I will pay for the following essay Kafka's Parable of the Law in The Trial. The essay is to be 5 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.Download file to see prev

I will pay for the following essay Kafka's Parable of the Law in The Trial. The essay is to be 5 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.

The difference in spelling, but similarity in pronunciation with the word “difference,” stresses the dissimilarity and interconnection between the text and the reader. Deinert stresses that The Trial is both a parable and allegory of the law. it is a parable with faceless characters and a moral lesson, but it is also an allegory of the applicability of K.’s situation on everyone else. Mladek analyses the practices of self-observation of K. in understanding the cause and consequences of his arrest, but Lange argues that the law is “taboo” (86). Law is “desired” and “feared” simultaneously, because in reality, it is an “ambiguity” (Lange 86). This paper criticises the articles of the aforementioned authors. It shows that law in this book represents knowledge and its access according to Kafka will never be granted to anyone. Foshay uses Derrida’s analysis to deconstruct the parable of the law in Kafka’s The Trial, and he agrees with Derrida who argues that K. should interpret the parable of the law as the difference between the signified and the signified, the text and the reader, and the text and the writer. Derrida emphasises that people can only be “before the text” (Foshay 200). “We are before this text that, saying nothing de?nite and presenting no identi?able content beyond the story itself, except an endless differance, till death, nonetheless remains strictly intangible. Intangible: by this I understand inaccessible to contact, impregnable, and ultimately ungraspable, incomprehensible” (qtd. in Foshay 200).

...

I agree with Foshay and Derrida that the law is a text that is “impregnable, and ultimately ungraspable, incomprehensible” (qtd. in Foshay 200). When put in the context of K., he does not fully understand the suit against him, and yet he tries to manoeuvre some knowledge out of the uncanny events in his life. Still, it is hard to accept that as a text, law can be a body of knowledge that cannot be grasped and yet at the same time, each text is made for the specific audience. As the doorkeeper in the parable says: “This gate was made only for you. I am now going to close it.” For me, this means that the law is also a paradox. It is meant as a gateway to the truth of social justice, but at the same time, its knowledge cannot be used by anyone. it is only open to people who may need it. Derrida also notes the “structural ambiguity” (qtd. in Foshay 200) of the parable, which is why he concocted the word “differance” to prove his point. Derrida then, which I concur, analyses that the law is an oxymoron, because it is objective and subjective (qtd. in Foshay 200). Hence, no one can own and possess the text, even if it is supposedly made for the people. Only when people acknowledge it can there be true recognition of the knowledge of the law. Deinert, like Foshay, underlines that The Trial is both a parable and allegory of the law. it is a parable with faceless characters and a moral lesson, but it is also an allegory of the reality of K.’s situation as universal.