The Formative Piece of Work 4
THEFORMATIVE PIECE OF WORK
TheFormative Piece of Work
Inthe last two paragraphs the story takes a different turn. Georg’sfather finds out from his son whether he is well-covered. Georgreplies by assuring him that he is covered up, but his father whosurprisingly sits upright on the bed denies the fact that he iscovered up. After claiming that Georg’s was not genuinely out ofcompassion, the father accuses him of having a plot to get rid ofhim. Accusations and revelations then ensues when his father saysthat he knows Georg’s friend who is in Russia and that he is awarethat he Georg had betrayed him. Georg thought his father did not knowhis friend. He is shocked when these revelations come out. His fatherdecides to support Georg’s friend rather than his son because hebelieved Georg was wrong in doing so. He goes ahead to considerGeorg’s friend as he true son instead of Georg.
Georg’sfather’s sickness turns out to be a pretense because he appears tobe of good health on the outside. He issues threats to Georg,intending to separate him from the woman he wants to marry. Georgconsistently denies his father’s allegations and hopes that hefalls and dies any time. This paragraph presents paradoxes that leaveany reader baffled by the turn of events that make the plot of thestory to take a different direction. At some point, Kafka wrote tohis bride that the judgment is inevitable. This can lead to theconclusion that the story is contradictory. Perhaps, the writerintended to show the complexities of familial relationships in reallife (West1985 :411). After reading the turn of events in the last twoparagraphs, one is likely to conclude that Kafka’s life and thestory is are two parallel aspects of the story. They revolve aroundhis inconsistent relationship with his father. It is evident in thetone Kafka uses to write a letter to his father. The letter elicits anear-paradoxical tone that further complicates the relationship thetwo have throughout the last sections of the story(Trilling1965: 190).
Thelast paragraph entails a conclusion that does not answer the manyquestions that it elicits in the previous paragraph but rather bringsup other enigmas. The reader expects that after all those accusationson Georg the last paragraph will bring a conclusive ending thatanswers the questions about the ambivalent relationship between thetwo of them. Instead, he complicates it further by passing a judgmenton Georg. He says,
“Soyou are aware of other things that exist in the world apart from you.Until now, you have known no one else but yourself. You have been aninnocent child, in deed an innocent child, but actually you have beenan evil human being. Therefore, note that, I am sentencing to death.You will die by drowning (Flores 1977:47).
Thisjudgment seems as though it was supposed to pass because Georg feltthe compulsion to make put it to reality. He is mysteriouslycompelled to the river and finds himself slipping towards thestreaming water from a bridge amid other people who were passing onthe bridge without any problem. The paradox of the last twoparagraphs intends to show the power of language (Bennett 2004: 659).A mere pronouncement turns into a fatal reality. What other peoplewrite and say may have an impact on the society (Sokel2009 : 373.
Bennett,J. (2004). Kafka, genealogy, and the spiritualization of politics.TheJournal of Politics,56(03), 650-670.
Flores,A. (1977). FranzKafka Today.Gordian Pr Inc. 34-49
Trilling,L. (1965). Beyond culture: Essays on literature and learning (p.190). VikingPress
Sokel,W. H. (2009). Language and Truth in the two Worlds of Franz Kafka.GermanQuarterly,364-384.
West,R. (1985). Authority, autonomy, and choice: The role of consent inthe moral and political visions of Franz Kafka and Richard Posner.HarvardLaw Review,384-428.