13 years-old Franz Kafka liked crepes with lemon jam.
Here is another parable by Kafka. In this case the ordinary object transformed is the door.
BEFORE THE LAW
Before the Law stands a doorkeeper. To this doorkeeper there comes a man from the country and asks for admittance to the Law. But the doorkeeper says that he cannot grant admittance at this time. The man thinks it over and then asks if he will be allowed in later. "It is possible," says the doorkeeper, "but not at the moment."
Since the gate stands open, as usual, and the doorkeeper steps to one side, the man stoops to peer through the gateway into the interior. Observing that, the doorkeeper laughs and says: "If you are so drawn to it, just try to go in despite me. But take note: I am powerful. And I am only the weakest of the doorkeepers. From hall to hall there is one doorkeeper after another, each more powerful than the previous one. The third doorkeeper is already so terrible that even I cannot bear to gaze at him."
These are difficulties the man from the country has not expected; the Law, he thinks, should be accessible to everyone at all times, but as he takes a closer look at the doorkeeper in his fur coat, his big sharp nose and long, thin, black Tartar beard, he decides that it is better to wait until he gets permission to enter. The doorkeeper gives him a stool and lets him sit down at one side of the door.
There the man sits for days and years. He makes many attempts to be admitted, and wearies the doorkeeper by his persistance. The doorkeeper frequently has little interviews with him, asking him questions about his home and many other things, but the questions are put indifferently, as great lords put them, and always finish with the statement that he cannot be let in yet. The man, who has furnished himself with many things for his journey, sacrifices all he has, however valuable, to bribe the doorkeeper. The doorkeeper accepts everything, but always with the remark: "I am only accepting this so you are sure that you have done everything you can."
During these many years the man fixes his attention almost continuously on the doorkeeper. He forgets the other doorkeepers, and this first one seems to him the sole obstacle preventing access to the Law. He curses his bad luck, in his early years boldly and loudly; later, as he grows old, he only grumbles to himself. He becomes childish, and since in his yearlong contemplation of the doorkeeper he has come to know even the fleas in his fur collar, he begs the fleas as well to help him and to change the doorkeeper's mind. In time his eyesight begins to fail, and he does not know if the world is really getting darker or his eyes are failing him. Yet in his darkness he is now aware of a radiance that glows inextinguishably from the gateway of the Law.
Now he has not very long to live. Before he dies, all his experiences in these long years gather themselves in his mind to one point, a question he has not yet asked the doorkeeper. He waves him nearer, since he can no longer raise his stiffening body. The doorkeeper has to bend low toward him, for the distance between them has altered much to the man's disadvantage.
"What do you want to know now?" asks the doorkeeper; "you are insatiable."
"Everyone strives to reach the Law," says the man, "so how is it that for all these many years no one but myself has ever came for admittance?" The doorkeeper recognizes that the man has reached his end, and, to let his failing senses catch the words, roars in his ear:
"No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made just for you. And now I am going to shut it."
* * *
The obvious themes of Franz Kafka’s In The Penal Colony are justice and morality with some commentary on judicial systems and government structures. We can decipher the subject of the story right away and it seems quite obvious, yet as the story continues the text reveals just how complicated the subjects really are.
Kafka lays out the situation in the beginning of the story with straightforward dialogue between the traveler and the officer. The officer explains the lack of judicial process (i.e. the ability to defend ones self, due process). He also explains the severe process of the death penalty. This huge injustice is evident with little to no pondering. Moral acting and being humane are, of course, not followed here and right away the readers heart goes out for the condemned man. However, as the story continues, ideas are presented for the reader to consider. Kafka addresses many angles of this situation. The officer tells of the commandant’s wrong doing towards him. The twisting of words and only seeking the answer he wants out of a situation, as accused by the officer, suggests a injustice against an injustice. Although at this point the reader understands the officer to be the evil presence of the story, one can recognize the theme of corrupt government against the officer here.
Things only grow more complicated as one is left to ponder the notion of one government over throwing another. While all who consider this story would side with the new commandant’s efforts to get rid of this inhumane act, the people who support the old system having to go into hiding seems less than fair.
As the story unfolds in its entirety, with the officer putting himself in the hands of the system he carried out for so long, new ideas about morality and justice surface. With this act by the officer the reader can see that he was not some evildoer for evil’s sake. One really knows by the end that he honestly thought he was carrying out what was right. The officer followed his code of ethics even to his own demise, which in his terms is the ultimate state of justice. So a new question is posed: since the officer carried out his judicial system to his own demise, doesn’t the make him moral in some right?
But what did it mean that the machine broke during his sentencing? This may be one of the most complex of all idea in this story. The machine ended up slaughtering him before he could reach the epiphany before death. What does this say about the law coming full circle? The idea of self-destruction and ultimate justice come to mind while trying to answer these questions.
There is only about one thing Kafka does make extremely clear: the idea in this story are going to take much class discussion and extreme internal pondering to be fully developed and considered.
((This is excluding the light aspect of the story. there are so many things one can talk about in relations to this story!))
April
*
What is it about some villians that make our hearts go out to them? We've seen it time and time again in literature, television shows and movies. We know that what the villian wants to occur is wrong, but his emotions and feelings towards this event are so moving that we cannot help but sympathize with him. What makes a bad person? Does his belief that the end justifies them means make him a bad person despite having such a good heart?
Elan
*
While I was reading this story, I found the one thing that Kafka didn't name any of characters in this story. Is there any reason that he did not name?
JooYoung
*
Does the light in the story add to the enlightning and almost religious expirience (as described by the officer) of the apparatus?
The condemned man cannot block the light from his eyes as everyone else does in the story he is the only one to have to expirience the full sun and he is the only one in the position to be enlightened through torture. But it doesn't play out that way the whole system changes. Instead the Condemned is saved, the apperatus falls apart, and the Officer is murdered instead of enlightened. What is the significance of these transformations?
Brenda
*
Brenda, these two questions are exactly the kind I want posted on this blog. This is precisely what we will try to answer in class. What does blinding light mean? It is also good to seek and underline very time Kafka describes any kind of bodily gesture in the story. You will be surprised.
Ika
*
