Witness to the Execution
Witness to the Execution: The writer starts his narration objectively since the writer relays the occurrence of the information by using the statements of facts. However, as the narration progresses, further, objectivity is lost. The writer brings into play personal experience of what was to take place in the point where she explains that her hands were shaking, her inability to write notes at that point as well as the realization of what was to happen to Cantu in a short while from then. This takes the narration to the writer’s own personal feelings. Further, the instance where the writer talks about being awed by the beauty of the garden is a personal observation. In addition, the writer’s reference to Cantu’s reply as defiant is personal just like the assertion that people had hopes of Cantu being contrite of his misdeeds and were gone instantly. The writer’s observation that the growls in the room were of hungry stomachs might not be accurate and therefore renders the narration non-objective.
The writer’s choice to use the two lines of direct dialogue was to help in showing the story instead of telling it and hence aid her to remain objective. It contributes to her purpose for documentation of this event as the mood of the general public is clearly brought out and she easily brings out the defiance of Cantu; who’s attitude subtly confirms that he was not only defiant but was also not mortified by the crimes that he was executed for. The writer’s decision to use a timeline helps in organizing the article into only the vital parts of the events leading to the execution of Cantu. It impacts how the story is told by bringing out precision and therefore gains more attention from readers and further helps to create a dramatic effect as well as bring out some sort of suspense.