What is it, for instance, we know about the machine? From the officer's explanation, we learn that it now "works all by itself" (141), yet when the machine is in action the wheels creek (149) and the straps break (161). He even somewhat takes this point into consideration ("it can't be helped that things are breaking or giving way here and there; but one must not thereby allow oneself to be diverted in one's general judgement" (151)). The only proof we have that the machine ever worked comes from the officer, and neither the prisoner nor the guard offer support to his claims.
There are multiple occasions where the officer's world view may not correspond with reality. When we hear about his assumptions about the Commandant or the explorer's intentions, we clearly see the gap. When we hear about the size of the audience or their amazement by the enlightenment, we wonder what really happened. What does his character tell us about Kafka's view on words? Authorities in Kafka's texts often hide behind words, and the officer is no exception. When we examine the officer's claims, however, only he establishes his own authority. If we can point to these holes in his world view, can we believe him as a character? Does he have any authority at all? It seems easy to write off his world view simply as wrong or flawed. When we keep Kafka's style, the other characters, and the officer's narrative in mind, can we draw a more nuanced conclusion?
The officer seems to be doing exactly what he claims the condemned man would have done if he were given the chance to defend himself: "He would have told lies, and had I exposed these lies he would have backed them up with more lies, and so on and so forth" (146). He begins by denying any wrongdoing, stating that "the organization of the colony was so perfect that [the old Commandant's] successor ... would find it impossible to alter anything [...] And our prophecy has come true; the new Commandant has had to acknowledge its truth" (141). Then, possibly accidentally, he contradicts this by complaining that the new Commandant is "always looking for an excuse to attack our old way of doing things" (151). This indicates that the new Commandant believes that the colony is still imperfect and would benefit from alteration. Almost immediately following this, the explorer starts questioning whether or not to interfere with the execution. With his first lie exposed, the officer changes tactics, and tries to convince the explorer that his idea of justice is correct by claiming previous public support. He then realizes that "it is impossible to make those days credible now" (154) and resorts to begging the explorer to endorse the machine. When he sees that he is unable to succeed, he submits himself to his punishment. Through this progression, Kafka indicates that the officer was incorrect; the process of investigation, although hindered by lies, will eventually lead to true justice.
ReplyDeleteThe officer's inconsistency is confused even more by the unreliable narrator of the story. At times, the narrator seems not to know what is going on in the officer's head - thus leaving us only with his words as explanation, whether they are true or not. But at other times, the narrator assigns motivation to the officer's words: for example, "The officer, anxious to secure himself against all contingencies, said..." (141). These introductory phrases lull the readers into thinking they know why the officer says what he does, but can we really trust that this narrator is illuminating the officer's words? He often seems to further obfuscate them instead.
ReplyDeleteI think that Caroline and Willa make excellent points in detailing where the officer's and narrator's words fail, and I wonder if the officer has invested himself so deeply into these lies that he fully believes them himself. Although he seems to be improvising, he is also constructing his own fantasy around him, trying to keep it intact just as he runs around trying to keep the machine intact. He is convincing himself just as much as the explorer. When he takes out the final design with "BE JUST!" written on it, there is a distinct possibility that it is truly just a scribble. He projects his judgement onto it and goes through all of the motions, even outlining it with his finger, to find the words within. Here the officer is literally drawing words from nothing. Kafka may be proposing that our ability to improvise and embody fantasy is within this power of words.
ReplyDeleteWhile the officer may seem as a fraud that feigns the machine’s real purpose, it may also be that he actually does prove that the machine acts justifiably upon its subjects. It has already been stated that the officer describes in great detail the apparatus, and also effects of the so called ‘enlightenment’, thus can our narrow understanding of the characters’ speech make us conclude that all this is not genuine? The convictions of the officer about the apparatus, and the way things used to be back with the old Commandant, are definitely fervent. The passionate intonation of words when he describes that ‘harrow’ and the effect it has with its carving. might’ve certainly been moving to the people who we are doubting ever existed in the first place. The faith that a person has can be, I believe, a stronger power than any other logical explanation brought upon by lack of reason or evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe officer seems to define himself by the success or failure of the machine. He is so invested, both emotionally and physically, in the machine that he is willing to do anything, to say anything, in order to secure public approval for the machine and therefore for himself. When the explorer finally delivers the verdict that he will not defend the machine at the Commandant’s assembly, the machine is doomed. The officer, because he is so connected to the machine and has dedicated so much to its success, is doomed as well. He subjects himself to death on the machine to receive enlightenment, of course, but also to fulfill the explorer’s sentence: to condemn the machine.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Miles that the officer knows exactly what he is doing and saying. At the beginning, he wants to make a good first impression on the explorer and is obsessed with impressing upon the explorer the amazing qualities of the machine. So he acts very important and talks about the machine as if it is divine. But as his speech progresses, he starts to reveal that he needs help from the explorer and eventually becomes desperate. The officer constructed his speech in a way that would manipulate the explorer into doing what he wanted.
ReplyDeleteAs we read and understand, the officer is very attached to the machine. He talks only about the machine and what it does, his very specific detailed description indicate his connection with the piece. As some of you refered to, the officer tries to convince us with his words that the machine is perfect, but when we listen to his words and study his thoughts which are all lies we start building that barrier between us and him.Kafka highlights through In the Penal Colony that what we hear, or say may not have a great affect on us as what we observe and see.
ReplyDeleteNo matter how long the officer talked, still we believed the picture we are seeing not the words we are hearing. The question that we may want to answer is "Does Kafka indicate that an image is stronger than words?"
I would say the officer is definitely confused about reality, but not because he's stupid. As Miles pointed out, he appears quite educated. However, I don't think his speeches and descriptions are just a scheme either. He genuinely believes in and wants to share with others the beauty and justice of the machine. The discrepancy comes from the fact that all of his conclusions and logic are based on a false premise. His belief that the machine is just and good skews his entire world view.
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to notice that the officer is the only character in the story that Kafka uses as a source of information. This raises the question, if we cannot rely on the officer, can we rely on anyone to be a trustworthy narrator? Is it safe to always trust a character, or she the reader constantly be on his or her guard? In the beginning of the story, the reader trusts the officer as a result of his methodical, planned speech. However, the reader soon realizes that the officer is irrational and somewhat insane. This serves to confuse the reader, who then feels tricked. One can compare this situation to the German population after World War II and the Holocaust. Those not directly involved in the atrocities that took place who remained passive and blind to the truth were shocked and horrified when they found out what had really happened. They subconsciously purposefully ignored the inconvenient truth, but when directly faced with it, they felt overwhelming guilt and disgust at how jaded and tricked they had been. In the same way, the reader realizes how jaded he or she had been when, even for a brief second, they had believed the officer. Kafka plays with the reader to see how easily he or she believes what is said. This acts as a warning to always be skeptical of hollow words that can act to manipulate or jade an individual.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Kafka begs us to question many of the assumptions that we take for granted the first time we read through. For me, the biggest epiphany came during the reading of the Commandant's grave. Clearly, when it was read most of those in the explorers presence chuckled. No doubt, it was the absurdity of the inscription which begged faith in the return of a dead Commandant. This I believe is the same type of naive faith that the officer exudes in his praise of the machine and in his retelling of the way the penal colony used to be.
ReplyDeleteThe officer's stated beliefs are pretty clearly at odds with the reality that is around him. But it doesn't seem that Kafka portrays him as a liar, rather someone who's constant rationalizing and overuse of words have blinded him to the truth of the world around him. The officer is not an unsympathetic character, so drawn in by the charisma of the old commandant and the brute visceral force of the machine that he changes his very perception of reality to accommodate his new belief system. So in the story, the officer shows the reader not the faceless horror of pure evil, but how easy it is to be manipulated and corrupted by power and its often-servant language.
ReplyDeleteJust to comment a bit on what Miles & Alex were writing; I would not say that the officer is stupid (I cannot tell whether I hinted at that in my post. If I did, it wasn't intentional). However, he seems to be so caught up in the intricacies of his machine and his reliance on the colony that he loses track of reality and justice. I don't mean to imply that he is not intelligent enough, but rather that his view of reality has been distorted by the colony so that he is no longer able to objectively see the world around him.
ReplyDeleteIt seems I agree with some of what Miles and Alex have to say. The officer is much aware of reality and is just using his superior creativity to give a vibe that he might be confused or unstable. He seems to be obsessed with the machine, for example when he talks about the machine right after the strap breaks and rambles on about getting a new strap, etc. He uses a chain to keep the victim down instead which only furthers the evil feeling. The officer is an authority figure all along and very much controls the situations. He seems to always get his way whether it be directly or not.
ReplyDeleteSeveral people argue that the officer already knows that the Harrow is fundamentally unjust and that he just tries to delude the explorer into agreeing with that by using convoluted language to make the device appear appealing, but I think that the officer is deluded by the complexity and marvel of the device, overshadowing instinct and reason. The officer does use words to describe the Harrow, but he talks about specific nuances and parts that fail to realize the Harrow as a whole image/device. That phenomenon demonstrates two things: First, authorities are not all-knowing and can be deluded just like any other person. Second, when something is impressive, it is easy to lose yourself in the images and ideals that those things embody, and that by writing the entire dialog out/by the explorer listening to it, it becomes clear that language and words are absolutely necessary to bring perspective to things that exist in the physical world.
ReplyDelete