K. is morally detached from his society but also knows how to play the social game very skilfully to maintain his total detachment from all social conventions and formalities.

Under the surface, however, this rough seeming novel has deeper meanings. It is the story of an individual's struggle, against corruption, against a faceless and petty power, and against himself. Through all the events leading up to K.'s death, much is said about the court he is on trial in, but little is explained.

Kafka appeared quite contemptuous in his opinion of law and power. Throughout the novel, most of the characters speak of the law courts in an awed manner, but the reality that we see is very different. The Examining Magistrate spends his time during the trials reading pornographic novels, and Titorelli, the court painter, tells K. that none of the Judges are very important or intelligent at all, they're just exceedingly vain.

Kafka also writes of the law courts l

The court has the power to ruin successful men. The commercial traveller Block had previously owned a successful business which had filled an entire building floor and was now reduced to a single small office and one assistant. The court had the power to take a person's wealth, ambition, time, and ultimately their life.

This compelling story is very open to interpretation. One of the most obvious questions is what does the Law beyond the door symbolise? Is it freedom, reward, punishment or something else entirely?

If these executioners were not from the court, then it seems quite likely that they are from Herr Huld, in punishment to K. for dismissing his services, perhaps as an attempt to maintain his reputation. The advocates are powerful in their own way also; they have influence with the highest members of the court, and total power over most of their clients. When K. goes to tell Herr Huld that he is dismissing him as an advocate, Huld attempts to convince him to stay by humiliating the commercial traveller Block, another of his clients. Far from impressing K. as to how well he is treated as a client, the scene disgusts him, and he takes his leave of the advocate.

Seemingly, neither your innocence nor anything you say to the court can alter their conviction. The only possible way is to impress them, through conduct. Presumably then, K. did not impress them through his conduct, which was to often proclaim his innocence, to chase up leads and to employ, then dismiss his advocate.

It is clear that the man is not forced to wait in front of the door. Never does the story mention any sort of compulsion. So the man is free to go where he wills, but chooses to stay at the doorway. But the door-keeper is bound to the door through the fact that he is the door-keeper, he can neither go out into the country where the man came from nor into the Law.

Throughout the story it is assumed that the door-keeper is superior to the man, through their manner towards eachother. However, for a number of reasons stated in the book, this is not true. For one reason, the man is a freeman and the door-keeper is a bondsman, in Kafka's Germany, freemen always outranked bondsmen.

Towards the end of the novel, K. is told a parable by a priest who is in some way connected with the Court. The parable concerns admittance to the law.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Herr Huld, Kafka's Germany, Franz Kafka, Law Law, Examining Magistrate, Law-Court Attendant, law courts, equal justice, herr huld, beyond door, law beyond door, commercial traveller block, executioners court, court power, admittance law, allowed enter, law stands, traveller block,
Approximate Word count = 1965
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)