The officer later, however, shows fairly clearly that the system is not perfect. The justice system appears to be lopsided against the common person, and the Harrow ultimately malfunctions when it operates on him, stabbing the officer to death rather than making any design. The officer concedes that he is the Harrows "sole advocate" (153), and talks a lot to convince the explorer that the machine is an ideal implement for justice.
The Harrow seems to be frought with problems because of its messiness. The officer explains while describing the machinery that he has failed to maintain its many parts since the former Commandant died (151), and that a prisoner who did not know what was happening would immediately become revolted when he/she is forced to wear the same gag used by hundreds of people before. Even the design that was supposed to say "Be Just" was just a mess of scribbles on paper rather than anything meaningful.
Through the apparent contradiction between the officer's description of the Penal Colony and the Harrow and the way that they actually work, Kafka reveals that people have to be exceptionally careful about the way they uphold their own beliefs. The officer's logic behind why the Penal Colony and the Harrow are perfect are insubstantial and "messy"--namely, he bases his beliefs on the how the Harrow is a marvel of technology and his admiration for the former Commandant rather than anything logical or explicable, and that senseless zeal becomes apparent in the way that he treats the machine. On the other hand, the explorer relies on actual moral consideration after traveling throughout the world and learning about many cultures and thought systems for why the Harrow is an unacceptable implement of justice, and hence, has a far more carefully considered, "orderly" view of the world. I therefore believe Kafka does think the written word is a useful tool for discovering truth, but only when it is done carefully, and with thoughtful moral consideration.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOmar raises several fascinating points in his reading of the story; and I think "perfection" and "messiness" are excellent metaphors for themes central to Kafka's text. I wonder, however, if we can (or should) so closely align the explorer with reason and justice. On the contrary, I suspect the officer projects these qualities onto him, though the text may not necessarily bear them out. The officer, for example, assumed the explorer's "enlightened" perspective because he is "conditioned by European ways of thought" (155), while we know from lecture that Europe itself (and especially the Austro-Hungarian Empire of the time) was not necessarily a reasonable place. While the explorer does present a reasoned critique of the machine, does he not seem willing to passively stand by and allow it to proceed twice? If anything, this likewise signifies a rupture, between words and reality, even the inability of words to correspond to the nature of reality.
ReplyDeleteThis is just an alternative perspective, of course! And this is part of what makes Kafka's text so rich and intriguing: there are always alternative interpretations, and nothing is definitive.
I agree that Kafka thinks that written word is a useful tool for discovering the truth, but only when it is used with consideration. As we notice, the officer's talk leads the story and he specifically would not stop explaining and describing the machine. His "over-use" of words did not really influence the explorer or us, the readers, to get convinced with what he was delivering. That was because he simply did not use words carefully to send his messages.
ReplyDeleteThe reader may actually start questioning the officer's statements as he continues uttering words without careful study. Most of his statements are poor and do not have strong clarification.
It is not about how many words you say, it is about what words you use to convey a message.
As Omar said, Kafka thinks that words can be used to discover or relay truths, but only when they are full of thought and moral consideration. However, Kafka provides no examples of the successful use of words to convey truths and many examples – like the ones Omar mentioned – where the power of words is unsuccessful. He seems to be saying that, although it is theoretically possible to use words to convey truth, no one can because their own preconceptions and emotions – like the officer’s reverence for the old regime – get in the way of purely truthful revelations.
ReplyDeleteWhat Omar mentioned about the officer's reason for trusting in the justice of the machine brings up an interesting point, one that we touched on in the discussion on Wednesday. The idea that his beliefs are not based on anything rational or verifiable turns them into a perverse sort of faith, with the machine as his god and the old commandant as a kind of Jesus figure, as evidenced by the inscription on his tomb (Kafka 167). Thus, the officer's inability to communicate his belief to the explorer regardless of how many words he uses might also be a comment by Kafka on the uselessness of words and languages to communicate ideas and beliefs as ineffable as pure faith.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sally that although Kafka may believe words can sometimes lead to the discovery of truth, he does not provide any examples of that belief in this text. On the contrary, he provides numerous examples, many of which Omar has acknowledged, of the failed use of words. When the officer realizes that the machine has finally caught the interest of the explorer, he "stopped explaining in order to leave a space of time for quiet observation" (143). Instead of plowing on with his description of the machine, the officer decides that the image of the machine will be more informative to the explorer. Through this action, Kafka seems to be acknowledging the lack of power speech has. In order to understand, it is important to stop the flow of words and have silence.
ReplyDeleteThe so called idea of perfection in the Penal Colony, I observe it to be a discrepancy with the overall concept of moral rightness and judgement. This idea of ethical correctness is hiden under the unsuccessful speech used by the officer. The officer being its only advocate, has a perception that this mode of execution proves successful, and that through this barbaric procedure an enlightened mind will achieve a certain form of improvement. Its mediocre that only when a person is about to die can they see the world in a more sophisticated manner. The perfection that the officer tries to convey to the explorer is superficial at best, and in true reality, the existence of it only proves itself true in the mind of the officer. This exemplifies Kafka’s belief that word is unsuccessful in showing us how reality works. As professor Daub stated, Kafka teaches you how to read like a painter, emphasizing the beauty(perfection), and leaving the blanks(messiness) to be misleading.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Kafka believes that "truth" is humanly accessible at all. The words (or images) of the former Commandant fail the officer and his own words are unsuccessful in enabling the explorer to see the truth. However, the condemned man and the guard, who do not understand the spoken words and do not attempt to interpret the images, do not appear to understand the machine any more than the officer or the explorer. Should the story be interpreted religiously, one might argue that the old Commandant alone, the "creator" of the machine, is the only one who actually understands its purpose. While he leaves words and images behind, attempting to convey the truth, ordinary humans such as the explorer, officer, condemned man, and guard are unable to understand them as they were meant to be understood. The inscription on the Commandant's tomb, which states that he will "rise again and lead his adherents from this house" (167) seems to also cast him in a Jesus, or God-like, role, making the Commandant/creator/super-human theory more plausible.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the general thoughts of the post. Namely, that Kafka encourages us to examine language more carefully. I think that is the reason that he makes his story so attractively misleading. The response of the reader is a bit shameful for not discovering the gravity of the situation as readily as they perhaps should have. I also agree that there is much in this story that deals with tradition and antiquated modes of thinking. Part of the leading appeal of the machine that delays our disgusted response at the morality of the situation is the praise which the officer spews at us. It is definitely rhetorical and he keeps referencing to the old days when his Commandant ruled the penal colony. While the way he nostalgically describes the past is attractive it is antiquated and does not hold up to reason.
ReplyDeleteI too find the officer's actions at the end of the story confusing. He had been portrayed as a voice of reason and morality, a welcome contrast to the officer's mad absurdity, and so his sudden passivity in the face of the officer's crazy idea was puzzling. "The explorer bit his lip and said nothing. He knew very well what was going to happen, but he had no right to obstruct the officer in anything... in his place the explorer would not have acted otherwise" (163). Why would the explorer feel that he has no right to stop the officer? I tend to think that moral people do have the right - and the duty - to stop terrible things from happening... and we had been led to believe that the explorer thought the machine was a terrible thing. But maybe, as Mr. Roberts said, the perception of the explorer as reasonable and moral was only projected onto him by the officer. If so, it reminds me of what Plato wrote about the unreliability of rhetoric: the officer's prolific use of words was able to sway our view of the explorer and his beliefs, when we really had been given no concrete evidence to back up that impression.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe officer has blind faith in the machine and the old Commandant. This is reminiscent of the danger of blind faith in organized religion. I think Kafka represents technology as a replacement or alternative to religion. Like God, the machine is supposed to stand for and administer justice, morality, and truth. People look to the machine for enlightenment and knowledge. This was true for people during Kafka's time who looked to technology as a savior, a cure for disease, a source of jobs, a symbol of human innovation. However, as the people in the colony excluding the officer have realized, this machine fails the people. Similarly, many people during Kafka's time felt failed by organized religion. Both institutions were plagued by malfunctioning bureaucracy that diluted these fundamental ideas of goodness and actually enforced the opposite. It seems that people look to these external institutions to bring about a perfect world. However, time and again, this blind faith only blurs the line between truth and lies, reality and unreality. Words can be used to endorse and explain blind faith, but one must be able to distinguish the truth.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of perfection within the colony is an interesting topic. As Professor Daub mentioned in the lecture today, Kafka writes about a sort of madness that is structured and appears logical and rational. Everything in the colony is laid out perfectly and organized just so. However, the basis on which this whole system is founded is inherently flawed. Namely, the officer's and the previous Commandant's idea of what does or does not constitute justice. Just like the metaphor of the well-built house upon a swamp, this penal colony is doomed to fail and be restructured despite its perfect planning and immaculate structure.
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between perfection and messiness is really interesting, but I think it gets even more interesting when we look at why the characters act the way they do in addition to how they express themselves.
ReplyDeleteThat is particularly true for the officer, who we always see "hiding" behind his words, avoiding facing the realities of the camp thanks to the complexity of his words and arguments. A lot of the comments here agree that the officer represents that messiness, but I think it would be interesting to examine just why we see the explorer as lifted above the officer (or as being more "just"). As professor Daub also mentioned today, he does not raise his voice, but only speaks when he is spoken to at the end which causes the other characters' projections on him to crumble, as Mr Roberts also mentions here. These projections do not seem to correspond with his character, however, or at lest not with the impression we get of him at the end of the story. I may just be reading too much into this story, but I think there is more to the explorer than what we have been discussing so far.
After reading Jennifer's post I concur with her opinions. Although messiness might not be usually considered with perfection I believe it fits in this situation. Perfection for this apparatus is exactly messiness and gruesomeness in the machine. It doesn't mean to be clean or subtle but instead a very crude contraption.
ReplyDeleteContinuing on the parallels to religion, I wonder what the significance of the change in Commandant is. If the old God has fallen apart and its disciples the old Commandant and the officer are dead, what has replaced it? We take that the explorer and new Commandant are supposed to be open-minded humanists, or maybe just more European thinkers. The previous system man not have been perfect, but it may have been effecient, since there were no questions, and strong in leadership and loyalty if we believe the officer's tale about the execution extravaganzas. The reader hopes that a new system with more logical minds would be better, but without the frenzy and faith it might lose the efficiency and loyalty. Kafka leaves us like the explorer leaves the soldier and condemned man, without a sense of what comes after God dies.
ReplyDelete