"There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies—which is exactly what I hate and detest in the world—what I want to forget. It makes me miserable and sick like biting something rotten would do" (27).
"I've seen the devil of violence, and the devil of greed, and the
devil of hot desire; but by all the stars these were strong, lusty,
red-eyed devils that swayed and drove men—men, I tell you. But as I
stood on this hillside I foresaw that in the blinding sunshine of that
land I would become acquainted with a flabby, pretending, weak-eyed
devil of a capricious and pitiless folly" (16).
"At last I got under the trees. My purpose was to stroll into the shade for a moment, but no sooner within than it seemed to me I had stepped into the gloomy circle of some Inferno" (16).
"They were dying slowly—it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now, nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation lying confusedly in the greenish gloom" (17).
"The man seemed young—almost a boy—but you know with them it's hard to tell" (17).
"'The groans of this sick person,' he said, 'distract my attention. And without that it is extremely difficult to guard against clerical errors in this climate" (18).
"'[Kurtz] is an emissary of pity and science and progress, and the devil knows what else. We want...for the guidance of the cause entrusted to us by Europe, so to speak, higher intelligence, wide sympathies, a singleness of purpose...You are the new gang—the gang of virtue" (25).
"...No, it is impossible, it is impossible to convey the life
sensation of any given epoch of one's existence—that which makes its
truth, its meaning—its subtle and penetrating essence. It is impossible.
We live as we dream—alone..." (27)
So Marlow is straining, straining, to tell the truth—an educated Westerner who chills with the power brokers of empire trying to say something truthful about his trip into the darkness of Africa, a trip that for some reason haunts him. But can he tell the truth? Does he even know what truth is, given his background, his culture, his color? This is The Great Gatsby on
steroids, where reality, truth, is always in question: this is the
ultimate first-person narrative—only Marlow isn't the first person. So
what is the real narrator thinking of this?
This effect
is partly why the book is still studied as it is. It brings into
question the possibility of an experience to truly be rendered the way
it happened. This is the Modernism movement of the late nineteenth-early
twentieth century at its most powerful. And that's just addressing the
narrative style of the book. What about the narrative itself? What is the blasted book
about?
1. What is the book about at this point? Don't talk about style: talk about Marlow and what is
the story revolving around him about? Is there even a story revolving around him? So tell me what you think—and give a quote or two to help support your point.
2. I said on the first day of our discussion that this book has been accused of being a racist text. You're welcome to read the Achebe essay on page 336. And you're welcome to read the essay by Hunt Hawkins, "Heart of Darkness and Racism," on 349. Truthfully, if you read Achebe you need to read Hawkins—and vice versa. I would, though, suggest saving those until you're done with Conrad—you're smart enough to draw your own conclusions. So at this point in the bool: is it racist? Be sure to make the distinction between Marlow's narration and the hands at the control of all this, Joseph Conrad. They're not necessarily the same perspective.
3.
This is an incredibly rich text: reading it is like eating some gooey
chocolate-ice cream-whipped cream-fruit and nuts concoction. You have to
eat it slowly, start from the edges and work your way in. At least
that's my image. What particular image, sentence, phrase even, jumped at
you in the reading? Why? And what's it like for you reading the book?
I'm looking forward to hearing from those of you who were quiet on Friday. This is a hard book—it may be the hardest book you read in high school. But maybe not. Hang in there. See most of you tomorrow. Those of you in Model UN: have fun!
1. The story around Marlow seems to concern his perception of people like him and people not like him, or put another way: 'civilized' Europeans and the rest of the world. At this point, Marlow does not seem to know what he's doing with his life exactly. He says he went to work and turned his back on the station, and " In that way only it seemed to me I could keep my hold on the redeeming facts of life. Still, one must look about sometimes; and then I saw this station, these men strolling aimlessly about in the sunshine of the yard. I asked myself sometimes what it all meant. " Marlow is pretty intelligent, and I think he saw that the company he was working for had somewhat questionable motives before he embarked on this trip. Now, he is stuck in the station and he is questioning why he is there. As he lives there, he sees the work this company is doing. Is it really helping or doing anything for the people native to that country? All the company members seem to be there just to gain power. They either want ivory or to climb the ranks of the company. Marlow sees the terrible things that happen to the Africans, and at this point he feels bad for them but looks past it, but I wonder if it will start to effect him more as the book continues. Right now Marlow sees 'civilized' Europeans treating Africans with violence, and at the same time, trying to gain as much power as possible.
ReplyDelete2. I have not seen anything in this book that I have interpreted as Conrad being racist (however, I could have misinterpreted something). So far, Marlow has used the n-word, and he has shown that he sees the Africans he meets as different than himself, so I would conclude that he is racist. However, Conrad doesn't seem to be condoning Marlow's word's or actions, he is just explaining them. In fact, he is explaining them in a way that would be the opposite of racist. Conrad shows how the belief that the Africans are inferior is untrue with his stories of the European's work. He writes about how the Europeans think they are superior, but then he shows them treating the Africans violently. He also shows Europeans as power hungry. At the moment it seems to me that, either purposefully or not, Conrad is showing that racist ideas are wrong.
3. One scene that stayed with me was Marlow's experience after he got off the boat with the Swede. He sees African laborers who are all dying. The words used to describe them were extremely depressing and the scene felt sickening. Marlow was just surrounded by all these weak and dying men, and he could do nothing about it. He offers one man a biscuit, but obviously it doesn't actually change or help anything. All these people are still suffering and dying.
The book is hard to read. I have to reread many passages to make sure I understand what is going. the wording is very nice, and provides a lot of imagery. Of course, the imagery is somewhat upsetting (like the scene I described above).
1. I hate to give an answer that seems like a cop-out, but to me this book really is a coming of age story, or a story of a young man becoming an older man, a story of experience, of learning (obviously this is a story of age and experience since this class is entitled Age and Experience, but so far my impression really is that Marlow is telling the story of a time that changed his life, that educated him about the world). I feel a bit like a therapist reading this book—Marlow is talking, I am listening; Marlow does not fully realize the import of his words, is still trying to understand what all the things he has seen mean in the larger context of the world, and I am trying to see that bigger picture. With a book there is no interplay, no dialogue, between the text and the reader, but I think that Conrad comes as close to this as is possible. He is laying out a story for the reader to dissect and grapple with. Marlow is learning how the world works; he is learning the power and immensity of nature: “A heavy and dull detonation shook the ground, a puff of smoke came out of the cliff, and that was all. No change appeared on the face of the rock. They were building a railway. The cliff was not in the way of anything, but this objectless blasting was all the work going on.” (15). Humans are causing destruction but to no end—the cliff is not obstructing the path of the railroad. They are simply blowing things up for the sake of blowing things up, mistreating (and mistreating is not a strong enough word) Africans because they can. Marlow sees this but he does not yet understand it; this book, his telling the story, is his process to find understanding.
ReplyDelete2. I don’t think we have seen enough of Conrad’s perspective to form an opinion. I know this doesn’t make sense because he is writing the book, but it seems to me that he has created an objective perspective. Marlow seems a very live character—he has the depth of a human being—and I think that Conrad is really just transcribing Marlow’s story. However, Marlow is a figment of Conrad’s imagination. Marlow uses the n-word. He feels something when he sees the Africans dying in the shade when he first gets off the boat, but it is not quite pity. He does not act, other than to hand a biscuit to a living skeleton who just holds it. He sees the stark contrast between the black skin and the white thread around the man’s neck, and this seems powerful to him but he doesn’t understand what it symbolizes. I think that Marlow is racist, but because he is a product of British colonial society, a racist society. He is naive and has not yet formed his own opinions about the Africans who he has encountered. He is racist out of blind ignorance, not out of hate.
3. Two moments jumped out to me. The first was the one Mira wrote about, the people dying in the shade. It was so tragic, so painful to read—it reminded me of reading about Holocaust survivors, people who had been reduced to skeletons on the brink of life, only able to crawl. The other moment that struck me was at the end of our reading, when Marlow is looking at the moon. He seems to realize the power of nature here: “All this [the night, the moon, the river, the forest] was great, expectant, mute, while the man jabbered about himself. I wondered whether the illness on the face of the immensity looking at us two were meant as an appeal or as a menace. What were we who had strayed in here? Could we handle that dumb thing, or would it handle us? I felt how big, how confoundedly big, was that thing that couldn’t talk and perhaps was deaf as well. What was in there?” (26-27). Marlow is awed by the power of nature and the insignificance of man. We—humans—are so self-absorbed, so self-indulgent; we do not take the time to experience the wonder of the earth. At the beginning of the novel it is the power of London, of civilization, that we are awed by. Here, it is the simple yet exquisite power of nature.
1) The story revolves around Marlow’s view of the work his company is doing and the motives of the people in the company. So far, Marlow's seems to have a pretty overall negative view of all the people he's encountered so far, even if he points out a few respectable traits. Yes, he points out the manager has a good constitution, but he more importantly says, “He had no genius for organizing, for initiative, or for order even.” It doesn't even stop there, he continues, “He had no learning, and no intelligence.” He rips apart the manager’s character, and it serves as a criticism of the company at large because they can't find anyone better than him to serve such a high ranked position. His criticisms range from “young fool” to “papier-mâché Mephistopheles.” He think everyone is only there for power, including the “young fool” is in hopes to become assistant manager. And I can't help but think any compliment he gives to his mission in Africa is sarcastic. They're such grand statements that feels completely fake, as of he is mocking the company. Take this one for example: “I also was a part of the great cause of these high and just proceedings.” But in the end, the language of the book prevents me from being entirely sure that it is sarcasm. Everything in this book, including simple descriptions, have exaggerated and complex language. Marlow’s speech is no different, so I can't just let it away as sarcasm or mockery.
ReplyDelete2) So far we have not seen Conrad’s views of Africans, only Marlow’s. Yes Marlow uses the end word and describes black's as savages and criminals, but this doesn't necessarily reflect what Conrad believes. In fact, in his criticism of the company and their motives, Conrad is also in a way criticizing racism. I do think Conrad is criticizing the way Africans are treated by the European’s (at least so far), so no, I'm do not think this book is racist yet.
3) Yes, there is a lot of rich imagery here. The passage about how Marlow feels about lies and the description of the near-death group of Africans were very vivid and well-written. My favorite section was: “They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now, nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation lying confusedly in the greenish gloom.” Marlow views Africans as below him, as savages. But here, he implies that the work of Europeans has reduced them to something even below that, something that isn't from this earth. I also think a lot of the language is embellished to the point it loses its meaning. Some of the descriptions are stretched to the point of nonsense. A lot of times they also distract from the story. At some points, a description was so elongated that when Conrad finally got back to the story’s progression, I forgot where we were and what was happening. But I am starting to get more used to the language, so I can understand more of what Conrad is saying.
1. From what we've read so far, I think the book is presenting the views that most Europeans have about the world and imperialism. Marlow’s character, I think is a bit different in that he seems to not take everything at face value. His story starting out as a young boy with “a passion for maps” (7) allows us to understand his original intentions which plays a small, yet significant role his general character as an adult. We see him as an adult defending British imperialism as something different than what other European countries. He even says that the Romans are different than the British in that they “grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got. It was robbery with violence, aggravated murder...”(7). However when he describes what happened when a railway was being built in the Ivory Coast, he uses the same kind of language to describe their actions: “No change appeared on the face of the rock. They were building a railway. The cliff was not in the way of anything, but the object less blasting was all the work going on” (15). Whatever he believes about European/British imperialism, Marlow is not blind to what is right and what is wrong and I think as the book goes on, we'll see him form a solid stance/opinion.
ReplyDelete2. I don't think we've read enough to judge whether or not the book/ Joseph Conrad is racist even if the world he has created is. I agree that a distinction between the story and the writer is needed because I think the book is commenting on the world at that point in history by creating this world.
3. The moment that stuck out too me was when Marlow saw all the dying people: “I began to distinguish the gleam of the eyes under the trees. Then glancing down I saw a face near my hand. The black bones reclined at full length with one shoulder against a tree and slowly the eyelids rose and the sunken eyes looked up at me, enormous and vacant, a kind of blind, white flicker in the depths of the orbs which died out slowly. The man seemed young –almost a boy– but you know with then it's hard to tell” (17). It was such a sad scene but the last line was what grabbed my attention. I can't get over the fact that a description about such a tragic event could be followed up with that.
I am actually have a better time understanding the book and am liking it. I guess I needed to read more than four pages to get immersed in it.
1.If I had to pin it down I would say his story is a narrative of disillusionment. As he goes on his journey, Marlow begins to see some of the problems with imperialism. However, it is incredibly unclear if there is a common thread to his complaints; he seems to be critiquing multiple things at once. At one point he seems to question the death and dehumanization that Africans face, yet he also implies that "an unselfish belief in the idea," the idea, I think, being the glorification of the nation, is worth untold suffering. In this light he seems to imply that the main problem with the Belgian exploits in Africa is how ineffective they are; he calls a Belgian he sees" flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly." Thus, while it is incredibly tempting to paint Marlow's story as questioning something specifically, the dissonance between his complaints about his fellow workers suggest a coming of age narrative, like Nell suggested.
ReplyDelete2. It is at the same time one of the most racist and least racist books I have ever read. On the one hand, Marlow's conception of savagery is very colorblind; in his earlier story he makes it clear that England itself used to be wild and savage and that it was only an "accident" that led to the Romans being stronger, implying that the Europeans have no natural advantage over the Africans and that in another historical context it could just have easily been the Africans dominating the Europeans. On the other hand, this is just what could be, not what is. Just because the difference between the Europeans and the Africans could be smaller doesn't mean it is; the historical situation that Conrad wrote the Heart of Darkness has a powerful Europe dominating a weak Africa. To show the Africans as weak implies that they are inferior even if they could be stronger. So while it is of no fault of their own that they are inferior, it still reinforces racist stereotypes.
3. The phrase used to describe Mr. Kurtz "pity, science and progress" jumped out. It almost felt like a description of what imperialism should be, instead of the horrors that Marlow has witnessed. Yet, this pity, science and progress would still be incredibly grim for the native Africans even if it improved on the efficiency that Marlow thinks imperialism lacks.
About the book, I love reading it - its poetry in novel form.
1. To be honest, I’m a little confused as to what is going on in the book at the moment, so I’m not sure I can accurately say what the book is about. I think the book is about Marlow trying to figure out the point of the work his company is doing (it seems to me that he questions this a lot): “Still, one must look about sometimes; and then I saw this station, these men strolling aimlessly about in the sunshine of the yard. I asked myself what it all meant” (23). I agree with what Nell said, that Marlow can’t quite figure out exactly what is going on, exactly how his actions fit in with the world as a whole. Although perhaps I just think Marlow may not know his own place in this world because I can’t figure it out. I also like some of the themes incorporated into other people’s answers, how the book is about Marlow’s (perhaps shifting) views of imperialism and the representations of African natives to Europeans, because I think these are all tied together.
ReplyDelete2. I think Marlow’s descriptions of the indigenous people of Africa are very animalistic and inconsiderate (and so, prejudiced). He views the natives as servants, people who are minor creatures in his work. I dislike the fact how their troubles are only of importance to Marlow if they disrupt his work. He does not care about the natives’ wellbeing, their health or their pain. He is bothered when their sicknesses interfere with his obligations. One example of this was when Marlow was with the Company’s chief accountant in his hut, which he shared with a sick man. The accountant complained of his attention being disrupted when the sick man was groaning, but when the latter was too sick to utter any sound, the accountant was perfectly content. I agree with Nell and Jaliwa when they say we have not seen enough of Conrad’s own opinion of black people to determine whether his opinion is racist.
3. I think something that really struck me was one of the last lines of the reading: “No, it is impossible; it is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one’s existence – that which makes its truth, its meaning – its subtle and penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live, as we dream – alone” (27). This sentence stayed with me mainly because I think about this a lot, even in a context completely different from that which Conrad is writing about, regarding the people in my life. I think it’s interesting, how you think you know someone – a close family member or friend – very well but how it is truly impossible to know them (or a period in their life) the way they know themselves. I just find that interesting to think about. When I read this book, I perpetually feel like I am missing something, some piece of information that would be helpful (as shown by my answer to the first question). I’m not positive I understand everything that happens, or everything that Marlow is saying, and so I’m not sure I can correctly identify what the book is about (at this point). That said, I love the writing and don’t find the writing itself particularly difficult to follow (for the most part).
1. Marlow keeps talking the futility of the Company's actions. To him, this story is about the impermanent and arbitrary nature of power. He begins by talking about how Britain has not always been in a position of power, and long ago the Romans were in control, treating Britons as they pleased. In his time, Rome is faded, and Britain is the center of the world. He says that the power that Romans had was "Nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others" (7). This strength passes away. He later describes a man as "An impression of pale plumpness in a frock coat. The great man himself. He was five feet six, I should judge, and had his grip on the handle-end of ever so many millions" (10). Marlow goes on to describe the jungle as "waiting patiently for the passing away of this fantastic invasion" (23). He later describes the edge of the jungle as a "wall of matted vegetation standing higher than the wall of a temple" (26). While the British Empire melted away, Marlow sees nature as permanent. He describes the rhythmic crashing of waves as "something natural, that had its reason, that had a meaning" (13) in contrast to a hole he finds dug in a hillside, "the purpose of which [Marlow] found impossible to divine. It wasn't a quarry or sandpit, anyhow. It was just a hole" (16). The natural world has permanence a purpose, while all humans, no matter how powerful, are mortal. The permanence of the natural world is contrasted with a story about inevitable endings, about mortality, which, Marlow says, "is exactly what I hate and detest in the world" (27).
ReplyDelete2. We see from Marlow a combination of pity and disdain for Africans. He has a sense that something wrong is happening but at the same time isn't willing to recognize the humanity of the African people he sees abused or do anything substantial to help them. He fights the problem of their starvation, disease, and enslavement by giving one biscuit to one dying man. This is as useless as lobbing shells at a continent or trying and failing to blow up a cliff next to the where you need to put a railroad. He doesn't change their quality of life or his own prejudice. Conrad sees the scale of the problem and recognizes the atrocity of what Europeans were doing in Africa. At the same time he was a racist. We have not seen any development of an African character or any sign of humanity in an African. Conrad is speaking out against Africans being treated poorly in Africa, but that doesn't mean he would treat them well if they came to Europe.
3. Conrad's depiction of nature strikes me as remarkable. At one station, Marlow speaks of "the silent wilderness surrounding this cleared speck on the earth struck me as something great and invincible, like evil or truth, waiting patiently for the passing away of this fantastic invasion" (23). Marlow is unimpressed by the Company; it's poorly run and disorganized. The only order he sees is this impenetrable mystery. Marlow was drawn to the blank spaces on maps as a child. This jungle is what's left of that space now he's an adult. It is indifferent and vast.
1. The story is thus far just allowing a peek into the world so vaguely understood by the public at the time. The horrors and greed most likely inferred by anyone who cared to infer them are now being described in physical text - to those who did not infer these things (through ignorance, misinformation, or simple avoidance in favor of a more polished, positive view of British conquest) these first pages would be steadily more and more upsetting as they describe an inhospitable world inhabited by unfeeling businessmen in search of personal advancement, and local peoples being worked and beaten to death. Marlow himself doesn’t seem like much of a compelling character. We have little in the way of his family life except what directly contributed to his travels (his religious aunt), we don’t really know anything about his likes or dislikes, and what we do know about him is painfully middling; he has a non-combative yet not demure disposition, is disgusted by death and disease but not compelled to do anything about it, is racist but not openly violent, etc. In other words, he is thus far very little in the way of an actual character and more of a stand-in for the average reader at the time. We revolve around him only so that his experience will be ours instead. He is used to see the white workers, exposing their ambitious and plotting nature, and used to hear the moans of the black workers as they lay dying. “At first I was astonished, but very soon I became awfully curious to see what he would find out from me. I couldn’t possible imagine what I had in me to make it worth his while. It was very pretty to see how he baffled himself, for in truth my body was full only of chills and my head had nothing in it but what wretched steamboat business. It was evident he took me for a perfectly shameless prevaricator,” p 25. The man Marlow speaks with assumes that he must be a liar at heart, implying that everyone there is in some way or form a conman, vying for his own selfish benefits, and becomes increasingly angry the more Marlow shows that he has no hidden agendas. The men Marlow is surrounded with are steadily losing their minds, speaking disjointedly, saying and doing things that make no sense, “[…]the stout man with mustaches came tearing down to the river, a tin pail in his hand, assured me that everybody was ‘behaving splendidly, splendidly,” dipped about a quart of water, and tore back again. I noticed there was a hole in the bottom of his pail,” p23. Two pages later, someone remarks that beating the black man would solve all conflagrations in the future, though there is no reason to believe that it would stop any fires, let alone that the dying man did anything in the first place. Their logic is illogical, their actions even less so - they are becoming unhinged. Marlow even remarks, “I remembered the old doctor - ‘It would be interesting for science to watch the mental changes of individuals on the spot.’ I felt I was becoming scientifically interesting,” p20. Several scenes of Africans dying are described - this, keeping in mind that Marlow supposedly came here as a missionary. They aren’t helping anyone: they are killing people in droves. I can’t think of a single even vaguely positive scene since Marlow first sailed the shores of Africa. Marlow is our link to the world of British conquest and business in African countries, and what he has shown us is rot, death, and greed. (1/2)
ReplyDeleteThe book is about the savagery the hunt for profit can bring about in “civilized” men. Every single person, including Marlow, seems to have traveled to the country for profit, exemplified in the statement of one of Marlow’s travelling companions: “To make money of course, what do you think?” And many whites in the various outposts consider their jobs, and by extension their money, more important than sympathy or care. One poignant example is when the chief clerk expresses his disdain for the dying person in his office, complaining that he disrupts his work: “The groans of this sick person… distract my attention. And without that it is extremely difficult to guard against clerical errors in this climate.” This barbarism conflicts with the proposed civility and greatness of the European civilization: these colonization efforts are a far cry from the “uplifting” that Marlow’s Aunt believes they are doing.
ReplyDeleteChinua Achebe remarks correctly that Africa is used as a foil for Europe throughout the novel. And just as the continent is caricaturized, so are the people that inhabit it: they become static objects used to convey some sort of pity, attraction, wonder. Yes, in this sense, the emphasis of the blackness of their characters rather than the humanity is racist. But how much of this depiction is Marlow’s doing, rather than Conrad’s? These depictions could just be Conrad’s attempt at making Marlow’s story fit who he is: a product of imperialism, earning his living from the trade of empires. In this capacity, some of the blame can be removed from Conrad, and chalked up to embellishment for the purpose of character.
“I was smoking my pipe quietly by my dismantled steamer, and saw them all cutting capers in the light, with their arms lifting high, when the stout man with moustaches came tearing down to the river, a tin pain in his hand, assured me that everybody was ‘behaving splendidly, splendidly,” dipped about a quart of water and tore back again. I noticed there was a hole in the bottom of his pail” (37, Bantam Edition). The description of the men “cutting capers” in the night gives some fantastical imagery, almost evoking a sense of a pagan ritual. The passage draws you in, but then quickly reminds you of the dilapidation of the outpost when the man assures Marlow of the good behavior of everybody, which is obviously false from Marlow’s perspective. The result is a sort of sad wonder, where you are both thrilled yet saddened by the events unfolding.
(2/2)
ReplyDelete2. I’m having a hard time determining whether or not Conrad himself is racist yet - maybe I’ll still be unsure by the end. His characters are certainly racist, but I can’t tell if Conrad is mocking them or using them as a mouthpiece. So far every single character who’s had the opportunity to share their opinion on the matter has been openly racist - even his well intentioned aunt, so insistent that Christianity will save people from their inferior religions. Even Marlow himself (supposedly a missionary) does nothing to abate the horrid suffering he sees - so neither Christianity nor Christians are doing anyone any good. Marlow makes the half-hearted comment about “different complexions and slightly flatter noses,” which betrays some semblance of understanding that prejudice is wrong, but hasn’t made any such comments since. Every white man in Africa is losing his mind, every African is suffering as a result, and in all no one is benefitting - except maybe that mysterious Mr. Kurtz, but even he seems to aspire to a higher position - one situated in Europe. Thus far nothing good has come from the conquest and cruelty, or even simply the presence of white people on the continent. For the most part, Conrad seems to be telling his readers to stop going to Africa. Maybe Conrad is openly racist and condemning an entire continent full of people and even the continent itself, or maybe he's just trying to convince people to stop going to Africa since it doesn’t benefit ANYONE involved.
3. “What were we who had strayed in here? Could we handle that dumb thing, or would it handle us?” p26. Marlow is talking about the river itself. He describes it as a sort of unnerving, massive being, who could be bent to their will or thy to its. This jumped out at me because it pinpoints a key focus in the story thus far: could the colonists control the world they put themselves in, or would it destroy them? Marlow sees Africa as a prehistoric, savage place, where “civilized” people lose their minds. If they were to handle the river, they could forge deeper into the continent, enslaving more people and bringing in more income. They would flourish at the cost of the wellbeing of the river, and the land, and everyone living there. That being the case, Marlow no doubt sees the lack of this outcome as HIS OWN ruin: if he does not control the river, then it will control him. He and his plans will be ruined - he will be driven insane or killed, as he has seen his own people do to those that they control. Violent control, or violent death - Conrad presents a truly horrific dichotomy. Can these really be the only two choices?
I’m getting a feel for the writing, so I’m starting to move a bit quicker. I’m liking it more than I did in the beginning. I think I just had to adjust after Candide’s rapid-fire writing style. Conrad’s writing focuses largely on human emotions - particularly dread, foreboding, and a sense of something dangerous just under your feet. He is constantly playing with fear and disgust, which sets an appropriate mood for the story.
1.So far, I’d say that the book is about Marlow grappling with his role within the larger system of colonization and imperialism. He stumbled into this world almost by accident, seeking only to fulfill his childhood goal of exploring the largest blank space on his map of the known world. In fact, he seems rather surprised to discover that he is “something like an emissary of light, something like a lower sort of apostle”(12). He was not initially aware that his role would be spreading enlightenment and intellectualism throughout a “barbaric” culture; he just wanted to travel to Africa. Once he arrives in Africa, Marlow immediately witnesses horrible acts of brutality towards the enslaved native people. His initial response to this violence bordered on disbelief, with him remarking that “these men could by no stretch of the imagination be called enemies”(16). But, over the course of the next ten pages or so, he seems to grow indifferent to the suffering he sees. For example, he jokingly mentions that he tripped over the corpse of a murdered slave. Marlow does seem to be somewhat aware of this shift, however, adding that he felt that he “was becoming scientifically interesting”(20) to the doctor who measured head circumferences. In other words, he’s questioning whether or not a dramatic change has come over him.
ReplyDelete2. I don’t feel that we can call Conrad racist at this point in the book. We still don’t know what his perspective is, considering that so far the majority of the book has come through the eyes of Marlow. However, I’m also not sure whether or not Marlow is racist. It’s hard for me to determine what in this book - if anything - is being said sarcastically, or if all of it should be taken as genuine. It’s also hard to tell which of the things Marlow says are his own beliefs and which are him relaying the thoughts of others. If I had to choose, I’d say that yes, Marlow is probably racist. But I’m not sure to what extent he’s racist, if that makes any sense, because it’s difficult to tease apart the motivations behind his actions.
3. It took me a few pages to adjust to Conrad’s style, but now I don’t find it very difficult to understand. I’m not saying that this book is at all straightforward, but I don’t feel lost in the elaborately concocted sentences the way I did initially. I suppose the image that jumped out at me most was Marlow’s description of the “men strolling aimlessly about in the sunshine of the yard. [...] They wandered here and there with their absurd long staves in their hands like a lot of faithless pilgrims bewitched inside a rotten fence”(23). This gives such a vivid depiction of these completely useless men, who come to Africa, exploit the natives, do nothing, then hope to move up in the world of business. I was reminded a little bit of wall street (not to get too political #feelthebern)
1. Honestly at this point I'm super confused as to what the point is. I think that maybe it's about a common perspective on colonization and British imperialism held by numerous people at this time. I guess I'm saying this because Marlow seems like a pretty normal guy and probably represents the general public at this time so from this I gather that his story and his opinions are ones that can probably be held by lots of other people. I think that sharing this perspective allows people to recognize the doubt that a lot of people are thinking at this time and also the amplitude of complacency in society right now. I say this because it seems like Marlow recognizes that what's going on is bad, but he obviously not trying to stop anything and feeds into the system as a means of survival. This is seen when he talks about seeing all the black people hiding in the shadows and when he describes them as "bundles of acute angles" (17) and "black bones" (17), obviously taking into account that they don't look healthy and that they look extremely malnourished. He also says prior to this that "they were not our enemies, they were not criminals" (17) which I think is him implying that he knows that they've done nothing wrong but that there's this inherent idea that black people are inferior so this system stays in place and the black people continue to be mistreated.
ReplyDelete2. I don't the book is necessarily racist, but there is this inferiority among the black people and the descriptions of the black people make me uncomfortable. I totally get that they might just be a reflection of their time but it seems like every time there's a description of black people in the book, there's a commentary on how their appearance and how it's very savage-like or beastly yet there's not acknowledgement on who put them in this situation.
3. The image that stuck out to me was Marlow seeing all the black people in the forest and how he described them as being angular and bent up. The description didn't explicitly say that they were malnourished or that they looked ill, just very angular and different looking which I thought was interesting. It was just very vivid and stuck with me throughout the rest of the reading.
1. I think the book so far is about the failure of Europeans to understand how they are affecting the world with their imperialism, and also about the idea of European civilization and questioning whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. It is important that Conrad chooses to have Marlow tell his story on a yacht full of rich people, who have powerful sounding titles. I’m guessing that as they are floating peacefully on the Thames with the lights of London glowing behind them, they have no idea of the scope of the suffering that is happening in Congo. Conrad focuses on how abstract their colonies are to the Europeans when Marlow says, “I could see a little ivory coming out from there and I had heard Mr. Kurtz was in there. I had heard enough about it too---God knows! Yet somehow it didn’t bring any image with it---no more than if I had been told an angel or a friend was in there. I believed it in the same way one of you might believe there are inhabitants in the planet Mars.” (27) Marlow directly addresses the other people on the boat as he says this, and he seems to be referring to them as well as himself. The average European knows their country has colonies but doesn’t think about what goes on in them and happily consumes the resources extracted from them. The book also seems to be about how European civilization might not be a good thing when the unnamed narrator describes London as “a brooding gloom in sunshine, a lurid glare under the stars.” (5) London seems unnatural in a bad way here; it is a sinister entity.
ReplyDelete2. I cannot say yet that this book is racist. Conrad seems to be using Marlow’s viewpoint as a representation for how Europeans view Africans and I think this could mean two things. It could be that Conrad is not even aware that Marlow is racist because he too is racist and Marlow’s comments about the savagery of the Africans, and his lack of caring towards their plight is just what is normal and unquestioned. It could also be that Conrad is using Marlow’s blatant racism to condemn the European’s views and actions towards Africans. I would be much more sure that it was the second of these if Conrad had introduced a black character who was humanized and something more than a person who was suffering.
3. A phrase that stuck out for me was “When one has got to make correct entries one comes to hate those savages––hate them to the death.” (19) This phrase stuck out for me because Conrad literally said what was happening in a little bit of a sneaky way. The entries represent the Europeans’ exploitation of the land and its people so I think this quote is clearly saying that in order to exploit the land millions of people have to die. I have to reread most sentences in this book but I find myself enjoying the complex sentences once I am able to understand them.
1. I feel it’s still a bit too soon to definitively state what Marlow’s story is about, but from the sound of the side stories he’s told us of the Roman and the “fascination of the abomination” (6), I believe his is a story of the degression of humanity mankind faces when given total power and control over others. This is the only theme I was able to pick out constantly through the reading, and perhaps it runs secondary to another that I haven’t discovered yet, but I still think it’s a rather important one. Marlow is telling his story almost as a way of repenting for the sins against basic humanity he either committed or witnessed committed by his crew while in the “heart of darkness”. This, then, calls into question what humanity really is. Is there a difference between humanity and human nature? Is humanity not simply a list of morals whereas human nature is mankind when stripped of the pretense or morality? Which is right to live by? Which is possible to live by? I think Marlow’s story is one of the dangers of human nature when mixed with unchallenged power.
ReplyDelete2. I wholeheartedly disagree with the statement that Joseph Conrad wrote this novella from a racist standpoint. To me, the train of thought of Marlow when discussing the connection he feels with the natives and the bond of mankind that tethers him to them was as blatant a cry for equality as I’ve heard. What must be remembered here is that Marlow is living in a time very different from our own and that he is developing opinions very different from the company he’s with on the little steam boat. He has to work out the true differences, if there are any, between him and the people he was sent to civilize while surrounded by the powerful notion that he is of a different species than them. Conrad, I think, is doing a fantastic job of depicting Marlow’s struggle with this question while making it rather clear what the answer to it is.
3. “a delicious sensation of having come upon something unmistakably real” (14) was my favorite line just because this whole book, or at least Marlow’s telling of his story, feel rather dreamlike. All the darkness and silence and the whole idea of this land being like the beginning of time are all kind of dreamy ideas and descriptions of a reality very different from my own. I really like reading it. There’s a beauty here that I found lacking in “Candide”, and I’m enjoying getting to know Conrad’s style.