Kafka has a parable entitled “On Parables” that goes something like this:
A: You people who talk in parables say stuff that’s not useful in real life. You’re always talking about a mountain, a river, a happy place, a danger but they’re never about REAL mountains, rivers, happy places, or dangers. Your parables are useless for those of us who live in the real world.
A:Right, but only in parable.
B:No, in real life. In parable you have lost.
It is hard to summarize the point of this because part of the point of it is that we cannot simply summarize the point of things like parables. That is when we ask to translate a parable into something easier to digest we are just evading the point of the parable. But it is not impossible to summarize the point of it either, because another part of the point of it (which is odd I know as a point by definition is that which “hath no part”) is that by reading them we either win or lose, and that the attempt to evade the winning or losing by translating them into a “special” language, used in special circumstances by special people — refined people, or literary critics, or religious people — is also an evasion as terrible as the first one.
I would attempt to convey the point of the parable by offering up the following dialogue and noting some of the structural features it bears with Kafka’s:
A:When you say “I love you and I will give you everything” you don’t really mean you will give me everything. You don’t have that much money and if I got cancer you could not give me health. All you mean is that you will give me love.
B: Fine. I will give you everything I can.
A: Great. I finally got you to love me for real.
B:No. You finally got me to pretend.