly allows the man to enter: "If you like, just try to go in despite my veto." But the man doesn't do it. He decides to wait for an explicit order to enter. This is not patience, not perseverance; this is obedience and conformism. So, a sad and interesting parallel with the Eastern story here.
3. Modernism vs. postmodernism
Kafka was a modernist writer, and this story is maybe the quintessence of modernism. Modernism is a movement of self-consciousness and self-reflection, of obsession with oneself and with internally fighting unsurmountable forces inside oneself. So how would this story end if Kafka was living not in the twenties, but in the seventies? How would a postmodern version of this story look like?
My guess is that postmodernist values are a lack of objective truth and failure of reason. In the postmodernist version of "Before the Law", the man would argue with the gatekeeper and convince him of his irrelevance. He would then proudly walk through the open gate.
And the gate keeper would stab him in the back with a spear.
3.5. Special, rose-tinted glasses half-thought
So, what if we find the best, most optimist explanation of the story? This is, of course, not what Kafka himself meant; this is just a game we can play. So here we go. How can we interpret this spory positively?
The man basically spends his life with the gatekeeper. First, he notes what he looks like. Then, they learn everything they can about each other ("The gate keeper frequently has little interviews with him, asking him questions about his home and many other things", "During these many years the man fixes his attention almost continuously on the gate keeper."). The man also shares with the gatekeeper everything he has. He even "has come to know even the fleas in his fur collar". In the end, the gatekeeper says that the gate (and therefore the gatekeeper as well) is there only for the man, not anybody else.
Of course, this is a touching story about a gay couple.
This is absolutely the kind of depth of thinking that I was hoping for in the Short Story Club. Part of the genius of Kafka I feel is the fact that all of these feel perfectly plausible and legitimate interpretations. I particularly like number 1 and 2, they make a lot of sense to me and don’t even need to be mutually exclusive
This is absolutely the kind of depth of thinking that I was hoping for in the Short Story Club. Part of the genius of Kafka I feel is the fact that all of these feel perfectly plausible and legitimate interpretations. I particularly like number 1 and 2, they make a lot of sense to me and don’t even need to be mutually exclusive
There's fine line between love and obsession; love makes us unstoppable in our insights, obsession keeps us in place; both are transformative, but try to stay at love, and fear less-yes, it's hard, but everything is, while you walking "the very narrow bridge".
I could tell you more for I'm a man, a gatekeeper, a gate, and maybe even the lLw beyond it-but why to say it, when what I'd long for is to write another marvellous fable?
I like it so far. I read somewhere that the phrase “man from the country” in the original German comes across as a clear nod to an Old Testament phrasing, the Jewish Law is a very real possibility. Do you think it means that in a “know the law to understand God” way?
Well, THAT was a happy story :) Revelatory though. First, the gate is this man’s private passageway to the beyond, but he never realizes that it belongs to him, OR never valued himself enough to think he deserved to walk through. Second, that salvation was transactional - he thought he had to buy his way in. Third, that he, on an unconscious level, is ruled by fate, not realizing he can change it. Life can be particularly cruel if one thinks he is governed by forces beyond his control. Which in a lot of cases is true. But take away the idea that a person MIGHT change his future and you’re left with a hollow shell. Wow, Kafka really knew how to bring on existential gloom.
What do you think the meaning of the story is?
I have two interpretations.
When I first read it many years ago, I believed the man could only pass through the door after he had died, and the door closing at the end would close behind him when he passed on. Thus the secrets of the law are revealed to him only after death.
When I reread it earlier this year in Prague, I had a different reading: that the door was always open to him, despite the claims of the doorkeeper, and he need only walk through it. Perhaps the doorkeeper represents the man’s inner doubt, which was the only thing preventing him from passing through. What do you think?
My interpretation was that it’s about the individual. You are responsible for yourself and only you can carve the route through life that you want. I think the man is letting his mind, perhaps anxieties and doubts (personified by the gatekeeper), stop him from proceeding in his own life. He verbally questions the gatekeeper but applies no action or drive to get out of his current situation. He takes what the gatekeeper has said as the ‘law’ without pushing the boundaries himself.
In terms of the ‘law’ aspect, I think the same can be applied in part. I feel the story could be about the slightly bigger picture of the strictures of society. Sometimes we accept things unquestioningly.
Love this take: Walk through the door!
He didn’t dare to question an obstacle created for him only, while thinking it was “the Law” for everyone… Conformism?
Yes this is where I got to with my second reading of it. Walk through the door Vanya!
“He can only show you the door
But you've gotta walk through by yourself” etc.
My understanding is that He always had the 'power' to enter, he just had to do it. The gatekeeper, keeps the door open and steps aside, the man peers through. The Gatekeeper says--he can't grant admittance 'at the moment'. A moment seems a very short wait, but this man chooses to wait his whole life.
The Gatekeeper laughs when he says he is powerful, but the man believes him.
In fact the Gatekeeper seems to have no purpose or power except to take what ever he can from the man. (It is implied perhaps by giving everything to the gatekeeper, the man might decide to risk and go--the gatekeeper says, "I am only taking it to keep you from thinking you have omitted anything."
The man becomes obsessed the Gatekeeper and gives him all of his power. He seems to forget about getting through the gate and 'before the law'. He spends his life incomplete and shrinks away.
I'm not sure what it all means, but I like to think that I went through my gate a long time ago. Not that it means I know where I am now, except that I know there is no gatekeeper keeping me from living my life.
I love this interpretation and particularly the fact that you’ve walked through your own door, Leslie!
All right, let's go!
1. Law in Jewish tradition
So, Kafka was not strictly speaking relilgious, but he was called by his peers a "secular Jewish mystic". And even if he didn't fully follow the Jewish tradition, he was certainly well aware of it. And in Jewish tradition, the only real Law is God's law, and in fact the words "Law" and the word "God" can be somewhat synonymous (I am simplifying, but let's roll with it).
So "Before the Law" is "Before God", and the story is arguably about finding God. So, what is the problem, who is the gate keeper to finding god? Take note on how Kafka describes him, in a lot of detail. He talks of "his fur coat, with his big sharp nose and long thin, black Tartar beard". The gate keeper is not mystical, he is very much human, in fact, the gate keeper is humanity, that bodily aspect of humanity. This is the main obstacle to finding god. The man has to literally sidestep his own humanity to get to God. And there are other gatekeepers too, but we can forget about them; they are even more unsurmountable obstacles. And of course, the gate to God is individual to everyone, and if the person doesn't get to God in his lifetime, this gate is now closed.
So, that's one thought I had.
2. West vs East comparison
A very common trope in Eastern tradition is the trope of a student that came to a monastery/guru to learn. And the gatekeeper doesn't let them in, and they have to sit at the gates and wait. This is a test, and with enough patience and perseverance, it will be passed, and the student will be accepted to the monastery. This is so common, I am fairly certain Kafka might have read a version of this.
So he might have written his own answer to this trope. And of course, he was a modernist writer and he was living in Europe of the early XX century, so his worldview and his answer were formed by what he saw and experienced. There is no test. There is only pointless suffering, and red tape. Note that the gate keeper implicitly allows the man to enter: "If you like, just try to go in despite my veto." But the man doesn't do it. He decides to wait for an explicit order to enter. This is not patience, not perseverance; this is obedience and conformism. So, a sad and interesting parallel with the Eastern story here.
3. Modernism vs. postmodernism
Kafka was a modernist writer, and this story is maybe the quintessence of modernism. Modernism is a movement of self-consciousness and self-reflection, of obsession with oneself and with internally fighting unsurmountable forces inside oneself. So how would this story end if Kafka was living not in the twenties, but in the seventies? How would a postmodern version of this story look like?
My guess is that postmodernist values are a lack of objective truth and failure of reason. In the postmodernist version of "Before the Law", the man would argue with the gatekeeper and convince him of his irrelevance. He would then proudly walk through the open gate.
And the gate keeper would stab him in the back with a spear.
3.5. Special, rose-tinted glasses half-thought
So, what if we find the best, most optimist explanation of the story? This is, of course, not what Kafka himself meant; this is just a game we can play. So here we go. How can we interpret this spory positively?
The man basically spends his life with the gatekeeper. First, he notes what he looks like. Then, they learn everything they can about each other ("The gate keeper frequently has little interviews with him, asking him questions about his home and many other things", "During these many years the man fixes his attention almost continuously on the gate keeper."). The man also shares with the gatekeeper everything he has. He even "has come to know even the fleas in his fur collar". In the end, the gatekeeper says that the gate (and therefore the gatekeeper as well) is there only for the man, not anybody else.
Of course, this is a touching story about a gay couple.
This is absolutely the kind of depth of thinking that I was hoping for in the Short Story Club. Part of the genius of Kafka I feel is the fact that all of these feel perfectly plausible and legitimate interpretations. I particularly like number 1 and 2, they make a lot of sense to me and don’t even need to be mutually exclusive
This is discussions about literature, nothing is mutually exclusive :)
This is absolutely the kind of depth of thinking that I was hoping for in the Short Story Club. Part of the genius of Kafka I feel is the fact that all of these feel perfectly plausible and legitimate interpretations. I particularly like number 1 and 2, they make a lot of sense to me and don’t even need to be mutually exclusive
There's fine line between love and obsession; love makes us unstoppable in our insights, obsession keeps us in place; both are transformative, but try to stay at love, and fear less-yes, it's hard, but everything is, while you walking "the very narrow bridge".
I could tell you more for I'm a man, a gatekeeper, a gate, and maybe even the lLw beyond it-but why to say it, when what I'd long for is to write another marvellous fable?
"כי משירת העשבים"
I have 3 1/2 thoughts, but don't have time to expand each of them. I will summarize them in a few words now and come back to this post a bit later.
1. Law in Jewish tradition
2. West vs East comparison
3. Modernism vs. postmodernism
3.5. Special, rose-tinted glasses half-thought
I like it so far. I read somewhere that the phrase “man from the country” in the original German comes across as a clear nod to an Old Testament phrasing, the Jewish Law is a very real possibility. Do you think it means that in a “know the law to understand God” way?
Yeah, exactly. In Hebrew tradition "Law" and "God" are very closely connected.
Well, THAT was a happy story :) Revelatory though. First, the gate is this man’s private passageway to the beyond, but he never realizes that it belongs to him, OR never valued himself enough to think he deserved to walk through. Second, that salvation was transactional - he thought he had to buy his way in. Third, that he, on an unconscious level, is ruled by fate, not realizing he can change it. Life can be particularly cruel if one thinks he is governed by forces beyond his control. Which in a lot of cases is true. But take away the idea that a person MIGHT change his future and you’re left with a hollow shell. Wow, Kafka really knew how to bring on existential gloom.