Incident by Amiri Baraka

When reading this poem, I felt like Baraka was very indifferent towards the subject. The tone throughout the poem is almost careless. But, it would be more towards being indifferent. "He came back and shot. He shot him" (1). Baraka explains the situation so simply and literal. It seems as if Baraka may not be connected to the subject at all, or maybe so connected he is trying to disassociate himself so he doesn't feel pain for his death. "When he came back, he shot, and he fell, stumbling, past the shadow wood, down, shot, dying, dead, to full halt" (1-3). Baraka goes through how the man dies, from when he was shot, to when he was fully gone. The way he phrases it, almost seems like he's making different stages for being shot. "He died then, there after the fall, the speeding bullet, tore his face and blood sprayed fine over the killer and the grey light" (4-6). This vivid image the author uses supports his indifference. He explains perfectly almost as if  he was there. "We have no word on the killer...We know the killer was skillfull, quick, and silent, and that the victim probably knew him" (11-12, 14-16). Again, Baraka shows indifference, almost as like a crime scene investigator explains a murder. Very distant and unconnected to the victim. At the very end, Baraka states "we know nothing" (18). However, this final phrase acts as a paradox. Throughout the poem, Baraka had explained the murder thoroughly, but he finally states he "knows nothing".