Blog post#1 Topic#1

The way I initially interpreted “Before the Law”, was a metaphor for life. Here you have a man being denied, what is rightfully his. This is a prime example on how things don't pan out just because they are meant for you, or you may that way. I was astonished to see the man willingly waste his entire life to gain entrance to the law.  The gatekeeper took all the man's gifts to assure him that his efforts are not going to waste. It is similar to when people dedicate their life to fulfill a goal that cannot be fulfilled. In my understanding, each level of the law represented the different levels of difficulty in life. I took the ending as only you could move forward in life, and only you can hold yourself back.

My group thought that reading could fit under reader's response criticisms because each reader could see the story in a different way. One way we saw it was each level of the law could represent each level of the government (city government, state government, and federal government). Also the description of the gatekeeper, as having fleas on his fur collar could mean dirty power or a corrupt government. The gatekeeper took all the man's gifts to assure him that his efforts are not going to waste, but they were. It is similar to when politicians assure progress or promise change, but it never happens. We also saw the story as a class struggle, and the gates represented each class. The gatekeeper could be the government, standing over the man, taking his gifts and giving him nothing.  Other people in the class saw it as a psychological/internal struggle and the gates keeper could represent our subconsciousness, and the law perhaps his goal or what he wanted to accomplish. It could be said that the man was really in an eternal battle with himself. That only he could let himself into the law, but his subconsciousness was in the way.

I feel that reader's response criticism could fit this story the best because there are so many different ways that this story could be interpreted. The story is vague enough to where you could take different meanings from the story, and it would still make sense. So there is no right or wrong answer. This literary theory could be more useful than the other because it does not limit your interpretation of the text. It does not focus on one topic, and I think that is exactly what the author of “Before the Law” was trying to do. I think he was trying to make the story fit multiple interpretations so that the story could be related to issues present at the time when it is read.