In the Penal Colony

Although Kafkas story In the Penal colonization can be considered 3rd mortal omniscient, I believe the story was essential narrated through officer. I agree with Brittanys interpretation that the traveller benefits from the narration of the officer, because I believe that the traveller symbolizes the reviewer plot of land the officer plays a more mobile role as the narrator. The traveller equal the reader is brought to a foreign menage where the officers explain the intricacies of his lovemaking machine.The officer seems to be in get word of everyone on the penal colony, while the traveler seems to be a resistless bystander who did non try to stop the officers unjustified punishment. The traveler now treasured to remain silent, but he tangle the eyes of the condemned man on him he seemed to be asking whether the traveler could extol the procedure that had just been described. (Page 40) Even when the traveler believed that it was immoral to judge the condemned man without a fair trial, he believe it was wiser to non to interfere with the officers nous.Nevertheless, he had to remind himself that this was a penal colony, that superfluous disciplinary measures were necessary here, and that military procedures had to race throughout. (Page 41) Therefore, I think the authoritative officer seems to be primary narrator. By presenting the tarradiddle in this perspective, the reader like the traveler is able to emotionally and intellectually reply to story however, we can only be the passive bystander watching the inhumane acts broadcast right before our eyes.Perhaps we argon the traveler who just happens to be invited to penal colony. Perhaps we possess neither the fearlessness nor the power to stop paroxysm of the condemned man. more importantly, by representing the traveler as the reader, Kafka asks the reader several critical questions. Would we impose our judgment upon others, if we deem them immoral? Are we the passive bystander who wou ld do nothing to stop torture? How can we be just?