"So the doorkeeper cheated the man," said K. immediately, who had been
captivated by the story. "Don't be too quick," said the priest, "don't
take somebody else's opinion without checking it. I told you the story
exactly as it was written. There's nothing in there about cheating."
"But it's quite clear," said K., "and your first interpretation of it
was quite correct. The doorkeeper gave him the information that would
release him only when it could be of no more use." "He didn't ask him
before that," said the priest, "and don't forget he was only a
doorkeeper, and as doorkeeper he did his duty." "What makes you think
he did his duty?" asked K., "He didn't. It might have been his duty to
keep everyone else away, but this man is who the door was intended for
and he ought to have let him in." "You're not paying enough attention
to what was written and you're changing the story," said the priest.
"According to the story, there are two important things that the
doorkeeper explains about access to the law, one at the beginning, one
at the end. At one place he says he can't allow him in now, and at the
other he says this entrance was intended for him alone. If one of the
statements contradicted the other you would be right and the doorkeeper
would have cheated the man from the country. But there is no
contradiction. On the contrary, the first statement even hints at the
second. You could almost say the doorkeeper went beyond his duty in
that he offered the man some prospect of being admitted in the future.
Throughout the story, his duty seems to have been merely to turn the
man away, and there are many commentators who are surprised that the
doorkeeper offered this hint at all, as he seems to love exactitude and
keeps strict guard over his position. He stays at his post for many
years and doesn't close the gate until the very end, he's very
conscious of the importance of his service, as he says, 'I'm powerful,'
he has respect for his superiors, as he says, 'I'm only the lowliest of
the doormen,' he's not talkative, as through all these years the only
questions he asks are 'disinterested,' he's not corruptible, as when
he's offered a gift he says, 'I'll only accept this so that you don't
think there's anything you've failed to do,' as far as fulfilling his
duty goes he can be neither ruffled nor begged, as it says about the
man that, 'he tires the doorkeeper with his requests,' even his
external appearance suggests a pedantic character, the big hooked nose
and the long, thin, black tartar-beard. How could any doorkeeper be
more faithful to his duty? But in the doorkeeper's character there are
also other features which might be very useful for those who seek entry
to the law, and when he hinted at some possibility in the future it
always seemed to make it clear that he might even go beyond his duty.
There's no denying he's a little simple-minded, and that makes him a
little conceited. Even if all he said about his power and the power of
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account