Sometimes, an author wishes to explore an idea about which no comparison is sufficient. To examine these ideas, metaphor and simile do not have the ability (despite what we claimed previously) to draw our attention to what the author wishes us to perceive. This is because such comparisons rely on granting one object's qualities to another: We compare a woman to lion, bestowing the lion-qualities upon her, and inviting the reader to imagine this - a celebration in which the truer nature of the object (the woman) can be appreciated.
But what if the object we are to consider has no ability to take such qualities from anything? How to dress the truth as a lion, or justice as a blind man, as it were?
In order to do this we must use symbol. Often, the objects which lend their qualities lend them to a context, and in doing so, become the symbols themselves, such as the lion which serves as a guide in one childrens' novel, or the statue of the blind Justice outside of a public courthouse.
Although symbols are similar to metaphors in this way, they are something greater by virtue of what they represent, or signify. Indeed, symbols are signs. Symbols are significant.
Below are two readings by Franz Kafka, translated from the German. Although I try to keep all readings from the pool of English or American literature, I feel that an exception was warranted in this case. Kafka's use of symbol in both of these readings are haunting iterations of the art, and profoundly unique examples.
Do your best to identify Kafka's use of symbol, and discern what is signified in these two readings:
Back to literary terms.