Hamlet Summary provides a quick review of the play's plot including every important action in the play. Hamlet Summary is divided by the five acts of the play and is an ideal introduction before reading the original text.
Act I. RISING ACTION
Shakespeare's longest play and the play responsible for the immortal lines "To be or not to be: that is the question:" and the advice "to thine own self be true," begins in Denmark with the news that King Hamlet of Denmark has recently died.
Denmark is now in a state of high alert and preparing for possible war with Young Fortinbras of Norway. A ghost resembling the late King Hamlet is spotted on a platform before Elsinore Castle in Denmark. King Claudius, who now rules Denmark, has taken King Hamlet's wife, Queen Gertrude as his new wife and Queen of Denmark.
King Claudius fearing Young Fortinbras of Norway may invade, has sent ambassadors to Norway to urge the King of Norway to restrain Young Fortinbras. Young Hamlet distrusts King Claudius. The King and Queen do not understand why Hamlet still mourns his father's death over two months ago. In his first soliloquy, Hamlet explains that he does not like his mother marrying the next King of Denmark so quickly within a month of his father's death...
Laertes, the son of Lord Chamberlain Polonius, gives his sister Ophelia some brotherly advice. He warns Ophelia not to fall in love with Young Hamlet; she will only be hurt. Polonius tells his daughter Ophelia not to return Hamlet's affections for her since he fears Hamlet is only using her...
Hamlet meets the Ghost of his father, King Hamlet and follows it to learn more...
Hamlet learns from King Hamlet's Ghost that he was poisoned by King Claudius, the current ruler of Denmark. The Ghost tells Hamlet to avenge his death but not to punish Queen Gertrude for remarrying; it is not Hamlet's place and her conscience and heaven will judge her... Hamlet swears Horatio and Marcellus to silence over Hamlet meeting the Ghost.
Act II.
Polonius tells Reynaldo to spy on his son Laertes in Paris. Polonius learns from his daughter Ophelia that a badly dressed Hamlet met her, studied her face and promptly left. Polonius believes that Hamlet's odd behavior is because Ophelia has rejected him. Polonius decides to tell King Claudius the reason for Hamlet's recently odd behavior.
King Claudius instructs courtiers Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to find out what is causing Hamlet's strange "transformation," or change of character. Queen Gertrude reveals that only King Hamlet's death and her recent remarriage could be upsetting Hamlet.
We learn more of Young Fortinbras' movements and Polonius has his own theory about Hamlet's transformation; it is caused by Hamlet's love for his daughter Ophelia. Hamlet makes his famous speech about the greatness of man. Hamlet plans to use a play to test if King Claudius really did kill his father as King Hamlet's Ghost told him...
Act III.
The King's spies, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern report to King Claudius on Hamlet's behavior. Hamlet is eager for King Claudius and Queen Gertrude to watch a play tonight which Hamlet has added lines to.
King Claudius and Polonius listen in on Hamlet's and Ophelia's private conversation. Hamlet suspects Ophelia is spying on him and is increasingly hostile to her before leaving.
King Claudius decides to send Hamlet to England, fearing danger in Hamlet since he no longer believes Hamlet is merely lovesick. The King agrees to Polonius' plan to eavesdrop on Hamlet's conversation with his mother after the play to hopefully learn more from Hamlet. The play Hamlet had added lines to is performed. The mime preceding the play which mimics the Ghost's description of King Hamlet's death goes unnoticed.
The main play called "The Murder of Gonzago" is performed, causing King Claudius to react in a way which convinces Hamlet that his uncle did indeed poison his father King Hamlet as the Ghost previously had told him... Hamlet pretends not to know that the play has offended King Claudius. Hamlet agrees to speak with his mother in private...
CLIMAX
King Claudius admits his growing fear of Hamlet and decides to send him overseas to England with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in order to protect himself. Alone, King Claudius reveals in soliloquy his own knowledge of the crime he has committed (poisoning King Hamlet) and realizes that he cannot escape divine justice...
Queen Gertrude attempts to scold her son but Hamlet instead scolds his mother for her actions. Queen Gertrude cries out in fear, and Polonius echoes it and is stabbed through the arras (subdivision of a room created by a hanging tapestry) where he was listening in. Hamlet continues scolding his mother but the Ghost reappears, telling Hamlet to be gentle with the Queen. For her part, Queen Gertrude agrees to stop living with King Claudius, beginning her redemption....
FALLING ACTION
Act IV.
King Claudius speaks with his wife, Queen Gertrude. He learns of Polonius' murder which shocks him; it could easily have been him. Queen Gertrude lies for her son, saying that Hamlet is as mad as a tempestuous sea. King Claudius, now scared of Hamlet, decides to have Hamlet sent away to England immediately... He also sends courtiers and spies Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to speak with Hamlet to find out where Hamlet has hidden Polonius' body so they can take it to the chapel.
Hamlet refuses to tell Rosencrantz and Guildenstern where Polonius' dead body is hidden. He calls Rosencrantz and Guildenstern lapdogs revealing his true awareness that they are not his friends. Hamlet agrees to see King Claudius.
Hamlet continues to refuse to tell Rosencrantz and Guildenstern where Polonius' body is. Hamlet is brought before the King. The two exchange words, clearly circling each other, each aware that the other is a threat. Hamlet tells King Claudius where Polonius body is. King Claudius ominously tells Hamlet to leave for England supposedly for Hamlet's own safety. With Hamlet gone, King Claudius reveals his plans for Hamlet to be killed in England, freeing King Claudius from further worry from this threat...
Young Fortinbras marches his army across Denmark to fight the Polish. Hamlet laments that he does not have in him the strength of Young Fortinbras, who will lead an army into pointless fighting, if only to maintain honor. Hamlet asks himself how he cannot fight for honor when his father has been killed and his mother made a whore in his eyes by becoming King Claudius' wife.
The death of Polonius leaves its mark on Ophelia who becomes mad from the grief of losing her father. Laertes storms King Claudius' castle, demanding to see his father and wanting justice when he learns that his father, Polonius has been killed. King Claudius remains calm, telling Laertes that he too mourned his father's loss...
Horatio is greeted by sailors who have news from Hamlet. Horatio follows the sailors to learn more... King Claudius explains to Laertes that Hamlet killed his father, Polonius. Deciding they have a common enemy, they plot Hamlet's death at a fencing match to be arranged between Laertes and Hamlet. Laertes learns of his sister Ophelia's death by drowning...
Act V. ANAGNORISIS, CATASTROPHE, RESOLUTION, CATHARSIS
Hamlet and Horatio speak with a cheerful Clown or gravedigger. Hamlet famously realizes that man's accomplishments are transitory (fleeting) and holding the skull of Yorick, a childhood jester he remembered, creates a famous scene about man's insignificance and inability to control his fate following death.
At Ophelia's burial, the Priest reveals a widely held belief that Ophelia committed suicide, angering Laertes. Hamlet fights Laertes over Ophelia's grave, angered by Laertes exaggerated emphasis of his sorrow and because he believes he loved Ophelia much more than her brother.
Hamlet explains to Horatio how he avoided the death planned for him in England and had courtiers' Rosencrantz and Guildenstern put to death instead. Hamlet reveals his desire to kill King Claudius.
Summoned by Osric to fence against Laertes, Hamlet arrives at a hall in the castle and fights Laertes. Queen Gertrude drinks a poisoned cup meant for Hamlet, dying but not before telling all that she has been poisoned.
Hamlet wins the first two rounds against Laertes but is stabbed and poisoned fatally in the third round. Exchanging swords whilst fighting, Hamlet wounds and poisons Laertes who explains that his sword is poison tipped.
Now dying, Hamlet stabs King Claudius with this same sword, killing him.
Hamlet, dying, tells Horatio to tell his story and not to commit suicide. Hamlet recommends Young Fortinbras as the next King of Denmark. Young Fortinbras arrives, cleaning up the massacre. Horatio promises to tell all the story we have just witnessed, ending the play.
Here's one that's quite good, but somewhat complex, as far as discussion goes:
http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/a_f/dickinson/dickinson.htm
you'll find bio, and five of the poems there.
A simpler website, with an overview of themes, can be found here:
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/cs6/dickinson.html#poems
Heart of Darkness—mock oral practice
1.Write a paraphrase to briefly situate the passage in the plot.
2. Thesis statement. A good thing to lead with: what is the character in the passage experiencing and how does he/she deal with that? Establish the TONE of the passage What emerges from this passage? Character trait? Theme? Imagery?
3.Examine the language/diction in the passage. Look at the poetic devices.
4.How do your findings fit into the work as a whole?
5.Reminder—no need for “axes” or annonce de plan. That’s not to say that your analysis doesn’t have some structure that you’ve put down in your notes. Where you are going should be clear in your thesis statement and then should unfold, organically, by your analysis.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Heart of Darkness Commentaries
General Comments:
Overall, the commentaries show great strengths in terms of close reading and in terms of organization. They are coherently built and coherently argued, with good textual evidence, and a fine sense of what literary devices are, as well as how to use them.
Here are the main pitfalls, however:
1. A starting point that is vague or broad, or interested in something too narrow which can walk away from the passages' first, key meaning. You must acknowledge the principal ideas the text is engaged in before embarking on additional layers. The thesis must be concretely about what the passage itself reveals. Engage yourself with the point of view of the speaker and what he is revealing about this moment, about himself. You can never go wrong with that technique. However, if you find yourself reading a thesis without knowing to what passage it refers, then you'll see what I mean. Beware of branching out into abstractions. You can always do so later, in the conclusion. Your business is to work with what's at hand and uncover its layers of meaning. Literature makes abstract points, but it does so through concrete, life like moments.
2. Don't forget the forest for the trees! You find wonderful things in these passages, but before stringing them together (and beware of doing so, btw), stand back to see how they fit in the overall passage. Are you changing the meaning of the text? Are you taking your jewels out of context and creating a new meaning? I have seen that happen in a few passages. Remember to look your passage over carefully and make sure you have addressed its major moments, its major ideas and not just allowed some words to take you down a different path....
3. To separate or not to separate? I know you've received comments on your papers, both in French and in English. Here's the rule of thumb: in English, we don't skip lines, we don't put little stars on our papers in between sub parts, we don't have floating sentences that announce sub parts. We do, however, indent a new paragraph and make sure its topic sentence guides the argument forward well and refers back to the thesis. I know the different methods are hard to keep track of, but remember this as key to all of your writing in ENGLISH.
4. Finally, you are working well towards drawing some conclusions but be sure that these, then, fit back into the text as a whole. Why is the passage important? How does it fit with other observations made by Marlow along the way, for example, or how will this passage's discovery anticipate or cause later moments in the narrative?
5. Finally again (haha), some of you attempted links, and I've addressed these, though they were not mandatory so I did not factor these into your grade. The more practice, the better, say I.
I have placed comments after every passage. See if you can anticipate what the comments will be as you read the passages.
I've chosen not to post the grades. These go from 11 to 17, and you should be able to see the range for yourselves, I think, but I decided that people may not feel comfortable with that idea, so I've taken them off....
Passage 1
The novel, Heart of Darkness, by Joseph Conrad, is based on European colonization of the Congo ruled by Kind Leopold II in the late 19th Century. One of the goals of this colonization was to collect rubber and ivory from the Belgian Congo in order to create more wealth for Europeans. In this novel, Charlie Marlow is a sailor who receives a job from a Belgian trading company and ventures into Africa. During his trip, he witnesses the real horrors of colonization. In this passage, Marlow had just received the job and was sitting in a waiting room at the Company's offices in order to sign his contract and receive a check up from a doctor. At this point, Marlow has a new feeling of uneasiness and perhaps even confusion leading one to question what he is about to endure during his trip to the Belgian Congo. The two knitting women set an ominous tone for this passage and thus serve as a foreshadowing of the horrors Marlow will witness in Africa. The eeriness of the situation could have served Marlow as a warning but he does not choose to acknowledge the signs due to his deep curiosity of the situation in the Belgian Congo.
First of all, Marlow's choice of diction in this passage is evidence of Marlow's awareness of the gloomy atmosphere surrounding him: "uneasy", "ominous", "troubled", "eerie", "uncanny", "fateful", "unknown", and "scrutinizing". The creepiness of the situation should already serve as a warning to Marlow. Normally, one would have a “bad feeling" about the situation and quit before it is too late but somehow Marlow either makes the choice to refuse to listen to the multiple signs or he simply never acknowledged them in the first place. However, it is also very possible that these signs only intrigue Marlow more. He is curious to know what is truly going on in the Belgian Congo since he does not seem to be as convinced as his Aunt, for example, by the "greatness" of colonization in the first place. Marlow is a sailor and therefore likes the adventure and discovery making him more eager to travel to Africa. Still, he is telling this story from a new perspective and it seems that he later understands what these signs really meant: many people did not come out of the Belgian Congo alive. Marlow's newfound understanding of that situation is proved when he claims that "not many of those she looked at ever saw her again -not half, by a long way" indicating that many didn't make it back home.
Through the use of imagery, Marlow describes the knitting women similarly to how one would describe a witch, adding to the sinister atmosphere: "knitted black wool", "a cat reposed on her lap", "wart on one cheek", " silver-rimmed spectacles hung on the tip of her nose". Witches are known to be dark, creepy beings that are only found in negative situations thus serving as a perfect sign for Marlow to become aware of the fact that his situation will most probably not turn out well. This comparison between the knitting women and witches leads to the idea that these women serve as allegories for Fate: "She seemed to know all about them and about me, too […] She seemed uncanny and fateful." These women especially made Marlow uneasy. These women seem all-knowing and Marlow chose to ignore their signs and not trust them. He even says "the other scrutinizing the cheery and foolish faces with unconcerned old eyes" proving that the women know things that the others don't as if they can foretell what is to come in each of their lives. The fact that the people were "cheery and foolish" while the women were scrutinizing them makes it clear that their fates will not be "cheery" and they have no idea what is ahead of them, just like Marlow at the time. Marlow uses the African expression "Morituri te salutant" meaning "those who are about to die salute thee". The women already knew who would die and who would live in the Congo whereas Marlow had to find that out later. Marlow's use of this expression makes it clear that the Marlow narrating here has already been to the Belgian Congo and has an entirely new perspective. He now understands the signs that were right in front of him at the time.
Marlow compares his new situation to that of a "conspiracy" which has negative connotations of its own: "It was just as though I had been let into some conspiracy". The use of the word "conspiracy" insinuates his acknowledgement of the fact that what he is getting himself into is secretive, harmful, and illegal. However, even with the knowledge that he may be getting himself into something unlawful and dangerous, there is something still drawing Marlow to Africa. This brings up again the idea that Marlow is seeking an adventure and does not want to be held back. Perhaps he was naive and ignorant towards the true horrors that were going on in the Belgian Congo but it seems that he wanted to find them out for himself. If his adventure meant being part of something like a "conspiracy" than this is what he would be a part of. He does prove to be somewhat hesitant of the trip he is about to go on but he doesn't let it get in the way of his adventure and chooses to disregard any warning.
Marlow uses a metaphor for the unknown by claiming that the knitting women are "guarding the door of Darkness". The "Darkness" here also refers to the Belgian Congo which is unknown to Marlow; he does not know what to expect but the knitting women seem to know exactly what is going on there and the image is not a positive one. Still, Marlow acknowledges the fact that he does not know what to expect in Africa, he doesn't have any presumptions and he is well aware that he is stepping into unknown territory. He knows that he has yet to discover the Belgian Congo and does not yet have any understand of the people nor does he know the real situation between the Europeans and the natives. However, Marlow fails to acknowledge how terrible the consequences of his adventure could be and he may not be as open minded as one would think. His only motive in this moment is his burning curiosity to know the unknown.
To conclude, before venturing into the Belgian Congo, Marlow chose to ignore the morose signs that could have prevented him from the trouble he would face in Africa. In reality, Marlow had absolutely no idea what to expect from the Belgian Congo but his biggest motive for the trip was to discover. It can be said that Marlow went into the Belgian Congo with an open mind but, at the same time, he was still naive and not mentally prepared for the real situation. The situation with the knitting women in Heart of Darkness can be linked to the situation with the Weird Sisters in Macbeth. Both the knitting women and the Weird Sisters add to the already ominous atmosphere and have the power to see into the future and have the knowledge of each person’s fate. The sinister atmosphere in both works appears towards the beginning of both stories and serves as a foreshadowing of the horrors to come. A difference between the two situations involves the fact that Marlow chooses to ignore the signs of the knitting women and continue on with his dangerous adventure whereas Macbeth chooses to take the Weird Sisters' words very seriously and act upon them. Both characters still end up going down dark and dangerous paths.
A good commentary that pays careful attention to detail and how it informs meaning. There is one factual error regarding the phrase "Morituri te Salutant." This is a Roman phrase, the one the Gladiators said in the ring to the Emperor as they went to fight. It means those who are about to die salute you. In this case, Marlow says it to the knitting women. And he says it, probably, after the fact as he recalls their indifference. Some exploration of Marlow's tone is necessary, then. As he looks over this incident, when he ignored the signs, how does he feel towards these Fates? What do you make of the fact that there are 2, not 3 fates? Marlow is uneasy, but he's also clearly cynical in his narration as he recounts the uneasiness he felt and the indifference they showed him--why? It is clear here that we are dealing with 2 Marlows: the narrator and the character. The narrator actually bounces around between two past events--this threshold and a later time in the narrative when he'll think of these women again, perhaps when he may encounter the third one? Good link to Macbeth. Develop--consider the way Macbeth chooses the witches who, in this case, are not warning but enticing. He actually hesitates, doesn't he, and weighs what they are doing, weighs his uneasiness to discard it, as Marlow does here.
-----------------
Commentary--passage # 8
The end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century were a period of colonization in Africa. Heart of Darkness, a novel written by Joseph Conrad and published in 1902 touches on the theme of colonization: more specifically, the Belgian Congo. In this passage, the speaker is Marlow and his diction and use of rhetorical devices tells the reader that he is confused as to why the man-of-war is shelling the African coast and upset by what he sees.
For one, the speaker uses a diction that tells the reader that there is no reason for the man-of-war to shoot at the continent: “wasn’t even”; “empty immensity”; “incomprehensible”; “insanity” “assuring me”; “somewhere”. The speaker does not understand why the men are attacking the coast; instead, all that he sees is that the man-of-war is in the middle of the ocean in “empty immensity”.
At the same time, Marlow uses a diction that shows that the man-of-war’s actions are recurrent: “one of their wars”; “one of the”; “would”. By insinuating that this perplexing event is almost customary, the speaker may be taking this event as the epitome of colonization. Therefore saying that colonization as a whole is not supported by a justifiable reason.
Additionally, the speaker emasculates the man-of-war. Firstly, he refers to the “man-of-war” as “she”, using a feminine pronoun to refer to a warship that is composed of two manly words: “man” and “war”. Moreover, Marlow uses the words “limp” and “thin” which is a term generally used to emasculate a man. By emasculating the man-of-war the speaker shows his displeasure of the ship’s actions.
On the same note, the simile “Her ensign dropped limp like a rag” is an insult directed towards the ship. An ensign is a flag raised on naval fleets indicating the nationality of the ship; more importantly though, an ensign is supposed to be flown high with pride. On the other hand, a rag is an old, dirty, useless piece of cloth. In fact, the speaker’s use of the words “greasy” and “slimy” add to this image of a tainted, corrupt, and morally wrong boat. So, the speaker saying that her ensign dropped limp like a rag means that the ship’s pride and honor became nothing and without any moral value. Marlow is therefore declaring that the once prideful man-of-war is now a useless, immoral boat, showing the speaker’s denunciation of the ship’s actions.
Furthermore, the speaker tells the reader that the man-of-war’s actions are weak. He says “a small flame would dart and vanish, a little white smoke would disappear, a tiny projectile would give a feeble screech” after a gun was fired. Not only is the flame “small”, the white smoke “little”, and the projectile “tiny”, but also all of the components of the gun are far from intimidating and seemingly ineffective: “dart and vanish”; “disappear”; “feeble screech”. In fact, Marlow bluntly notes right after “nothing happened”. Then adding “nothing could happen” which, since the speaker uses a tense that tells the reader that even if the man-of-war had performed to its best, shows that still, nothing would happen.
Finally, the speaker quotes the person on the ship who says with an exclamation point that the natives were enemies. Directly adjacent to the seaman’s exclamation, the speaker says “hidden out of sight somewhere” the contrast between the sailor’s certainty that the natives are enemies and the doubt the speaker uses, saying “hidden”, “out of sight”, and “somewhere” makes the reader realize how absurd the attack on the coast is.
In conclusion, Marlow is confused as to why the man-of-war is attacking the African coast and shows his hatred for the ship’s actions. He tells the reader that the attack is ridiculous and the ship itself is shameful, weak, and immoral. This passage relates to the Heart of Darkness as a whole because throughout the novel there is an overriding question of “why are we here?”. This passage made the speaker ask “why is the man-of-war here? Why is it attacking the coast?”. Additionally, in Heart of Darkness there is a theme of senseless violence, the reason for which the speaker is upset in this passage.
Comment: A good commentary that could be more thorough still. Begin by better contextualizing the passage: we don't know, for one, where we are in the narrative, and that could be important. In fact, this is part 1 and it's Marlow's first experience of the colonists' interaction with the natives. And this experience is peripheral, on the coastline. I like the way you speak of the emasucaltion of this man of war, its miniature and limp quality. You mention the absurdity of the attack, but leave out the language Marlow uses to convey that. Similarly, you've left off the language that explains why they are doing this, how the native are enemies. This will be the first in a series of words Marlow will explore to decipher the Congolese.
Still, some good discovery here.
-------------------------------
Commentary on passage 12
Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
This passage is an excerpt from Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness in which he tells the story of a European explorer, Marlow, who goes on an adventure to the Belgian Congo. It is located in the second part of the novella as Marlow and the crew are going down the river and going towards the station where Kurtz can be found. In this passage, Marlow is struggling with the fact that he found out the truth about the natives and the fact that they are the same as the Europeans. Marlow is conflicted with what he has found out, but he is even more conflicted with the idea that they have been abusing their own kind. By the end of the passage, Marlow seeks to spread the truth and realizes that the true darkness is that the Europeans have willingly forgotten that they are all the same.
The comparisons and oppositions that Marlow make throughout the passage show the differences in perception that he has. In the beginning, Marlow compares the black people to monsters, showing his perception of them as being inhuman. He then opposes what they are used to seeing in Europe and what they see in the Congo. He is finally seeing that the natives are like animals: tamed within civilization and wild in their real habitat. They are compared once again to animals when he says, “Howled, and leaped, and spun, and made horrid faces.” Here, all of their gestures and movements are being interpreted as something animal-like, which is not accepted by the Europeans. The oppositions are also shown within the diction: “conquered”, “shackled”, “monster”, “ugly” versus “free”, “men”, “humanity”. The fact that they talk about the black people usually being “conquered” shows that they are able to dominate them at home, but in their home, they are enable to deprive them from their freedom. As we immerse ourselves deeper in the passage, Marlow has a change of opinion.
When realizing that they are one of the same, there is a sense of repulsion about the idea that they could be alike. Firstly, they talk about the “worst”, meaning that they are associating the idea that resembling the natives as the worst possible thing that could happen. It is also the worst because that means that they are abusing of their own kind. He shows his disgust once more when he says, “the thought of their humanity–like yours–the thought of your remote kinship with this wild passionate uproar.” The fact that there is a separation between these two humanities “their humanity” and “yours” by Marlow shows that there is a clear idea of an unwanted familial tie between these two groups. The usage of the words “remote kinship” here show once again the distance and the separation between these two completely different groups of people. The rejection of this common ancestor is once again rejected and insulted when he says: “Ugly. Yes, it was ugly enough.” This ugliness also reflects that they are abusing their own kind, which is more than cruel. But this rejection shows an inability for the Europeans to face the fact that they are the same people, and with this incapability comes weakness.
The idea that the Europeans are unable to face the fact that they are the same as the black people shows extreme weakness on their part. In order to make his argument more potent, the author attacks the manliness of the Europeans by saying “if you were man enough.” The use of “if” in the sentence adds to the attack of their manhood because of its uncertainty. In addition, he says that a real man would be able to admit that he was actually like a native, a real man would be able to tell the truth about his situation. For this, he uses the words “terrible frankness” as if the truth was so abundant that it became terrible. Furthermore, he uses rhetorical questions in order to show his distress and worry that no one sees what is going on.
In talking about the mind of man, he puts men on a pedestal but only so that he can insult the Europeans right after. By saying, “the mind of man is capable of anything”, he is showing that everything is possible, even forgetting the past and the mistakes that were made. He is showing that the mind of the man is the center of the system in which they live in, yet in this system, they are able to control what happened in the past and what will happen in the future. But, ultimately, there is nothing but the emotions that we feel that is left: “joy, fear, sorrow, devotion, valour, rage.” This enumeration of emotions just shows the contradiction between the animal behaviors because having emotions makes someone human. This means that here, the speaker is finally humanizing the natives.
Many repetitions are used throughout the passage in order to emphasize certain words and make the reader notice them. Many words are used exactly two times, usually in a row, in order to direct the reader towards the most important concepts. There is the repetition of: “unearthly”, “monster”, “inhuman”, “ugly”, “truth”, “principles”, and “fool”. These words are the ones on which the whole passage revolve, showing the structure that Conrad gave to this particular excerpt in order to enlighten the readers.
By the end of the passage, Marlow is on a quest for the truth and that he will not give up on revealing it. Marlow uses a metaphor in order to show that the truth has been hidden from the people by time: “but truth–truth stripped of its cloak of time.” By showing that time has masked the truth, he is referring to the fact that the Europeans ignore the fact that black people were also a part of the civilization and they are all descendent from apes, meaning they are all animals. A cloak can be either a cover or a veil, being used to cover something up or partially withhold some part of an object. In this metaphor, the cloak is used mostly as a cloak because it is completely hiding the fact that they are all one of the same kind.
Marlow shows that the natives are not the ones that are uncultivated and foolish, but it is the Europeans. Marlow is comparing the Europeans to fools throughout the passage. This differs from the usual perception of the Europeans because of their God-like statuses at that time and place. The fact that he compares them to fools is bringing them down the way that they brought down the natives. When he says, “let the fool gape and shudder- the man knows, and can look on without a wink.” By saying this he is showing that only real men can look past the horrors of the truth and accept them for what they are. He is showing the true strength of the natives who are able to know and look past things in comparison to the fools that stare and shiver with no reaction whatsoever. In order to add to this comparison, he says: “”he must at least be as much of a man as these on the shore.” By saying this, he is once again making the Europeans on their boats look like cowards who have no internal strength and he is glorifying the natives. Marlow shows the lack of strength by saying “inborn strength”, which he is pointing out that the Europeans clearly do not have since they were not able to accept the truth of their situation.
He continues by showing that the Europeans will never have what it takes to be manly but the natives are born with that strength. Marlow emphasizes the idea that nothing that the Europeans consider valuable and necessary are enough to give them the strength needed. Everything that is important to them such as “acquisitions, clothes, and pretty rags” is not enough. This enumeration shows to what extent their physical strength and wealth is not enough. He is also bringing them down by saying: “rags that would fly off at the first good shake.” This personification of the rags is showing the reader to what extent the Europeans are truly worthless because even their clothes are useless and not helpful in times of need.
At the end of the passage, his punctuation use changes and his sentences become short and broken up by a lot of punctuation. In my opinion, this shows his coldness towards the situation and the fact that he done taking things lightly and not taking action. By confessing that he too is a European and hence has committed wrongs, he is really empowering himself and showing where his loyalties lie when he says, “I have a voice […] that cannot be silenced.” By putting forward that he is unstoppable and that he will reveal the truth about the situation makes him more than a European. But, in his last line, he puts forward the idea that the Europeans, despite their foolishness, are always going to be safe from danger: “Of course, a fool, what with sheer fright and fine sentiments, is always safe.” He uses irony in his sentence in order to show that they’re really cruel beings, but nonetheless, they will always be safe.
The arrival of the Europeans brings darkness to the Congolese; this is shown with “the earth seemed unearthly”. This shows that the earth, the land, is not how it is supposed to be. This sentence has a parallel construction, but the words are complete opposites. For the Europeans, it is the presence of these people that makes the earth “unearthly”, but in retrospect, the only thing that has changed with the land is the arrival of the Europeans. This makes them the source of the darkness and turmoil. Even though the Europeans are not used to seeing the earth and its people in this way, it is the natural way of life.
The real conclusion that Marlow gets at the end of this passage though, is that the Europeans are the source of the darkness. A comparison with another section of the book can be made when he says: “They were men enough to face the darkness.”(p.7) And now, when he says: “if you were man enough you could admit to yourself that there was […] a meaning in it which you […] could comprehend.” The heart and the core of the problem is that they are all the same; they come from the same species, and have the same amount of brain. But, the darkness is that the Europeans are not able to accept that they are the same. This makes them lost in their own darkness, looking for a way out of the unknown and towards knowledge. Yet, because of their lack of strength, they will never be able to find a way out of the fog in which they have lost themselves.
This realization made by Marlow will carry throughout the novella as he realizes that the Europeans were not as great as he thought that they were. Despite this realization, he will still return and avoid the complete disintegration that Kurtz went through, leading to his death.
A rich commentary that pays close attention to the passage's tools and that considers its themes well overall. This builds well, and has a good sense of language, too. There is a bit of trouble in setting up the passage, in terms of what exactly is happening here--what is it that Marlow is looking at that causes him to have these thoughts? Then, there are some points that need a bit of clarification: the fool, for example is safe, because he isn't man to face the darkness. Instead, he hides behind beliefs, lies, hypocrisy, and, because of his shallowness, lack of substance, he can survive. We saw these types in the first part. But Marlow is looking and he's allowing everything to fly off--all those beliefs--only we know that, ultimately, he will be a fool and be safe, so perhaps you can come back to that idea when you mention his return in the conclusion.
------------------------------------
MOCK ORAL—CLOSE READING
Passage 13
This passage takes place in the middle of the second part of Heart of Darkness. Marlow has just recounted the episode of the Natives attacking him and his crew while they were navigating on the Congo River to find Kurtz. As his helmsman—his greatest asset in finding Kurtz—was just killed by a Native, Marlow panicks at the idea that he may never meet Kurtz, and get the privilege to hear his voice. However Marlow did meet Kurtz, and is indignated to have heard his voice. Marlow proves to be conflicted with himself because he is terrified, crazed and infuriated by the horrors he has seen as well as the memories that haunt him. He tries to reassure himself through his contrasting claims, imagery, and syntax.
First, the outer narrator sets a contrasting atmosphere between the stillness on the Nellie and the agitation back in the Congo to portray the impact his story has on Marlow. The passage opens with a “profound stillness,” which contrasts from the chaos that Marlow had described a few lines earlier: his narrative disturbed his listeners and caused them to think. The profound stillness represents the Europeans as a whole, who stay civilize, and cannot be “wild” like the natives. Here, they are abashed by what they heard, and react quietly, introvertly—the way they are expected to. Yet in this dark stillness, there happens to be a light: a match that illuminates Marlow’s face. This light draws “an aspect of concentrated attention,” as Marlow stays focused while he recounts his tale, and retelling his story is a way for him to get it off his shoulders; it deliberates him. Indeed the pleonasm and the contrast both indicate how much this story affects him. Marlow is very much disturbed; his words reflect his anxiety.
In fact, Marlow is so troubled that as he attempts to reassure himself, he is actually contradictory. Marlow explains that it is amazing that he “did not shed tears” and that therefore he is “proud of [his] fortitude.” Yet the line before he admits he acted “out of sheer nervousness.” This antithesis reflects Marlow’s uneasiness; he tries to justify his acts by claiming that his behavior could have been worse. He loses track of what he is saying, because he is so overwhelmed by his thoughts. He first admits that he was wrong to believe that Kurtz was dead, “Of course, I was wrong,” but then disagrees with himself, “I was right, too.” Marlow uses this antithesis to manifest that Kurtz can only be remembered as a voice. Kurtz’ voice is therefore so powerful that it prevents Marlow from thinking properly and from making straightforward sentences. Now he can only contradict himself because of his distress.
Marlow’s distress can also be heard in his sarcastic undertone vis-à-vis Kurtz. Marlow expresses knowing Kurtz’ voice as an “inestimable privilege,” a redundant hyperbole that clearly states Marlow’s disgust towards the voice. It makes Marlow condescending; once again, a trait of character he impersonates to reassure himself. Indeed, by undermining Kurtz’ voice Marlow comforts himself because therefore it can no longer affect him so much. However, Marlow’s tone changes once he is no longer able to reassure himself, as Kurtz’ voice takes over his thoughts.
Although Marlow strives to control his emotions, the imagery he uses proves that Kurtz’ horrible voice haunts him. The most evident and prominent image here is the metonymy of Kurtz’ voice, “A voice. He was very little more than a voice.” Kurtz is reduced to a simple physical attribute, a sense most humans are born with; something so meaningless, yet so meaningful in context. Here Kurtz’ voice does not offer simple auditive pleasure; it’s a gift, and a “privilege” as Marlow describes it. Kurtz’ character is completely effaced in the shadow of his voice; this eloquent gift that had the power to convey and tyrannize. This voice seduced a community of Congolese people and became revered. This voice witnessed the horrors, and made Kurtz’ lose his sanity. Indeed Kurtz’ voice was dogmatic and significant. It fascinated most of the poeople who knew him. It represents the darkness of Europe, because he came with the mission to imperialize, and now the darkness of the Congo. Kurtz’ voice is the cause of Marlow’s uneasiness; it haunts him until this day.
Indeed Kurtz’ voice is personified to underline its power. Marlow is haunted by it: “I heard…it…this voice… and the memory of that time itself lingers around me.” The memory of this voice is like a ghost that constantly nags Marlow, and that refuses to go away. This memory lingers the same way the burden of remorse does. The voice is personified to something that can cause so much trouble. It feels concrete, like an object present in Marlow’s every day life, yet it is “impalpable.” This would seem almost paradoxical—a meaning so present, yet fleeting because it could not be grasped. Marlow’s choice of words here underline that he would like for this haunting voice to go away, but it simply doesn’t. The voice cannot be grasped in that it cannot be understood. This is the epitome of Marlow’s disbelief: this feeling that refuses to leave, and that he cannot comprehend, overwhelms him. The personification marks very well Marlow’s derangement. And this feeling is emphasized by the simile, “like a dying vibration of one immense jabber.” The word jabber devalues the power of Kurtz’ voice, yet the word vibration connotes the effect that the voice has on Marlow. The jabber is dying but still manages to disturb Marlow.
Marlow degrades Kurtz because he is a metonymy for all of Europe. He uses Kurtz’ voice only as a device to undermine the Europeans and justify his cause to his audience on the boat. Marlow gives a very disputing image of Europe as he challenges how safe and secure they are. He does this to justify his wrath concerning his story—that is, his loss of control in the chaotic Congo—if one of his listeners were to judge him. The simile “each moored with two good addresses, like a hulk with two anchors,” emphasizes Europe’s secure living ways: they are doubly fastened. Marlow uses the image of a boat because his listeners are all seamen; the boat is their home. They can therefore understand that they are truly secured if they are doubly anchored to the ground. Marlow continues to challenge Europe through his synecdoche “excellent appetites, and temperature normal” that represents Europe’s too comfortable living conditions. Symbolizing Europe by its excessive nutrition standards (“excellent appetites”) is brilliant because it directly conveys the luxury it lives in; it creates a shift between the starving cannibals, and the safe and replete Europeans. Marlow here truly underlines his fury to have been involved in such a dangerous mission, and suggests it through his aggravation towards Europe.
Indeed, Marlow’s syntax represents his aggravated and troubled tone. He repeats himself obsessively because he is overwhelmed, and very agitated. The repitition of the word “absurd,” underlines that he agrees that he acted illogically and unreasonably while he was being attacked. He agrees with his listener, and admits his error to justify that he was too overwhelmed to act rationally. However, he is enraged by his listener’s claim—how dare he judge when he hasn’t experienced the horror of the Congo? Next he repeats the word “voices” to try to convey the impact this voice had on him. As the word is repeated, Marlow underlines the obsession of this lingering whisper that carries so much crime and darkness and that exalts his senses. The enumeration “silly, atrocious, sordid, savage, or simply mean” underlines his confusion and his obsession with this lingering voice, as he cannot find one simple epithet to describe it.
Furthermore, Marlow’s derangement is heard in his punctuation. To convey his difficulty of expressing his thoughts, Marlow uses an ellipsis: “this is the worst of trying to tell…” This ellipsis creates an ambiguous suspense. Marlow implies the atrocity by letting his listener imagine it. In addition, it conveys his frustration, because he simply is too aggravated to finish his sentence. The multiple dashes he uses serve to correct himself. They break the rhythm, because Marlow is constantly second guessing himself. The dashes convey his muddled state because they imply his struggle to utter his words: “absurd be—exploded,” “I heard—him—it—this voice—other voices,” “even the girl herself—now—” The dashes chop Marlow’s rhythm, and he therefore seems to be out of breath. The dashes serve to mark pauses, to give Marlow the time to repeat and emphasize his ideas.
Marlow attempts to compel his audience into understanding what he feels like. He does so through the apostrophes “Here you al are,” “and you say,” “my dear boys.” Marlow beckons his public to catch their attention, and to have them feel directly concerned by his claims. He addresses his audience because he is aggravated. His aggravation is also felt in the numerous exclamation points, (“absurd!” “be—exploded!” “a pair of new shoes!”) which he uses to try to justify himself, once again. Marlow is so bewildered that he screams to mark his anger. He is extremely aggravated by what is happening to him and wishes to have his audience empathize with him.
Marlow proves to be completely muddled by the events he recounts in this passage. Kurtz’ voice remains present in his ear until this day. As Marlow is haunted by this spirit of Kurtz’, he is very deranged and portrays this in the way he speaks. He attempts to justify his acts to convey his audience that one can only act irrationally when involved in the horrors of the Congo. Justifiying himself is a way for him to deliberate himself from the guilt; it purges him a lightly; it makes him European—a whited sepulcher. Although Marlow proves to be second guessing and troubled, he thankfully also proves to be sane.
Links:
Marlow’s frustration to convey his ideas can be related to that of Blanche’s that tried to prove herself kind, vulnerable, and innocent of her prostitution. She is lost in her hopeless quest for desire. Blanche desperately needs love while Marlow desperately needs someone to understand his acts. They both search empathy in the European heart—Marlow, towards Kurtz and the Congolese, and Blanche towards herself. Blanche is crazy because of her lack of love. She depends on those around her to believe this, yet she desperately fails to communicate it. Marlow is not mad, however his derangement affects him to the point that he also needs to have people understand the horrors he has seen. Marlow lost Kurtz, and like Blanche he lives with the everlasting burden of Kurtz’ death. Therefore to reassure himself and redeem himself he needs to communicate to the Europeans the darkness of the Congo. Just the way Blanche needs to communicate love now that she lives with the guilt of her husband’s death on her shoulders.
Furthermore, Marlow writes to redeem himself. He has this uneasiness of someone that is very deranged by the horrors he has seen in the Congo. Orleanna Price from Poisonwood Bible had this same troubled sentiment. She left the Congo with the haunting burden of her daughter’s death. Marlow left the congo with that of Kurtz’. Now they think back and are terrified by what they have seen and by what they have endured in the Congo. Orleanna, like Marlow, addresses the reader in her introduction to the novella, because she wishes to explain first hand that she writes for redemption. She became depressed while her husband refused to leave the Congo, a sickness that could be related to Marlow’s obsession—he is now lingered by his memories. Marlow in this passage is bewildered to the extent that he tries to convey his audience of his muddled feelings, and he does so with difficulty. He struggles to speak because he is deeply impacted. Orleanna Price, all the same, becomes very much perturbated after she leaves the Congo, because she experienced similar horrors—and witnessed her family fall apart. And once they return to the civilized western world, it is difficult for her to live with the weight of the darkness she experienced—the same way Marlow struggles once he is back into the city, hence the qualification whited sepulcher. The city, as it is European, holds the darkness deep inside, only it is covered by white on the surface.
Marlow’s speech in this passage resembles in a way to that of Martin Luther King’s letter from Birmingham Jail. They both have a similar theme: King’s is that the black people need a voice, while Marlow’s is that Kurtz’ voice was heard too much. The voice that lingers in Marlow’s head, here strives to be heard in King’s speech. The contrast is interesting in that King represents the resentment the black people felt while being neglected their rights in the US, two centuries after Marlow’s story occurs. Marlow tries to convey to his audience the horrors he has seen by justifying his acts. In the same way King needs to convey his audience that the black people can no longer live with such an injustice and that the laws need to change immediately. They have a similar purpose to show how chaos can engender madness—Marlow acting absurdly while being attacked on the Congo river—while King explains to the government officials that if the black people manifest their grievances it is because of their absurd laws. Here thanks to their syntax and imagery, both King and Marlow prove the horrors that they are witnessing—only King writes them to change the law, while Marlow writes them to redeem himself.
Commentary: An impressive reading of rhetorical devices and how these inform meaning. You have clearly done thorough work of the way language operates here, on every level (diction, imagery, syntax) and done so purposefully. I think your intro and conclusion need some tweaking. Your thesis does not quite convey the complexity of your ideas, the tension between what he is struggling with in the narrative and what he's struggling to convey to those who are anchored, safely, in an untried world. Similarly, the conclusion limps along a little bit. You have some trouble with occasional vocabulary words--you confuse the word deliberate, which means to debate/argue..with liberate, which means free. But that's ok.
Your links are interesting, but could be more carefully explained in the case of Blanche. I think what you mean there is this notion which Marlow states: "we live as we dream--alone," which is the inability for any human to truly connect and communicate with another. It is Marlow's frustration as a narrator, and Conrad topic as a writer, as well as Blanche's tragedy, and Williams' concept of the tragedy of mankind: the failure to connect. Still, Blanche's reasons for failing are different from Marlow's. It's not so much a language shortcoming as it is an inability to open up, for reasons diverse...
I like your link to Orleanna, but I think your most original link is the one to King, because it is an unusual and unexpected one. I like that you consider the power of voices. Of course, Kurtz embodies the power of white patriarchal voices, the very ones that King is responding to, the very reason he has been voiceless, the very reason he resorts to civil disobedience and to making his voice heard. The power of his rhetoric, unlike Kurtz', however, is not empty and it would be interesting to develop its content here, to explore the what makes his rhetoric/voice so great. On the same topic, we have been talking about giving voice to the voiceless, the other. We started with Pecola, the one who has no voice at all, even in the novel, and we ended, recently with Chimamanda Adichie who asks that the voice of the so called second story become, at last, the first.
---------------------------
Heart of Darkness Commentary
Passage 6
“We felt meditative, and fit for nothing but placid staring. The day was ending in a serenity of still and exquisite brilliance. The water shone pacifically; the sky, without a speck, was a benign immensity of unstained light; the very mist on the Essex marsh was like a gauzy and radiant fabric, hung from the wooded rises inland, and draping the low shores in diaphanous folds. Only the gloom to the West, brooding over the upper reaches, became more somber every minute, as if angered by the approach of the sun. And at last, in its curved and imperceptible fall, the sun sank low, and from glowing white changed to a dull red without rays and without heat, as if about to go out suddenly, stricken to death by the touch of that gloom brooding over a crowd of men.”p.4
It is said that a picture says a thousand words; however, a story also holds great power depending on how it is told. A descriptive, personal story of an experience can have an important effect on someone’s perception, life, emotions. In Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, the narrator tells the story of his experience hearing a fellow comrade’s account of his time spent sailing down the Congo River during colonized Africa. After reading the novel for a second time, the reader takes note of the narrator’s awareness of Marlow’s story. The outside narrator seems to have been greatly affected by Marlow’s story, which can be seen only by reading the novel for a second time. The narrator actually parallels the reader’s reading for the second time because both have heard the story already. The impact of Marlow’s story is seen by the outside narrator’s use of diction, metaphors, and personification, as the reader notices the narrator’s appreciation for his non-violent situation, and rejection of the colonizing Western world while describing the moments before Marlow tells his story.
The diction throughout this passage shows the narrator’s acknowledgement of the perfect conditions for the telling of Marlow’s story, which he is eager to show because the story had such a great impact on himself. Because the narrator already knew Marlow’s story once he himself decided to tell the whole story, he was already entranced by Marlow’s tale. His later perception of how he was before hearing the story could therefore consist of pure attention and readiness for a story. This is shown through the diction of reflection, “meditative,” “placid,” “staring.” Because the narrator felt such respect and attention for Marlow’s story after hearing it, when explaining his own experience, he could have remembered it as more ideal than it really was. Indeed, the diction of peace shows the flawless conditions for Marlow’s story, “serenity,” “still,” “exquisite,” “brilliance,” “without a speck,” “unstained light,” “benign.” Moreover, this peaceful description could also be because the narrator now appreciates his tranquil surroundings more, after having been described such tense and violent experiences from Marlow. The lack of intense danger may make the narrator more attentive to his peaceful surroundings.
The impact of Marlow’s story on the outside narrator is shown through his use of imagery through metaphors. The narrator takes notice of the mist in the air, which could be a reference to Marlow’s intense experience with blinding fog on his journey up the Congo River, “the very mist on the Essex marshes was like a gauzy and radiant fabric.” This comparison is more of a contrast, which could be because the narrator is appreciating the safer, and less violent conditions he is in, in comparison to Marlow’s throughout his journey. Indeed, the use of the word “mist,” instead of “fog” already gives a clearer, lighter feel of the surroundings. Moreover, the mist is compared to a “gauzy and radiant fabric,” and gauzy may be defined as a thin, translucent piece of fabric, meaning they are not blinded from any of their surroundings, and are not surrounded by the unknown which is certainly less safe. This is reinforced by the adjective “radiant,” which can be defined as something shining or glowing brightly, which adds a layer of safety, comfort, and warmth, which the narrator must certainly be appreciating after Marlow’s dangerous and frightful descriptions. Furthermore, on another note, the use of the word, “fabric” as a way to describe the surroundings supports the narrator’s idea of the perfect conditions for a story, as fabric can be defined as something that is crafted, woven, and produced by someone, which reflects the telling of a story that is spoken and created by someone’s experience.
Next, the effect of Marlow’s story on the outside narrator is shown through the metaphor of the setting sun, as he shows his rejection of the Western world. He describes the setting sun; “the sun sank low, and from glowing white changed to a dull red without rays and without heat, as if about to go out suddenly, stricken to death by the touch of that gloom brooding over a crowd of men.” The sun’s light in the sky can be a metaphor for his perception of the western world, as he used to think of it as white and innocent, and bringing light and intellect to the world and its colonies. However, his perception has shifted and he sees the West as only a dull, burnt out light with blood stained hands, which explains the red coloring. He believes the sun’s light has no rays and is without heat, which reflects the way the West is without benefit and has lost its light. His view of the West has been tainted by Marlow’s story and he believes its influence over himself is “about to go out.” Furthermore, the second part of the metaphor seems to display the way the gloom brooding over the setting sun reflects how the West’s actions is what made it lose its light and power. It is as if the Western world’s own darkness of actions is what made its light go out. Indeed, it was only once the outside narrator became aware of the darkness and wrongdoing of the West that its power and light went out, meaning its appearance of innocence and good was ruined. Moreover, the narrator’s thoughts could still be consumed with the violent thoughts Marlow goes on to describe in his story, which explains the use of the idea of being stricken to death by a crowd of men. This metaphor refers to the description Marlow gives of the way the colonists would beat the native people.
The imagery the outside narrator uses is also present in the personification, “only the gloom to the west, brooding over the upper reaches, became more sombre every minute, as if angered by the approach of the sun,” which also reflects his awareness of the West’s violence in the Congo because of Marlow’s story. The West is personified, as it is given the human emotion of anger. This personification reflects the metaphor of the setting sun because again, the West is losing light as the sun is setting. Marlow’s story reveals the cruelty of the West, which is usually hidden, as no one believed that colonization was detrimental or cruel. Therefore the West could feel anger as they are losing their light and influence because their actions are becoming known. The outside narrator personifies the West in order to show his own loss of respect for the West and how they must be angry, as their power and image is deteriorating. This personification therefore sends a strong message of the narrator’s loss of respect for the West, which is portrayed as well through the tone of the passage.
The tone in this passage shows how the narrator is consumed with Marlow’s story, as it passes from appreciation of his surroundings, to tension with the descriptions of the Western world. First, the narrator’s tone is calm and appreciative because he knows that his conditions are much safer and softer than what Marlow experienced. Indeed, he focuses on the peacefulness and lightness of his surroundings, as he also wants to show that they had the perfect conditions for story telling. Because the narrator has already heard the story and has been mesmerized by it, he wishes to show how he was consumed with the story from the beginning. This explains why he describes himself as being in the ideal mindset and situation for the telling of the story. Nevertheless, his appreciative tone then shifts to a more aggressive one because Marlow’s narrative revealed such negative aspects of the Western world. He is aware of the violence Marlow saw, and he reveals it through his descriptions, which shows how it has consumed his mind.
Once the reader has heard and knows Marlow’s experience, he or she may recognize the outside narrator’s acknowledgement and thoughts of Marlow’s story while he is describing the moments before Marlow communicated his adventure. From first feeling appreciation for his soothing surroundings compared to Marlow’s adventure, to then showing his distaste for the West because of his new knowledge of the colonization processes, the narrator is fully consumed with Marlow’s story when deciding to account the story for the reader. It is interesting that the narrator displays his thoughts of Marlow’s story through his descriptions because it reveals the way one’s point of view or perception of something may shift entirely with the acquirement of new knowledge. One’s recollection of a certain moment or specific topic can be affected greatly after another experience, which is important to keep in mind when remembering something of the sort.
An interesting approach on this passage, with a sense of how the experience of hearing the story has tainted the narrator's own way of retelling the story. You've investigated the elements well that reflect a sort of tainted vision, although sometimes you make statements that should be conditional--we can't know that the narrator is directly thinking of Congolese atrocities, even if this could be linked to them; we can make the assertion that his view of the world is jaded, tainted. Also, better capitalize on a double vision: if we are in the frist reading versus the second, since that is what your thesis is working towards. The reader, like the narrator, experiences Marlow's story in a different way upon second reading, just as the narrator is doing a second reading himself. Finally, you need to better contexutalize the passage. You forgot to mention, simply, that the passage takes place on the Thames, outside of London, on the brink of the larger world, the brink of experience.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mind," he began again, lifting one arm from the elbow, the palm of the hand outwards, so that, with his legs folded before him, he had the pose of a Buddha preaching in European clothes and without a lotus-flower -"Mind, none of us would feel exactly like this. What saves us is efficiency -the devotion to efficiency. But these chaps were not much account, really. They were no colonists; their administration was merely a squeeze, and nothing more, I suspect. They were conquerors, and for that you want only brute force -nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others. They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got. It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind -as is very proper for those who tackle a darkness. The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretense but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea -something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to...”
∴
This passage from Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness forms the introduction to Marlow’s story. Spoken at the beginning of the novel, this passage sets up the frame to the story as a whole introducing two different groups of people who ultimately prove to be quite similar. Here, Marlow uses the Romans, who are described as the epitome of barbarity, as a proxy in introducing the native African population. If the second main narrator of the novel comes to claim that the Romans and the colonists are one in the same, he still insists that their exists a difference between both peoples as the former are “men enough to face the darkness”: they are ultimately better than the latter as they are no “whited-sepulcher”, they don’t try to cover up or justify any of the violence, and don’t put up any facades. One can clearly see this in the passage being studied as Marlow counts the horrors of these Roman “conquerors” who, despite committing dreadful actions, have the possibility to redeem themselves seeing as they are merely tackling the “darkness”. Thus, through various literary figures of style, Marlow brings up the questions that one continuously asks oneself throughout the course of the novel: is it better to be civilized or uncivilized and what does it really mean to be uncivilized? This passage therefore serves to denounce the prejudiced and tainted view society may have in regards to any existing difference or otherness.
Through a strong, yet contrasted diction, Marlow brings to light the apparent contradictions and faults existing in society’s point of view on “otherness”. Alternating between positive and negative diction, it would seem as though even Marlow is unsure of the way he should or shouldn’t perceive the Romans. He still describes them in a pretty negative light, calling them “chaps”, “brutes”, and “conquerors” and uses violent diction to describe their actions, such as “aggravated murder”, “robbery” “weakness”, and “accident”, and still calls himself an “us”, whereas the Romans a “they” in order to convince his audience, but most importantly himself, that he is “civilized”. However, he also makes a point to differentiate the Romans from the colonists by using somewhat positive diction, such as the use of the word “just” in the quote “just robbery”, which demonstrates that the colonists did much worse things than the Romans. Furthermore, the word that stands out the most in the passage seems to be the word “redeem”, which divulges Marlow’s unspoken belief that what he is doing right now as a European colonist is unforgivable, whereas the actions of the Romans and natives of Africa seem to prove otherwise.
Behind the alliteration of the word “idea”, repeated four times in the last sentences of the passage, lies situational irony as one also realizes that what the second narrator is trying to say is that behind these individual’s actions, who are deemed to be uncivilized, stems a civilized idea. Marlow thus insinuates that no idea stems behind the “civilized” colonist’s actions, which could only signify that they go into “conquests”, or wars, with a “sentimental” and “selfish” pretense and without thought or idea, ultimately leading them to sound like the uncivilized ones. Furthermore, when Marlow rightfully claims that, “strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others”, he seems to insinuate that civilization is just an accident arising from the uncivilization or difference of others. This seems to also be quite ironic as society would have never thought civilization to be a mere accident. Yet, what the colonists and European conquerors seem to forget in Heart of Darkness is that the idea of civilization stems from the foundation of uncivilization with the homo sapiens many years prior. The term “civilized” only exists because the term “uncivilized” does, so what would happen if the colonists sought and succeeded in civilizing the entire world? If the term “uncivilized” no longer existed wouldn’t it be the same for the term “civilized”. If that were the case would humanity not go back to its primate origins? The irony and contradictions in Marlow’s passage thus truly show the stupidity and ignorance behind society’s way of thinking and clearly denounces their flawed and hypocritical beliefs.
The imagery in the passage is also of great importance as the opposition of lightness and darkness parallels the opposition not only between the Romans and the colonists or civilization and uncivilization, but also more importantly in regards to the novel as a whole, between the European conquerors and the black natives of Africa. Here, with the first image described by the main narrator of Marlow sitting with his legs crossed like Buddha, a title given to the founder of Buddhism, Siddartha Gautama, which literally means “enlightenment” in Sanskrit, the first vision to come to one’s mind is that of light. However, this image of lightness slowly fades away as the language becomes darker when Marlow starts to speak again. Furthermore, as the second narrator starts describing the Romans, the image in one’s mind has been replaced by a cloud of darkness, fog, and confusion with the imagery of these “men going at it blind -as is very proper for those who tackle a darkness”. This darkness obviously leads one to think of the native African people of the novel “who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves” and are therefore treated differently because of this. Yet, this passage also comes to show the deceiving nature of appearances: like the “whited-sepulcher” personified later in the novel to the “white man”, who looks good on the outside but is cruel and ugly on the inside, here the colonists who appear through Marlow as full of light, are actually full of darkness whereas the Romans, and more precisely the Africans throughout the novel who are “dark” on the outside, are truly full of light and honesty as they don’t try to cover up their actions.
Therefore, this passage ultimately symbolizes the message of Marlow’s main story in the novel as a whole, with the example of the Roman’s behavior typifying and paralleling that of the natives of Africa’s. Thus, by taking the whole novel into account, it seems that the main objective of this passage is to denounce the incongruity among much of society’s belief in regards to “civilization”. If like the Romans, the natives of Africa are considered to be uncivilized and barbarian, than all of humanity should be considered to be as well: the former are indeed more human, more man-enough than the colonists as they just seem to live their lives as satisfied, free and honest people, without any masks or facades, searching only for peace without questioning the unknown or searching for more power or more happiness. Through the contrast in this passage, one ultimately comes to realize that he or she can never be certain of who is truly civilized or not, as one doesn’t know why we, humans, truly exist in this world. The natives thus seem more civilized vis a vis the planet we live on, since after all, we do originate from primates who us “civilized” individuals deem to have been uncivilized and barbarian, yet as they were the first to arrive on the planet, they must have been seen as civilized and “normal” until they slowly began to evolve into different, less animalistic, somewhat uncivilized human beings.
This passage is a perfect link to Barbara Kingsolver’s The Poisonwood Bible as one of the main characters, Orleanna seems to be quite like Marlow. It thus wouldn’t have surprised me if these words had come out of Orleanna’s mouth, as one knows she was thinking similar thoughts towards the end of Kingsolver’s novel. Furthermore, both characters seemed to have set out on their journeys with the same mindset as the “norm” that surrounded them, which resulted in the belief that their own culture and civilization was greater than those of the African population. Both Orleanna and Marlow thus prove to be quite ignorant in the commencement of the novel, yet, as their journey’s progress, each gains the ability to judge their beliefs and surroundings for themselves, without any outside influence. They therefore come to notice the apparent injustices and horrors being committed by their own societies in order to “civilize” or instill their own values and beliefs upon a different, conspicuous group of individuals. The ensuing guilt that arises, as both characters come to the realization that cruelty is being committed, becomes the heart of both novels, which ultimately creates all the “fog”, confusion, and emotion one can discover throughout both stories. Orleanna and Marlow thus change significantly throughout either novel, both going through a similar period of illness that would alter their mindset but not alter their passive ways, which would ultimately make it impossible to rid themselves of any guilt.
Comment:
There are many good moments in this commentary which works well to discuss Marlow's use of the Romans to anticipate and compare civilized savageries. Clearly, Marlow is thinking ahead here of what he knows he saw. You should be clear to explain what he's responding to here, the musings of the main narrator on the English explorers. It's this that has set him off into his stream of consciousness thoughts that will set up the main story of the novella. The way he opens with the word "mind" shows us the way he is thinking out loud on the boat, and we see the main narrator taking him in like the Buddha.--some good stuff on your part there. There is a little bit of confusion as to whom you mean when you say main narrator, Marlow, second narrator, but I think you mean that Marlow is the second narrator--some clarity issues there...be careful. In speaking of the ironies of civilization and of the difference between the Romans and the colonists, you omit Marlow's comments about effiiciency. What do these mean? HOw does that fit into the rest?
What do you mean when you speak of the alliteration in idea? Perhaps you meant anaphora? Still, a thoughtful commentary on attitudes towards otherness. ------------------------------
Passage 16
"His was an impenetrable darkness. I looked at him as you peer down at a man who is lying at the bottom of a precipice where the sun never shines. But I had not much time to give him, because I was helping the engine-driver to take to pieces the leaky cylinders, to straighten a bent connecting-rod, and in other such matters. I lived in an infernal mess of rust, filings, nuts, bolts, spanners, hammers, ratchet-drills -- things I abominate, because I don't get on with them. I tended the little forge we fortunately had aboard; I toiled wearily in a wretched scrap-heap -- unless I had the shakes too bad to stand.
"One evening coming in with a candle I was startled to hear him say a little tremulously, 'I am lying here in the dark waiting for death.' The light was within a foot of his eyes. I forced myself to murmur, 'Oh, nonsense!' and stood over him as if transfixed.
"Anything approaching the change that came over his features I have never seen before, and hope never to see again. Oh, I wasn't touched. I was fascinated. It was as though a veil had been rent. I saw on that ivory face the expression of sombre pride, of ruthless power, of craven terror -- of an intense and hopeless despair. Did he live his life again in every detail of desire, temptation, and surrender during that supreme moment of complete knowledge? He cried in a whisper at some image, at some vision -- he cried out twice, a cry that was no more than a breath:
"'The horror! The horror!'
"I blew the candle out and left the cabin. The pilgrims were dining in the mess-room, and I took my place opposite the manager, who lifted his eyes to give me a questioning glance, which I successfully ignored. He leaned back, serene, with that peculiar smile of his sealing the unexpressed depths of his meanness. A continuous shower of small flies streamed upon the lamp, upon the cloth, upon our hands and faces. Suddenly the manager's boy put his insolent black head in the doorway, and said in a tone of scathing contempt:
"'Mistah Kurtz -- he dead.'
Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad is the story of a sailor named Charlie Marlow trying to tell the story of his voyage into the heart of the Belgian Congo. On this voyage not only does he meet a remarkable Mr. Kurtz but he also encounters darkness. A darkness that is as present as it is hard to define. To understand it one must see and analyze its impact. We will do so here. In this point of the story, Marlow has gone to the inner station and retrieved an ill Mr. Kurtz. They are going back, the steamer is breaking down, Kurtz is on the verge of death and the Darkness is closing in. This passage epitomizes the hellish Darkness present throughout the book: as can be seen through the use of various literary devices in the text, this Darkness induces a dreamlike state, brings on fear and despair, and in the end takes over the mind and body.
★ ★ ★
What is so particular about this Darkness is that it puts the characters into dreamlike state. We see this in the very beginning of the passage when Marlow enumerates all of the boat pieces he’s devoting his time too. When he says he is in a “mess of rust, filings, nuts, bolts, spanners, hammers, ratchet-drills” he creates the image of the clutter of objects. By doing so he eliminates the possibility of focusing on one object in particular. They all go by as in a dream. We easily get the impression that his days are filled with the passing of many indefinite and unmemorable objects. Like in a dream, he and the reader would not be able to list again these objects: we lose ourselves in them. Furthermore, the dim lighting in this passage reinforces the dreamlike feeling of grappling with what is there or isn’t. The only light sources are a candle and a lamp obscured by a swarm of flies: this creates a dim atmosphere, a dimness that is reminiscent of the feeling of trying to recall a dream. Moreover, the abrupt changes in place and action are similar to when, in a dream, the setting changes rapidly. We go from seeing Kurtz at the bottom of the pit, to seeing knobs and the like, to hearing frightening whispers in the dark and finally, as well as abruptly, flies swarming the lamp and an insolent black head. The many images seem unrelated and almost absurd put together. They are however redolent of dreams where the setting changes abruptly. These changes create another feeling characteristic of dreams, they bring up the question: “did I just imagine this?”
What this tells us about the Darkness is that it plays tricks on whoever’s trapped in it. It also gives the impression that there are different worlds interacting.
Indeed, in context with the dreaminess of the passage we see three different worlds, universes, or atmospheres. There is Mr. Kurtz’s world that is inaccessible as well as unfathomable. This world is like a dream (or nightmare) because of the questions it arouses and the visions it seems to be referring to. Then, there is Marlow’s world that interlaced fever, boats, fascination, fear, uncertainty, and incomprehension. Finally, the third world is that of the others: the crew, the manager and his servant boy. Their world is one of greed and sealed unexpressed depths of meanness. We see that Mr. Kurtz and Marlow’s world each have the element of illness as if the dream were fever induced. Three levels, like levels of sleep, appear: Kurtz’s that is the deepest level, the level of the others is on the surface, and Marlow is between the two. With these different levels like different levels of consciousness it becomes even harder to be in touch with reality. Absolutely nothing is concrete or clear. We seem to sink into darkness and it inevitably brings despair.
The first indicator of this despair is the diction of hell. Words and expressions like “ where the sun never shines,” “infernal,” “abomination,” “wretched,” “somber,” “desire, temptation, and surrender,” or “a continuous shower of small flies” throughout text the paint the image of hell. They make the text dark and full of disheartenment. Some of these words are used in sentences where their presence is unusual, thus, not only evoking hell but also creating unease. The steamboat seems to be like hell on earth. There, the Darkness means hell. It also changes men, making Marlow shake and Kurtz see things as well as talk to himself. Then the impression of despair his reinforced by the constant opposition of the light and darkness: “darkness,” “evening,” “candle,” “dark,” “light,” “ivory,” “somber.” In the end, there are more words that evoke darkness: the latter wins, Darkness prevails. It also triumphs within Kurtz. We see this first in the metaphor where Marlow compares Kurtz’s state to being “at the bottom of a precipice where the sun never shines:” indeed, there is a sun but it doesn’t reach Kurtz. What’s more the battle between light and dark happens on his face, his “ivory face” where all of a sudden Marlow sees “sombre pride” and “hopeless despair” take over.
Another way the author conveys despair is through sounds. Two alliterations stand out. One in [w] “I toiled wearily in the wretched scrap-heap” conveys how used, tired and feverish Marlow is. The other, in [s] “rust, filings, nuts, bolts, spanners, hammers, ratchet-drills” has an ominous snake-like sound that reminds the reader of how sneakily despair can possess one’s soul. What’s more the abundance of [s] sounds is overwhelming, Marlowe is weary and overwhelmed: that is the cause of his despair. The latter like the Darkness envelops you, taking all hope away. It is like a fog: all-around. What’s more it “wins,” it is omnipresent, there is no way to escape it, it grips you.
Another aspect of the Darkness is the fear it inspires. The most noticeable indicator of fear is the tone of the passage. The diction of hell, darkness and evil contribute to the creation of a troubled tone, one a person has when afraid. What’s more, there are changes of rhythm that show the fear this Darkness brings. In particular, around Kurtz’s last words we see appear ternary rhythm. For example, “of somber pride, of ruthless power, of creeping terror.” Marlow sees this and the ternary rhythm is analogous to his heart beating faster with the fascination and utter fear of the changes Mr. Kurtz’s face undergoes. “Desire, temptation, surrender” is another example of ternary rhythm that this time echoes the beating of Mr. Kurtz is heart, in rhythm with African drums. When we hear these three words we hear the rhythmic beatings of deep drums as well see Mr. Kurtz’s pulse quickening with desire and disgust. The ternary rhythms both evoke heartbeats and fear, things that come out of the feelings the Darkness engenders. We have said that the Darkness in the book was omnipresent, engulfing, dumbing and created despair. All of these, naturally, bring fear.
Anaphors also convey the impression of a fearful beating heart. The “of somber pride, of ruthless power, of craven terror – of an intense and hopeless despair” anaphora, repeated four times creates an emphasis on the multiple phases of change Kurtz’s face goes through. Along than that there is a gradation from “somber” to “ruthless” to “craven” to “an intense and hopeless despair” where Kurtz’s feelings go from bad to worse. The anaphora reinforces this, as if with every beat of this figurative heart Kurtz was going deeper into hell. The anaphora “upon the lamp, upon the cloth, upon our hands and faces” refers to the multiple places where the flies in the mess room swarm; the latter figure of speech gives the impression that flies are everywhere: once again despair and fear take over.
Then, the presence of binary rhythm is another indicator of fear. We see that in the sentence “he cried in a whisper at some image, at some vision – he cried out twice, a cry that was no more than a breath: ‘The horror! The horror!’” everything is or repeated twice or are rephrased. Indeed: “he cried […] he cried out,” “at some image, at some vision,” “The horror! The horror!” This binary rhythm is a way of expressing a sort of emphasis and uncertainty characteristic of fear. We can easily imagine Marlow taking a shaky breath every few words: he says it twice to convey the terror he was in at the time. Finally, the use of words and expressions such as “tremulously,” “hoped never to see again” and “transfixed” communicate the terror that Marlow is in. The fact that the Darkness is so present as well as potent has a toll on the body and the mind.
It does indeed seem to take control of the body. We see this in all of the characters. First off, for Marlow we see that the Darkness makes him tired and shake (“wearily,” “unless I had the shakes too bad to stand.”) Then we see that the Darkness takes over Kurtz’s face where only what one might call dark emotions or traits passed: despair, cowardice, pride, ruthlessness, etc. Then, we see how because of the Darkness the manager’s real intentions are sealed off. He has a “peculiar smile” that he acquired because in his Congo only greed and survival mattered. His heart became dark. All of these reflections of the said Darkness of fear, despair and dreamlike state make it seem as though there is nothing natural, as though nothing is as it seems: all in all the Darkness has swallowed everything good and natural. Truly this is hellish. We see the debilitating effect of the Darkness through the words in the passage as well. The characters speak it is in a murmur or whisper: “hear him say a little tremulously,” “murmur,” “ cried in a whisper,” “ a cry that was no more than a breath.” The only words not spoken at a low volume level of those of the manager’s boy, they are however spoken “the tone of scathing contempt” that is evil and dark. The hushed speaking reflects weakness and incapacity. The Darkness, then, takes on another aspect: it weakens. We see the characters’ incapacity through the image of Kurtz in the pit, through Marlow not being able to understand and/or fix the boat, and his inability to deal with fear (indeed Marlow is scared of Kurtz’s last words and leaves abruptly). The Darkness moreover has an impact on the body as well.
We see this impact through the vivid pictures that Marlow draws such as the metaphor of Kurtz being like “a man who is lying at the bottom of a precipice where the sun never shines.” It is as though his imagination is going wild. The image is so vivid it almost seems like Marlow is hallucinating (a clear sign of mental deterioration). Furthermore, Kurtz, who is the one most in contact with the Darkness, is the one whose mind seems most affected. Wee see that he travels back into his past and goes from feeling fear to despair to cowardice in a millisecond. It seems as though Kurtz’s mind is eroded somehow. There’s also a sense of impending doom present throughout the passage. It can be seen through the diction of hell and darkness that the characters have the feeling that the end is near. They can feel the Darkness closing in on them.
This brings us to how the Darkness, in the end, is also a sort of symbol for death. The fact that when opposing the diction of life and dark the latter wins, that many words expressed fatigue (“toiled,” “wearily,” etc.), and that Kurtz’s voice and ivory face only are seen – and this makes him ghostlike – creates an atmosphere heavy with death. What’s more, the volume of the voice decreases through the passage: “ say a little tremulously,” then “murmur,” then “cried in a whisper,” and finally “a cry that was no more than a breath.” Slowly man and his words are being erased. Finally, the image of the shower flies is a clear harbinger of death, flies often being associated with the latter as well as rotting corpses for example. So, here we are on a boat leaving the heart of darkness but carrying death.
★ ★ ★
A Darkness is present throughout the book and this passage encapsulates all of its attributes, helping us understand its nature: a create the dreamlike state, despair and fear that all have an impact on the mind and the body of those caught in it. The literary devices is present in the text show us this as well as other meanings Darkness takes on throughout the book. These include madness, weakness, hell and death; moreover, the starkness changes men. We saw the effect of it on Kurtz and this passage better helps us understand how and why Kurtz behaved the way he did. With such an oppressing and constant presence, how not to lose oneself? What’s more, Kurtz was at the heart of this Darkness, where it had the most hold. Another thing this passage helps comprehend is why Marlow is telling us the story. When we understand the weight of carrying such Darkness around it becomes clear that one must alleviate this weight in any way possible, and to purge oneself. Marlowe must tell his story to finally get rid of the Darkness that clings to him like Kurtz’s final words “The horror! The horror!”
Comment: you were interested in a particular angle to this passage which then built, ultimately, to the heart of the passage. Though the approach is intriguing, you somewhat leave off the key portion of the passage in favor of what actually heightens the passage..so you should do this the other way around--speak of what, more specifically, is happening in this scene for both Kurtz and Marlow and then pull back to reveal the layers of dream and darkness. The effect of doing it the other way is to risk that the listener does not know whether you know why this is the supposed climactic moment of the narrative, the death of Mr. Kurtz. The rich devices explored would work to better purpose as well. This way, it's hard to see the forest for the trees. You've put your conclusion up front instead of formulating a simpler thesis about Marlow and Kurtz, which could then be seen in light of the darkness you wish to raise. yes?
-------------------
Passage 3. The wilderness had patted him on the head, and, behold, it was like a ball -- an ivory ball; it had caressed him, and -- lo! -- he had withered; it had taken him, loved him, embraced him, got into his veins, consumed his flesh, and sealed his soul to its own by the inconceivable ceremonies of some devilish initiation. He was its spoiled and pam- pered favourite. Ivory? I should think so. Heaps of it, stacks of it. The old mud shanty was bursting with it. You would think there was not a single tusk left either above or below the ground in the whole country. 'Mostly fossil,' the manager had remarked, disparagingly. It was no more fossil than I am; but they call it fossil when it is dug up. It appears these niggers do bury the tusks sometimes -- but evidently they couldn't bury this parcel deep enough to save the gifted Mr. Kurtz from his fate. We filled the steam- boat with it, and had to pile a lot on the deck. Thus he could see and enjoy as long as he could see, because the appreciation of this favour had remained with him to the last. You should have heard him say, 'My ivory.' Oh, yes, I heard him. 'My Intended, my ivory, my station, my river, my --' everything belonged to him.
After meeting Kurtz in the depth of the Belgium Congo, Marlow examines the man with extreme detail and is startled to notice that his once idol had been consumed by the very thing that had made him great: ivory. Kurtz, a man who conquered the Belgium Congo through his ivory conquest, and was exalted by his natives to the status of divine, suffers now to have cheated nature and divine rights. This passage is divided into different perspectives, that of Marlow's and the manager, both criticizing the same tragedy and yet have differing ideals. Throughout this passage Marlow describes the twisted metamorphosis of Kurtz, a consumed and doomed man, using a critical perspective that vacillates between his ideas of Kurtz and his actual reality.
* * *
* *
Kurtz's soul is married to the wilderness, marking the beginning of an unnatural co-existence. The symbol of the wilderness and the jungle in this passage are depicted as mother nature, a living being, that is able to flirt and consume its victim. The wilderness lures its victims through their passions and obsessions: “it had caressed him […] loved him, embraced him” (l.1-2). The jungle is a living organism, and Kurtz tries to takes advantage of it, which in turn has consequences.
The wilderness as a living symbol, engulfs all victims and turns them into there most native selves. Kurtz, once a civilized European, half-french, half English; in the wilderness, loses his hair, his head becomes: “an ivory ball” (l.1), he loses all relationships from the outside and must make do with what the jungle offers, including the natives and the abundance of ivory. In the end, Kurtz is so consumed that he, a living part of the jungle: “had withered” (l.2), the wilderness has completely immersed itself inside of him: “got into his veins, consumed his flesh, and sealed his soul” (l.2), through this Kurtz has lost all human attributes in exchange for his soul. Only has this been possible because he killed and destroyed a part of the wilderness himself.
Ivory doesn't grow on trees, it is a substance retrieved by living animals, elephants; to benefit from nature, you kill a part of nature. Kurtz is responsible for the extinction of most of the elephant population in the Belgium Congo: “there was not a single tusk left above or below he ground in the whole country” (l.4-5). Kurtz even goes to the extreme of taking buried ivory, after excavated called: “fossil” (l.5). This could be taken as leftover ivory, ivory that has lost its value in the ground. To add, Kurtz has completely ignored the laws of nature and now the laws of death; ivory is a living substance but once the elephant killed, the ivory dies along with, although, Kurtz has managed to represent “dead ivory” as ivory, as if it where still living. Conrad gives the personification of nature as a wounded animal, one which is even disrespected upon its grave and death. The wilderness is more powerful then the man, because the man is not able to control himself, transforming him into a pathetic and mindless creature, blinded by reason and guided simply by passion and obsession, making him the victim of the wilderness and deep remorse.
Kurtz's soul is bound to the devil, trapped in hell, due to addiction and obsession. Due to his actions against mother nature, his soul is sealed to its own: “by inconceivable ceremonies of some devilish initiation” (l.2-3). He was the jungle's spoiled favorite, ivory became his cursed obsession, and turned him to be as vulnerable as the elephants he hunts. The ivory that he has is so precious to him, it lives in him. Ivory being a cursed and poisoned treasure, has poisoned and doomed Kurtz to eternal ivory obsession leaving his fate sealed, a man that only thinks about the poison that he is addicted to, fate can't be changed. Ivory is the “white mans poison”, it only was a precious commodity after the Europeans discovered it and made it so, transformed its sacred meaning of the elephant into a simple commodity.
Marlow sees this obsession and realizes that it is the only companion and useful thing Kurtz has in the wilderness, without it he dies. Conrad illustrates this through Marlow's repetition initiating sympathy for Kurtz: “Thus he could see and enjoy as long as he could see” (l.8), Marlow's pun on: “he could see” describes that Marlow supports Kurtz and his endeavors as a favors until his death.
Kurtz and his abundance of ivory: “heaps of it, stacks of it”, give the impression that plays the role of God upon earth. He ruled a native people in there land, killed part of mother nature, all with no restraints, this can be seen as a divine attribute for Kurtz. But with an abundance of ivory comes an abundance of passion and obsession, leading to the ending gradation and repetition giving emphasis and a hyperbole of “my”, until he says: “my everything”, if he owns everything then he is God. Playing God on earth is a sin and an insult leading to his captivity in the hands of the devil.
The theme and symbol of ivory, is one that defines the nature and purity of Africa from European colonialism. The “ivory ball” (l.1) in the beginning of the passage is used to illustrate Kurtz bald head, but the simile truly indicates that ivory, being what elephants use to defend themselves, Kurtz use to defend himself. Kurtz head is his defense against the natives and Africa. The ivory ball head can also be perceived as a solid head, an emotionless conscience, which allows him to treat the native in a submissive manner.
Kurtz equals ivory. Ivory, rises the wealth of individuals who possess it and sell it, but also rises hate, competition and destruction of moral part of men as well. Kurtz, along with colonialism bring to Africa, the “white” land of Ivory, a “dark” decay and destruction. He is consumed simply by the idea of ivory, by the idea of “dead ivory”, fossils, only to “better” himself. “The old mud shanty was bursting with it” (l.4) is a metaphor for Kurtz, he being the old, dirty and crudely built man bursting with ivory excess. This metaphor shows that Kurtz is weak and spoiled, or in a sense that the ivory is dirty, poison.
Finally, ivory is a the center of the darkness, at the heart of the darkness because it is responsible for poisoning. Ivory is thus at the heart of Africa also, meaning that the Europeans are stealing the heart of Africa, and calling it theres, with the emphasis of “my” towards the end.
* * *
The text begins in a wide lens, Kurtz's physique and his transformation, then the reader enters into a more detailed and critical description of Kurtz, describing his lusts and passions, only to once again regain the same wide lens, illustrating a godly perspective, with the ending gradation: “My intended, my ivory […] to, my river – my everything”. Conrad wants us to se through this change in perspective a travel or adventure, from Europe to Africa, then he goes into Africa (Kurtz) then back to a European and wide perspective on the matter.
The tones in this passage differ, from respectful towards Kurtz or not. Marlow's tone in this passage is rather one of a mourner, as he slowly sees his idol and man, tip into the basket of death. His tone becomes a little more aggressive as he blames the natives to have done such harm to Kurtz when in fact he is simply looking for an excuse, to justify Kurtz's death. Marlow uses several times: “could” (l.8) , “You would” (l.4), “I should” (l.3), these words enhance and give or gave Marlow a sort of option to change the outcome of Kurtz situation, this gives the impression that Marlow seems as though he simply can't let go.
The manager's tone on the other hand is one of disrespect, as he degrades Kurtz's ivory to fossils (dead ivory): “Mostly fossils, the manager had remarked, disparagingly” (l.5). The manager indicates that fossils are of little worth, and because Kurtz in himself is ivory, which can become a fossil, it means that the manager considers both Kurtz and his fossils worthless.
Marlow in the end of the passage does the maximum to keep Kurtz's fate a float, by giving him that final piece of appreciation with his stacks of ivory, “stuffed” on the boat. The favor consist of also getting Kurtz out of the darkness he was engulfed in, but the wilderness consumes him before and his fate seemed sealed and doomed.
Marlow turns towards disrespect as well as a means to mourn his idol. He belittles him, just as the manager does using the ivory, by saying: “Heaps of it, stacks of it” (l.4), this sentence doesn't alleviate the preciousness of ivory at all, it degrades it into “it” as if the ivory where wood for instance, something with no precious connotation.
Finally, Marlow insults the natives by using the racist and degrading word: “niggers” (l.6) when in the past he's used less offensive words. He blames the natives for a ridiculous reason, it is there fault that a foreigner, completely responsible for terrible deeds in there country, to have died, ironic, because it is he that destroyed Africa and there sacred ivory, not Africa who destroyed Europe.
* * *
* *
In the end, throughout this passage Conrad was able to illustrate the protagonist emotions and tone towards his dying and decrepit idol / paragon. A tone the demonstrates great respect and yet great disappointment as he resents seeing the jungle total engulf the character completely, there is a great deal of sympathy that Marlow feels. Although, this passages hidden sens, that Marlow truly sees first handed is the power of the wilderness over man, the power of Africa over the poisonous Europeans, the power of tradition over wealth.
Comment: a rich commentary, with fine insight on this passage as relates to Kurtz's fall at the hands of nature, as well as on his own decrepitude. The notion of the shanty as metaphor for Kurtz is excellent, and the discussion on ivory and the way the Europeans interact with it, is a bit disjointed but also offers fine layers of insight. Be sure to try to hold those small bits together a bit more coherently--they become a bit of a string of ideas that could really work better as a whole discussion, with some stronger guiding topic sentences. The same holds true for the intro and thesis which could use a bit of clarification/strengthening: differing ideas? his reality? eek! These are terms that could be clearer to the reader. Finally, you need to re-read yourself!
---------------------------------------------------
Heart of Darkness Commentary: Passage IV
Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, is the story of a young man who is looking for his place in the world. Marlow, the young man in question, decides to embark on a journey through the Belgian Congo, up the Congo River and back again. In this passage located at the very beginning of Part II, we find ourselves in the middle of Marlow’s journey upriver. Marlow describes his conflicting and paradoxical relationship with nature, because it puts him at ease in the Congo whereas the lack of it back in London brings him disgust. He is describing the nature with nostalgia for the things he has lost on his journey to the Congo, the things that used to comfort him that are no longer there. He explains the feeling of being lost, but his loss is more profound than geographical. He finds himself lost in society, for he is desperately seeking his place whether it is in Africa or in the West. Marlow’s conflicting relationship with nature is shown throughout the passage through Conrad’s use of paradox, antithesis, diction and imagery. The use of these literary devices helps the reader understand Marlow’s unease and his actions.
Antithesis, oxymoron and paradox are rampant in this passage. When Conrad states that the “vegetation rioted” we can see an oxymoron because of the fact that “vegetation” is supposed to be luscious calm and green, whereas “rioted” has a aggressive connotation. Her we sense the discomfort Marlow feels towards the nature he is surrounded by because the only shield he has from it is his boat. The steamer is not a very protective shield because; when Marlow starts out on his journey he comes to Congo to find a broken boat in need of three months of repairs. This all feeds into the fear and uncertainty Marlow feels about Africa, he is in a new place, with vegetation, people and plants he has never even seen or dreamed of before and the only thing he has protecting him is a half fixed up steamer. This anxiety is felt through this oxymoron.
The next remarkable paradox is “empty stream.” When we are to think of a stream, we think of a powerful body of water that flows naturally through various places. The though of an empty stream alludes to a sort of dried up land, that is undernourished and has had all of the life sucked out of it. This is a very powerful paradox for Congo because of the fact that the white people are sucking all of the ivory out of the place and that they are leaving the natives malnourished, impoverished and alone. The white people are draining Africa of its nature, making it more like the London that Marlow was trying to escape. This explains the paradox within the character of Marlow, because he wants to escape London a place that has been stripped of its nature, to a place where he thinks the abundance of nature will bring him comfort. In fact, this nature that is in the process of being destroyed makes Marlow uneasy and fearful, explaining why he associates it with aggressive terms, because he feels attacked by it, it overwhelms him. This shows the reader that Marlow is no hero, nor is he a villain, it proves to which point he is a lost soul trying to find his place, whether it be in Congo or in England.
Marlow describes what he is feeling through the use of the following antithesis: “unrestful and noisy dream.” Normally a dream is a time of happy thoughts and appeasement, but Marlow associates dreaming with chaos and raucousness. Through the use of paradox, antithesis and oxymoron Marlow is able to denounce that nature does not have an appeasing effect on him, for he is restricted by fear, and by the lack of safety he has on the steamer.
This diction in this passage exposes the extent to which Marlow is conflicting with the nature that surrounds him. He starts off by describing the air as “warm, thick, heavy, sluggish” which denotes the diction of humidity and a disagreeable feeling that comes upon ones body when they are hot and sticky. This feeling is therefore associated with an unhappy sensation exhibiting Marlow’s feeling towards the climate that is surrounding him. On the other hand though, there is a diction of rather joyous words: “sunned”, “kings”, “silvery” these words force the reader to realize that Marlow has a somewhat nostalgic tone here because he is remembering the past. In this instance, which is what proves to be most interesting, is that Marlow is describing a beautiful place, but his tone is insinuating that it is primitive, showing another conflict between Marlow and nature.
Furthermore we have the words “river” and “desert” which bring us back to the fact that the white people are draining Africa of all of its riches by taking the ivory, the rubber and the diamonds. All of these things that are simple material things to the whites belong to the land of the natives, a land that they want to preserve. The reader here is able to picture the shriveling up of Africa because the whites have sucked the life out of it; they have appropriated the goods of the land for themselves, without taking anyone else into consideration.
Conrad uses the word “strange” to describe Marlow’s surroundings, explaining the uneasy feeling that Marlow feels as he is travelling up river. This feeling explains the undertones of fear we can hear in his narrative voice. Marlow’s actions come from this discomfort, which is why he stays very disconnected from the whole journey through Congo. Marlow does not want to leave the boat, because if he does he may find himself directly confronted with the natives, and become, like Kurtz a brute. We can also remark the diction of largeness with “big”, “broadened” and “mob.” This alludes to the fact that that Marlow is fearful and overwhelmed.
Metaphor, simile and personification are used in this passage to create a visual for the reader to imagine what Marlow is going through. The visuals in this passage give a picturesque imagery of Africa, but the beautiful landscapes are undermined by Marlow’s negative tone, showing a conflict. The metaphor of the “impenetrable forest” demonstrates immediately that Marlow quickly realizes that we will never be able to integrate Congo and find his happiness here, because the nature does not open up its arms to him. Marlow’s nostalgic tone from the beginning of the passage is portrayed through the use of personification with: “when vegetation rioted on the earth and the big trees were kings.” Here Marlow describes Africa as a beautiful place, but it quickly turns negative because he also describes the nature as empty and impenetrable.
The following metaphor also expresses the gloomy tone that Marlow describes his surroundings with. He says: “there was no joy in the brilliance of sunshine.” This metaphor brings us back to the running comparison throughout the whole novel between whiteness and darkness. Here he says that he is in a place so dark, that the light is unable to penetrate and bring happiness. This is reflected when Marlow is confronted with Kurtz towards the end of the novel, for he is almost blinded by light when he sees him. He as been kept in the dark about this person that when he meets him it is as if someone has turned on the lights and flashed it right in his eyes. This is why Marlow is so surprised when he meets Kurtz, and why his reaction to him is reflected this way.
Marlow finished by saying that: “and this stillness of life did not in the least resemble a peace.” This imagery exhibits the fact that despite the peaceful nature of silence in general, here the silence is like emptiness or a void. Marlow feels this lack of noise because he is not used to being alone with himself. Lastly Marlow uses this last metaphor to emphasize again the fact that the nature he is surrounded by does not bring him solace, but gloom. He says: “ it was the stillness of an implacable force brooding over an inscrutable intention.” Here Marlow is equating the African landscape with the “brooding gloom” that he left back in London, showing that he has never really distanced himself from the imperialist mindset.
Marlow’s conflicting relationship with nature in this passage explains his unease and his actions that happen later on in the novel. The fact that he is intimidated by the African landscape shows that he is actually is intimidated by his whole trip and is not as together as he seems. We can link this with the persona of Victor Frankenstein who in fact, finds solace within nature, because of the fact that he has meddled with it when he created the creature and has seen the effects of toying with nature first hand. On the other hand though Marlow finds himself in two places were nature have been toyed with, making him unable to find solace in something that is supposed to be a comforting force. Have people like Victor and the colonizers ruined nature for people like Marlow?
Comment: A good sense overall of Marlow's conflicted interaction with nature here, through the use of imagery and rhetorical devices. Beware of integrating things that are not in the passage, however, and leaving out things that are. The use of desert here does not connote the colonists, but rather Marlow's own interaction with a place that is vast and foreign, where he feels alone. You could, in the connection to the rest of the story, think about how this works with the colonists interaction, but that's not what this passage is about. Similarly, nostalgia refers to something one reminisces about, which is not exactly right here--he is returning to our origins, back in time and that is like a dream, a pulling into a place that is bizarre to us, associated with us in a way we cannot decode--our unconscious, perhaps, but not something we are now reminiscing about.
-------------------------------
"Instead of going up, I turned and descended to the left. My idea was to let that chain-gang get out of sight before I climbed the hill. You know, I am not particularly tender; I've had to strike and to fend off. I've had to resist and to attack sometimes -that's only one way of resisting -without counting the exact cost, according to the demands of such sort of life as I had blundered into. 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 rapacious and pitiless folly. How insidious he could be, too, I was only to find out several months later and a thousand miles farther. For a moment I stood appalled, as though by a warning. Finally I descended the hill, obliquely, towards the trees I had seen.”
The Devil of Colonialism Reveals Itself
Historically writers have always been engaged in politics and moral conflicts. This dates back even to the day of Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher of Antique times, who wrote his philosophical dialogue to try and explain and change the crisis happening in Athens. More recently, Joseph Conrad for instance, wrote to oppose the values of colonialism in the Belgian Congo. This passage, from Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad's magnum-opus novella, depicts Marlow, the main character, as he seems overwhelmed by what it is that has just unfolded before him: as a chain-gang goes by on his way to the outer station along the Congo River. He expresses his first thoughts about his journey. For a moment, he thinks himself “[warned]” against the voyage that will ensue from here on out. In this passage, Conrad, through Marlow's voice, uses diction, imagery, and metaphors in order to establish an image of colonialism that he subsequently tears down to denounce it.
The first part of the passage presents a feeble image of colonialism. The first sentence eases the reader into these ideas with a metaphor referring to Marlow's experience: "Instead of going up, I turned and descended to the left”. This metaphor represents his choice to journey to Africa. In so choosing, Marlow inadvertently brings himself down to a sort of hell, since the gate keepers, the two sewing women failed to warn him of what was to come. “Instead of going up,” continuing on the path he was on in Europe, where he was seemingly happy, Marlow turns and descends into an African hell, where one could lose him/herself. It is a moral descent, too. He claims it has enlightened him, but he himself is not sure what he learned from it. This also foreshadows the route his travels are going to take: the further he travels down the Congo River, the less the European values of colonialism take effect. The world is hell without colonialism. However, this sentence begins with the word “instead,” planting the seed in the reader's mind that even though that might be how it was supposed to go, it is not how it went. This weakens colonialism, bring it down from controlling a people, to a failed theory.
At first, he uses diction to describe colonialism. He uses the term “chain-gang” to exemplify and display the justice and order that colonialism brings to the Congolese hell. Chain-gangs were ways of punishing prisoners while forcing them to do forced, manual, labor. Their presence shows a form of justice, crime, and punishment, that has been established in the Belgian Congo by the colonizers. This shows that they are succeeding in their mission to civilize the indigenous people, they are introducing a new way of exacting justice, a new form of punishment; the people are defined as criminals, and so they are treated as such. The term “my idea” also contributes to showing the European origin of the colonialist agenda, as it refers to the European idea that they had a duty unto other 'less civilized' peoples to civilize them.
The author also uses the image of the hill to start to glorify colonialism, but then the image falls through. Marlow says “before I climbed the hill,” anticipating to climb it, where he would presumably reach the head of the station, and then be at the top of a people. Again though, something disrupts this colonialist ideal. At the end of the passage, Marlow, instead of continuing up the colonial chain of command, descends down the hill, down towards nature. The tense of the verb “climbed” shows the intention initially placed in the act of reaching the summit of colonialism, but it also displays that this intention is unfulfilled. This lack of fulfillment shows that colonialism does not reach all that it I built up to be.
In the second part of the passage, however, this feeble image of colonization is dismantled. The diction employed in this part shows a corruption of the idea of colonialism. Marlow says “you know, I am not particularly tender; I've had to strike and to fend off. I've had to resist and to attack sometimes -that's only one way of resisting -without counting the exact cost, according to the demands of such sort of life as I had blundered into.” With this statement, the author is using Marlow as an embodiment of colonization. This embodiment shows the corruption that has come to rot the pure idea colonialism: it was meant to civilize the savages without harming them, and transformed into something “not particularly tender”. It morphs to a point where it even surpasses this lack of tenderness: first, through necessity, colonialism has had to “strike and fend off,” and then second, this necessity degenerates into “[resisting] and [attacking]”. The aggression escalates as the colonizers “blunder” with “such sort life” as the indigenous Congolese people. The author also uses the words “rapacious and pitiless folly” to describe colonialism, blatantly pointing out that what it is is not what it was intended to be.
Conrad also uses the metaphor of the devil to unhinge colonization. Firstly, the devil is a christian idea. Thusly, its presence in the process shows a corruption, whether inherent in the system, or in the individuals (who might be tempted by ivory, for example). Secondly, the metaphor is ambiguous. The metaphor is characterized with an enumeration of sins, including “violence”, “greed”, “desire”, and “lust”. These sins add to the importance of the ambiguity. It might apply to the “criminals”, the “prisoners”, making up the “chain-gang”; this means that the devil of colonialism has taken control of them, that they have no more freedoms, just the colonizers have taken over them in reality. On the other hand though, it might apply to those who watch the “criminals”: the colonists. It also insinuates that they are devils in themselves, greedy for more ivory and riches, to the point where they are “flabby”, “pretending” to be superior to the natives. The devils are described as “insidious”, adding to their evil. Finally, near the closing of the passage, Marlow says: “for a moment I stood appalled, as though by a warning.” He comes to a realization of what colonialism has done, and how it only destroys lies, despite it having good intentions to start. He is “appalled”, disgusted with what he, as a European, has done to this people. It serves as a warning by telling him that the further he ventures along the Congo River, the darker what he finds will be.
Upon undergoing this realization, Marlow takes his first true steps away from colonialism. The last sentence of the passage, “Finally I descended the hill, obliquely, towards the trees I had seen,” assures the reader of this. He descends the hill, walking away from the weak idea of colonialism to head back towards to the “trees [he] had seen”. Through this voyage back to the bottom of the mountain, he returns towards nature, towards a non-colonialist, more respectful, way of treating man.
So in conclusion, in this passage, it would seem that Conrad is criticizing colonialism through imagery, diction, and metaphors. The main character of the novella, Marlow, apparently goes through an epiphany, giving him an idea of the falsehoods of colonialism. However, this being said, after this passage, Marlow, in his return to nature (or rather the more natural way of treating his fellow man), descends to a clearing. In this clearing, all he finds is death. Conrad providing this new image contrasts the one in this passage: is he for colonialism or against it?
Although there was some good analysis here regarding colonialism itself, this started off in a rather bizarre way--you acknowledge the context of the passage in the intro but pretty quickly leap away into analysis in the first body paragraph with some strange analysis about Marlow's choice to go into AFrica rather than analysis of his first encounter with the way the natives are treated by the colonists. In the discussion of the devils, there is a differentiation that anticipates the difference between the flabby devils in the first station and the violent devil we will meet later in the novella, Kurtz, which if you want to build on the analysis you wish for here, would be the choice he is making by moving further UP the river (not down) into other levels of Hell. At this point in the novella, moreover, Marlow is clearly acting passively, watching, looking and learning about colonialism, but not engaging. I cannot see this idea of his climbing to the top of the hill as his climbing to the top of colonialism, and your reading of some words without the others is causing you to not see some of what he is saying here about the different layers of colonial rule and his own experience with horrors in the world (you know i"m not particularly tender...I've had to fend off...I've seen...red eyed devils vs I foresaw...)
-----------------------
1Commentary on Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
Paraphrase
I was within a hair’s breadth of death (had narrowly escaped death) and I humiliating realized that I didn’t have anything to say. This is why I believe Kurtz is such a remarkable man. He had something to say and he said it. Since I have been close to death, I know understand why he could not see the light but only the darkness, yet he was able to stare at all of life, he has such an understanding that he was able to see through all the hearts that beat in the darkness. He had stared at it all and passed judgment on it: “the horror!” He was a great man. After all, he had expressed his belief with such candor and conviction, rebelliously expressing it as an appalling truth—a truth about the combination of desire and hate. I don’t remember my own feelings—it was all a hazy grey vision with physical pain, and an unjustified hatred for the fleetingness of all things—not even the pain itself. No! All I remember is how he felt at that moment. Yes, maybe all of life’s wisdom is found in that one moment when he stepped over the edge of life and into death, while I fearful did not cross. And maybe this is why wisdom, truth and sincerity are all brought together in that small moment in time in which we step over the threshold from life to death. Maybe! I hope I’ll be able to sum up life with something better than hatred. His cry of despair was better—much better. It was a declaration of his victory of his morals won by his numerous defeats, by his horrible fears, by his horrible pleasures. But it was a victory all the same. That’s why I’ve stayed loyal to Kurtz till the end. I stayed loyal even after hearing the echo of his brilliant eloquence coming from a soul as pure as a cliff of crystal.
This passage from Heart of Darkness forms the third part of the novella. Prior to this passage, Kurtz is incited by the pilgrims especially the manager to join them in their journey back the station. However Kurtz has fallen ill and is on the verge of death. Kurtz struggles with himself; he constantly raves incomprehensibly and feels that has actually found himself in darkness. It does not end well for Kurtz, for he is unable to hold onto life but before he releases himself to death he utters such an ambiguous yet profound term: “the horror”. At this point in the narrative, Marlow who has also fallen as ill as Kurtz, however has recovered is comparing his moment to Kurtz’s. He was also close to death, yet he realizes that he falls short to Kurtz. Even when it comes down to death, Marlow doesn’t measure up to Kurtz; he realizes he isn’t as profound for he does not go beyond—in death and in all aspects of life. It should be noted that going beyond does not only mean death but it equally corrupting oneself with lies, venturing into complete darkness where morality is lost, where the person cuts off all ties to society and loses his humanity. Another part of going beyond is denying ambiguity. In this passage, as Marlow illustrates his inadequacy to Kurtz by admiring the man he once condemned for his deceitfulness, supports his “going beyond”, for this leads to true redemption of self.
First off, as Marlow unveils his confessions to his audience members on the Nellie, he devotes his time painting a positive image of a man he deeply admires through the use of diction. His words we now find in this passage varies from his previous opinions of Kurtz, one can say that this is the final stage in the construction of his judgment of Kurtz. At the beginning of the narrative we have found Marlow’s bourgeoning curiosity for the man, yet this changes as we reach the next stage where Marlow soon seems disappointed. However, here Marlow has changed his sentiments towards Kurtz once again. He repeated reveals his approval of Marlow but underlining his inadequacy. Marlow attributes the term “remarkable” to Kurtz in order to underline his superior state to Marlow. Marlow on the other hand gives himself very little credit by associating the term “humiliation” to his own image. Marlow is expressing his inferiority by expressing mortification. Marlow even uses his shame to push Kurtz in the forefront—into the limelight. This is shown once he expresses his emotional state to “why I affirm”. Marlow assertively puts Kurtz in the position—putting him on a pedestal. He gives reason to allow Kurtz redemption. Marlow’s glorious portrait of Kurtz does not only finish at the term “remarkable”. He equally associates terms such as “candour”, “conviction” “vibrating”. All these terms are employed to characterize Kurtz’s last word—the last word which was the result of going beyond. So we see here that this last word made Kurtz become truthful (i.e. candor), passionate (i.e. vibrating) and confidante (i.e. conviction). These are all traits that illustrate his redemptive side. At the end he becomes a good man. While he is becoming a good man Marlow cannot even remember his experience with death. The term “extremity” is used to refer to his experience, but this term actually signifies limit does in fact denote to Marlow’s limit, whereas Kurtz has none for he was able to express his last word. We see the contrast between Marlow’s inferiority compared to Kurtz’s superiority once again. By going beyond, Kurtz has redeemed himself by gaining “wisdom”, “truth” and “sincerity” while Marlow was “hesitating” to redeem himself. Marlow cowered away while Kurtz confronted death and darkness and ended up gaining so much—fulfilling himself while Marlow remains empty like the rest of the pilgrims.
Further, Marlow also reveals his admiration for Kurtz who Marlow underlines to have gained redemption through the use of a hyperbole, an anaphora and a comparison. Loyal to Kurtz Marlow stresses his respect through the use of a hyperbole: “magnificent eloquence”. Marlow is completely seduced by Kurtz’s prowess in rhetoric. He shows how amazing Kurtz is when it comes to using language and this is definitely as result of Kurtz’s last word: “the horror”. This term is so ambiguous, yet so profound and it is in fact a very difficult type of word to express but does it any way. Marlow really goes above and beyond to emphasize how amazing Kurtz is. The use of the anaphora: “remarkable man” which is repeated twice by Marlow is put in use to underline once again Marlow’s high opinion of Kurtz who has indeed become a remarkable man for having redeemed himself by going beyond the edge. One can find here a cathartic moment. Catharsis means: A purifying or figurative cleansing of the emotions, especially pity and fear, described by Aristotle as an effect of tragic drama on its audience. Marlow is calling advocating for Kurtz’s respect, he his calling upon their emotion by naming him “remarkable”; whereas Kurtz’s fulfills the catharsis by relinquishing to death as a punishment for becoming a coward and retreating into lies, he also upholds his end in the catharsis as admitting to his mistakes by saying “the horror!” His last word means that he acknowledges the truth about his destructive desire and hate. By giving himself up to death, he restores the Golden Meen—the balance—and pays for what he has done. Now, as for the comparison: “the echo of his magnificent eloquence thrown to me from a soul as translucently pure as a cliff of crystal.” Marlow compares Kurtz to a cliff of crystal. He compares him to something so precious, so pure and so transparent. Before, Kurtz used to be the darkness of the Congo; he was the fog that hid things and deceived the eye. However, now after having gone beyond the edge, by realizing his faults and berating himself for it, this allows his darkness to fade and Kurtz becomes transparently pure which means he has redeemed himself.
Kurtz’s last word “the horror” holds such an important value to Marlow and of course to the person who said it for it leads to his salvation, that Marlow personifies his dying words. Marlow names it an “appalling face of a glimpsed truth”. Marlow tries to show here that in in of its own “the horror” has transformed into a figure with a face—it has gained an identity. It should also be noted that Marlow attributes adjectives to the term “the horror” saying it has “candour” and “conviction” which only ends up building the identity of this figure.This so-called figure has discovered truth: Kurtz realizes how bad hatred and desire is to a person, they destroy a person. Truth is hurtful and shocking thus “the horror” has an appalling side to it, but one can also speculate that is also has an appalling side to it because Kurtz realizes how far he has fallen. Marlow really wants to show his audience that in seeing truth regardless of its unpleasantness is important because a person can then judge that truth with any measure of certainty thus understanding life as a whole, otherwise without this found truth life is meaningless.
Marlow draws out very powerful imagery throughout the passage. The first image we get is the image of a race that Kurtz is competing in. Marlow describes Kurtz’s crossing over in the following manner: “True, he had made that last stride, he had stepped over the edge, while I had been permitted to draw back my hesitating foot.” We get the image of Kurtz running “that last stride” (striding is normally related to races and running) which leads to a finish line “the edge”. We can actually picture him in that last moment where he is placing his foot on that edge and winning that race, even though his victory leads to the end of his existence. This image contrasts with the way Marlow depicts his experience in the race. On the one hand we have this amazing image that is well won and then we have Marlow’s image which is in fact very bland. His image is one of “greyness without form filled with physical pain, and a careless contempt for the evanescence of all things”. Marlow cannot even remember his experience, it is flat and uneventful, and we imagine his experience as pain and hatred. We can see that he struggles in this race, and his is not equip to compete hence “my hesitating foot”(he seems like a cowering fool); whereas we get a glorious image of Kurtz accomplishing the race. This contrast really underlines Marlow’s inadequacy to Kurtz as well as his admiration for the winner, for he does not try to embellish upon his poor image. I believe the next image we get is one of war—a war that Kurtz is fighting. Marlow describes Kurtz’s death as a battle since he uses the terms: “victory”, “innumerable defeats”, “abominable terrors” and “abominable satisfactions” (the last term is actually an oxymoron. Something horrible cannot follow something that signifies pleasure and happiness and this ultimately shows tension thus showing Kurtz’s struggle in this battle to either side with horrible things that make him happy such as ivory and controlling the savages or abandoning himself to redemption.) Marlow creates a very violent image and Kurtz seems to be depicted as the sole warrior fighting in the war. This war Marlow paints out is important because this war is fought for redemption and at the end Kurtz does win the battle and he does get his reward: “moral victory”.
This passage has very particular syntax. The sentences are very long and it seems as though we have found ourselves in Marlow’s stream of conscience. His though goes on and on. In the majority of the passage, the rhythm is long and lasting due to the punctuation: the numerous commas and dashes. His thoughts are very raw and he is just creating his opinion as he goes because he adds things to what he says. We see this through the anacoluthons: “And it is not my own extremity I remember best -- a vision of greyness without form filled with physical pain, and a careless contempt for the evanescence of all things -- even of this pain itself.” The fact that this is raw and that he constantly adds to his thoughts shows how he is honest because he is simply trying to express himself freely. He is not thinking things over and does not aim to be grammatically correct which is shown by the asyndeton: “his stare, that could not see the flame of the candle, but was wide enough to embrace the whole universe, piercing enough to penetrate all the hearts that beat in the darkness.” It seems that he is confessing: it is all spewing out in this one moment. In addition, the fact that he develops his thoughts through enumerations shows how he is enthusiastic. He is acuminating one thing after the other: “After all, this was the expression of some sort of belief; it had candor, it had conviction, it had a vibrating note of revolt in its whisper, it had the appalling face of a glimpsed truth.” It should be noted here that in this enumeration there is an antithesis: revolt vs. whisper. And a revolt is something loud and a whisper is something quiet. This opposition creates tension and this links back to Marlow complete and utter passion for Kurtz and his redemption. Marlow is simply trying to let it all out and admit to how loyal he is. His admiration and enthusiastic tone is definitely illustrated by the exclamatory sentences such as: “But it was a victory!”Marlow is very proud and passionate about the subject he is talking about: he says “No!” with an exclamation point and “Perhaps!” with one as well. I also believe there is a cause/consequence motif in the syntax. For instance, “He had something to say” which is the cause and then there is the consequence: “He said it.” This shows how he is leading us through his confession which differs from the rest of his rambling sentences.
This passage definitely brings back up one of the major themes in Heart of Darkness. One can see that madness is put into question in this passage. Madness is when one becomes so far removed from society’s customs and restrictions. Madness make man loses the sense of where he stands in the great moral struggle, but this passage illustrates that regardless of the madness man can actually benefit from the madness because such madness, which Kurtz experienced allowed him to find redeem himself and become the only meaningless person in the Congo who is full. The madness even explored as Kurtz had explored it leads a person to understanding life. One can speculate that this madness makes an honest man out of Kurtz for it pushes him to realizes his flaws and then it help him takes the measures to fixing what he has done; whereas the rest of the people such as Marlow and the pilgrims refuse to venture over the edge and fix their flaws. They refuse to redeem themselves; they have so substance and remain empty.
Finally, one can finally understand Kurtz for what he really is. Marlow shows how Kurtz had the courage to judge, how he has the tools within him to go beyond and by going beyond overcome and triumph. Kurtz “etched” himself in Marlow’s memory even after having shown his deceitful and corrupt ways to a man who once saw him as a pitiful lost man. He has become and an exemplarily figure, which only leads us to connect this to the messiah complex. Kurtz has a messiah complex. A messiah complex is a state of mind in which the individual believes he/she is, or is destined to become, a savior. Kurtz wants to be remembered, he wants to be seen as the immortal savior and remain glorious and he does honestly complete his complex as he remains immortal and all glorious for Marlow and the Intended i.e. his fiancée.
To conclude, Marlow really shows that “going beyond” can only be accomplished by a man he truly admires, Kurtz a man who gained redemption after having been condemned for his deceitfulness. This passage really shows us how that at the end Heart of Darkness wasn’t about a man named Kurtz but about Marlow and how Marlow is affected by Kurtz. Conrad has shown that bonds can sometimes never be broken. No matter how horrible Kurtz had become Marlow still managed to remain by his side.
I am going to push you to reread yourself by showing you that it affects your grade of this otherwise magnificent close reading!!! Beyond the issue of expression, which occasionally impacts meaning but not frequently, the discussion of the passage is superbly executed and thoughtfully connected to the work as a whole, as well as to the curriculum! Bravo!!
I have two points to make, which I think is an important one: does Kurtz by himself have a messiah complex? He may have a God complex, but as far as the Messiah complex goes, isn't Marlow who is attributing it to him? Marlow, who, additionally, may be presenting him as a parody of an idol to worship...
The second point has to do with the image of the stride. He is stepping over the line but into nothingness since he goes over the cliff. He, in effect, cuts himself loose, which is akin to being dangerously free, since the entire moral world has come up hollow. His moral victory comes from severing ties with that world (the superego, in effect)
Here is a suggested link: try connecting Marlow in this passage to Hamlet in his "o what a rogue and peasant slave am I"
----------------------
Mind, I am not trying to excuse or even explain -- I am trying to account to myself for -- for -- Mr. Kurtz -- for the shade of Mr. Kurtz. This initiated wraith from the back of Nowhere honoured me with its amazing confidence before it vanished altogether. This was because it could speak English to me. The original Kurtz had been educated partly in England, and -- as he was good enough to say himself -- his sympathies were in the right place. His mother was half-English, his father was half-French. All Europe contributed to the making of Kurtz; and by and by I learned that, most appropriately, the International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs had intrusted him with the making of a report, for its future guidance. And he had written it, too. I've seen it. I've read it. It was eloquent, vibrating with eloquence, but too high-strung, I think. Seventeen pages of close writing he had found time for! But this must have been before his -- let us say -- nerves, went wrong, and caused him to preside at certain midnight dances ending with unspeakable rites, which -- as far as I reluctantly gathered from what I heard at various times -- were offered up to him -- do you understand? -- to Mr. Kurtz himself. But it was a beautiful piece of writing. The opening paragraph, however, in the light of later information, strikes me now as ominous. He began with the argument that we whites, from the point of development we had arrived at, 'must necessarily appear to them [savages] in the nature of supernatural beings -- we approach them with the might of a deity,' and so on, and so on. 'By the simple exercise of our will we can exert a power for good practically unbounded,' etc., etc. From that point he soared and took me with him. The peroration was magnificent, though difficult to remember, you know. It gave me the notion of an exotic Immensity ruled by an august Benevolence. It made me tingle with enthusiasm. This was the unbounded power of eloquence -- of words -- of burning noble words. There were no practical hints to interrupt the magic current of phrases, unless a kind of note at the foot of the last page, scrawled evidently much later, in an unsteady hand, may be regarded as the exposition of a method. It was very simple, and at the end of that moving appeal to every altruistic sentiment it blazed at you, luminous and terrifying, like a flash of lightning in a serene sky: 'Exterminate all the brutes!' The curious part was that he had apparently forgotten all about that valuable postscriptum, because, later on, when he in a sense came to himself, he repeatedly entreated me to take good care of 'my pamphlet' (he called it), as it was sure to have in the future a good influence upon his career. I had full information about all these things, and, besides, as it turned out, I was to have the care of his memory.
This passage is situated in the middle of the narrative as Marlow continues his slow progression to finally meet the prodigy that is Kurtz. Marlow, the cannibals and the pilgrims are still on the steamer going down the river to the inner station where Kurtz resides. Their boat has just been attacked and Marlow logically assumes the massacre of Kurtz and his men by the same natives who had just done the same to them. Marlow expresses his deep disappointment for not being able to meet this prodigy; this genius everyone seems to talk about. He also mentions a report Kurtz has written at the request of the International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs. This pamphlet represents one of the only legitimate sources out of the fables and stories said about the man. In fact it can’t get any better, knowing Kurtz was its author. The description Marlow narrates is one contemplating the white man’s burden and Kurtz ambition to fulfill this objective. Interestingly Marlow complies to this ideology as he seems to revere Kurtz’s words; words of slavery and massacre a rational man should not falter to.
Obviously, both Marlow and Kurtz were both raised in the Westernized culture; a culture heavily criticized in this novel and others for being intrusive and abusive of others. Marlow stays deeply into that fact; “The original Kurtz had been educated partly in England, and -- as he was good enough to say himself -- his sympathies were in the right place. His mother was half-English, his father was half-French. All Europe contributed to the making of Kurtz;” This actuality shows the possibility of a racist perception in both of these characters; especially Kurtz. In this passage both Kurtz and Marlow go with that resented ideology; they proclaim it to the reader’s surprise. In the pamphlet Kurtz says we “must necessarily appear to them [savages] in the nature of supernatural beings -- we approach them with the might of a deity.” And Marlow, who we thought to be a passive yet generally good character, embarks in this fanatic route. He declares reading these pro-slavery arguments gave him “the notion of an exotic Immensity ruled by an august Benevolence. It made me tingle with enthusiasm.” They, like the accountant, like the manager, like the aunt, promote this idea of bringing enlightenment to the civilizations of the poor simplistic African savages in the jungles of the Congo. As he describes Kurtz’s claims; Marlow continuously uses phrases and adjectives such as “it was a beautiful piece of writing” or “. It was very simple, and at the end of that moving appeal to every altruistic sentiment it blazed at you.” The effects of this humanitarian effort are disastrous precisely because it is based on an entirely misguided view of what it is to be human. What happened to the supposedly civilized Mr. Kurtz is representative. Again, Kurtz was chosen by "all the best people" because he was so entirely representative of European values and culture, Kurtz was a personification of the European willingness to expose and force its own civilization and its beliefs around the world (not to mention the profit involved).
Yet many such as Marlow fall into this blinded view and go on through the journey. Half of Marlow’s narrative in the passage is used to imply his awe over this 17 racism filled booklet. “It was eloquent, vibrating with eloquence” etc, etc… Coming back to the subject of Kurtz origins; it is said “All Europe contributed to the making of Kurtz.” This phrase implicates that Kurtz was the perfect representation of what it was to be the civilized, westernized, rich European. He represents the exact opposite of what Africa is, he was the different culture coming in to intrude, and he was the conquering Europe. Yet the civilized man falls in his mission. “But this must have been before his -- let us say -- nerves, went wrong, and caused him to preside at certain midnight dances ending with unspeakable rites, which -- as far as I reluctantly gathered from what I heard at various times -- were offered up to him -- do you understand? -- to Mr. Kurtz himself.” After writing the book, Kurtz became insane, supposedly, but not before he wrote it. So the rational being proclaims slavery but the culture-adopting being is insane. Marlow is saying the rational thinker will agree to this, for if you do not, you, like Kurtz, have become irrational.
Fortunately, what makes the passage so great is the double personality of Marlow integrated in to the passage. We have to remember he is not speaking from the boat on the Congo River, but speaking on a boat near London about being on a boat in the Congo observing the 17 paged essay written by Kurtz. This means Marlow is not speaking through his initial thoughts but is on the contrary reflecting on them and analyzing their meaning from the future. He admits his initial feelings through shear modesty and contemplates on the true meaning of this moment in his life. “Mind, I am not trying to excuse or even explain -- I am trying to account to myself for -- for -- Mr. Kurtz -- for the shade of Mr. Kurtz.” The first sentence has constant self interruption which can be interpreted as hesitation for regret. If the tone of this passage is set by admiration and awe, this first sentence is clearly not part of it. This disturbance or maybe this deviation from the truth at the beginning of this passage suggests that Marlow has begun to feel the need to justify his own conduct. He knows and admits his ignorance; he speaks of his enthrallment with Kurtz as something over which he has no control, as if Kurtz refuses to be forgotten. For example “The peroration was magnificent, though difficult to remember, you know.” or “This was the unbounded power of eloquence -- of words -- of burning noble words. This is one of a number of instances in which Marlow suggests that a person’s responsibility for his actions is not clear-cut.
Marlow repeatedly characterizes Kurtz as a voice, declaring that Kurtz’s manner of expression or writing is his crucial quality. But Kurtz’s eloquence comes from nothing, hit is an empty shell. “This was because it could speak English to me.” There is certainly a voice, but there is no man behind that voice. The voice is personified as its own being; the voice has in itself definite importance because it is hypnotizing by the words it expresses. But the man, the man is nothing. He has written a seventeen-page document on the restraint of the savage way of life, to be dispersed in Europe, but his supposed desire to “civilize” the natives is strangely envisioned differently by the end of the document. The contradiction comes when he declares; “Exterminate all the brutes!” Marlow tell his listeners that there was something wrong with Kurtz, some flaw in his character that gave him a change of personality during his time in the Inner Station, alone with the natives. Unfortunately he declares Kurtz as insane after writing the document. Yet Kurtz specifically writes he first wants to control the natives and later on exterminate them. This obvious inconsistency shows Kurtz doesn’t even really know what he actually intends to do while in the Congo and that his rationality had degraded long before his ideology changed. This means rational people don’t listen to this pamphlet, only fools do, and Marlow acknowledges that he was one of those fools. “The opening paragraph, however, in the light of later information, strikes me now as ominous.” The obvious allusion of this passage is that the humanitarian ideals and ideologies gratifying imperialism are meaningless and simply idiotic, and are merely rationalizations for exploitation. This passage comes as a warning to the reader, a warning on one’s influence and the resulted implication that influence can cause.
Comment: a good part of this commentary has many insightful things to say. there are a couple of problems with it, however:
first, the pamphlet--when did Kurtz write the majority of it? Surely not in the Congo? When did he write Exterminate all the brutes? Why? That would explain the contradiction in the document. The pamphlet is the result of all of Europe...does Marlow mean to say he is for this?
So that, Second, as you astutely note, Marlow is looking back on this event later. True, the power of Kurtz's eloquence continues to move him so that when he talks of the power of the pamphlet, he certainly feels its draw even now, and there is the issue of how marlow will see himself. But there is sarcasm, surely, in his tone, when he expresses the ideas in the pamphlet, and what elemented it. What was wrong with Kurtz, ultimately? Marlow knows, and he says that the opening of the pamphlet now is ominous...because?? He saw the result of those ideas when tried out, not as an idea but as a reality, in the Congo...where Kurtz exterminated the brutes...What does Marlow regret? Perhaps if you had thought of putting some of this into the thesis you would have seen it/set it up more effectively
----------------------------
Commentary Passage 18
This passage from Heart of Darkness forms an important part of the novel, were Marlow meets the women Kurtz was intending to be with. At his point in the novel, Marlow came back from his trip up the Congo River while discovering Kurtz and returning to Europe to return Kurtz’s letters back to his “intended”. In this passage, Marlow experiences her emotions and the emotions of the place she is staying in. She is expecting Marlow to give her good news and information about Kurtz. She is expecting to hear all of the good qualities she knew he possessed even though many of them were false. In this passage, Marlow denounces the pain of the Intended because it causes him mixed emotions: He thinks about the negativity the women is going through and is debating whether or not he should reveal the truth about Marlow. He wants to help the women but doesn’t seem convinced about what he should say.
Straight from the beginning of this passage, the “intended” woman was in great mourning and was greatly depressed. The first words he uses to describe her were “all black” and “pale head”. These two words show great feeling of depression and show that she is in great mourning. The color black is usually used as a sad and depressing color and when a person has a “pale head” it could mean that the person has been through hell. Also, the atmosphere of the room is very dull. The author offers very simple and sad descriptions of the room: “The tall marble fireplace had a cold and monumental whiteness”. This description is very ironic. A fireplace is supposed to represent fire and heat however in this household, it represents cold and monumental whiteness, almost looking like snow when it should be looking like a red fire. This shows how bad the condition of this “intended” and her house are. “A grand piano stood massively in a corner; with dark gleams on the flat surfaces like a sombre and polished sarcophagus”. This, once again, shows the negativity from this room. The room is being described as a room of torture. No positive words are being used, only negative, dark and sad ones. This also shows an oxymoron. The piano can be used as a symbol of a coffin, a place where the dead people are kept. A coffin is supposed to be dirty and old, however, this piano is polished. People polish objects to make them look new, however, a coffin shouldn’t be represented as a new item because it is kept underground and is used for dead bodies. Throughout the night, things do not get better but get worse: “The room seemed to have grown darker, as if all the sad light of the cloudy evening had taken refuge on her forehead.” The description of the room sort of shows the state of mind of the women. Everything seems to get darker for the room, as for her things seem to get sadder. We can see that there are huge similarities between the description of the room and the description of the women’s attitude.
Kurtz meant so much to her that it feels like “he had died only yesterday”. This shows that she can never keep him off her mind, because she is always thinking about his great skills. She made his death seem so important that “for me [Marlow], too, he seemed to have died only yesterday”. This shows that his death was an immense loss to this woman and that she began to affect the people around her. Marlow now expresses the feelings she had for Kurtz. He visualizes “his death and her sorrow -- I saw her sorrow in the very moment of his death”. He seemed to picture every important emotion that she had. He knew he was in the wrong place at the wrong time: “panic in my heart as though I had blundered into a place of cruel and absurd mysteries not fit for a human being to behold”. He was in a position he should have never been put in. As the reader, we know he is going to lie to her face but at this point, he doesn’t know what he will tell her. Marlow seems to be stressed because everything was sorrow around him and the only way to make things better are to lie, something he didn’t seem too convinced to do even though he ends up doing it. After taking a seat, she says “'You knew him well”, which shows that she expects the truth to be told about Kurtz. She is expecting all honesty about Kurtz. She wanted to know what his last words and actions were and what he did as a person. She was expecting something great to be said about Kurtz. She was used to a Kurtz who acts “guileless, profound, confident, and trustful”.
As a conclusion, Marlow is in a very tough position. He faces the pain of the intended and seems to be confused with what he should do. By the end, he tells her lies to make her feel better and to show that Kurtz was the man she expected him to be. Her emotions sort of made Marlow feel so guilty for her that he needed to lie.
Comment: Good potential with some good elements noted. You see the pardoxical nature of the cold fireplace--these serve, however, as metonymies for this Intended. Her grief is not a torture to her, but a sort of faith that she has. She is in mourning because of her trust in his greatness, but her trust comes in what she thinks he stands for, and these ideas are very much like her living room, a coffin or a cold fireplace. These images, in fact, are like the whited sepulchre Marlow talked about when he talked about the city where he got his contract. It looks shiny, but it really carries death with it. So it's true that death is all around because the intended lives to mourn Kurtz, but at the same time, we are reminded that she is surrounded and lives among these shiny lies that she lives to continue to hope for, so she's part of it too, although it's not really her fault since she doesn't know better. You are on a good path, though this requires further analysis in terms of the ideas of the novella.
----------------------------
Heart of Darkness
Commentary-Passage 10
This passage takes place in the first part of Heart of Darkness upon Marlow’s arrival at the first station. Marlow has now begun his journey into the Congo after being oblivious to many signs that warned him about this mysterious place. Upon his arrival at the first station, Marlow is quick to notice the differences between the Europeans and the natives. He is shocked by their skin color and their nudity but recognizes their suffering and anguish and ultimately their humanity. In this passage, Marlow makes his first interactions with the natives in the “grove”: a place where the suffering Congolese go to die. Marlow’s observant nature is exposed as he identifies the dichotomy between the natives and the colonizers; a division that leads to the suffering, exploitation and dehumanization of the Congolese at the hands of the “white man” who Marlow must now work for.
In this passage, tone plays an important role in establishing the atmosphere of anguish and suffering that the Congolese are burdened with. Marlow opens the passage with a very blunt statement: “They were suffering-it was very clear”. He immediately asserts his position as the observer and demonstrates to the reader that the scene will be viewed through his eyes; he will become an intermediary between the outside world and the Congo. Marlow characterizes the situation as being “very clear” which emphasizes the suffering of the Congolese and the atmosphere he later describes. This idea of clarity suggests that the anguish and maltreatment of the natives is extremely evident but no one sees the need to stop it. This anguish that Marlow is witnessing is made evident by the use of language in the passage. The Congo is plagued by “dying, disease, starvation, gloom, sickened, died, vacant, blind, gleam” which establishes a tone and atmosphere of horror and inhumanity. The theme of prejudice is put forth here because as Marlow discovers the Congo, he is struck by the radical differences between the natives who should have rights and freedom on their own territory and the Europeans who have invaded them and forced their way of life upon the Congolese.
Furthermore, inequality is also present due to the dehumanization of the natives in the passage. Although we see Marlow as being solely observant and not critical of the natives and their “savagery”, he cannot help but reduce them solely to their body parts. The natives become “black bones, eyelids, one shoulder, fingers, sunken eyes, a face” because they are not considered as whole human beings but as an inferior race from the point of view of the white supremacy. The native is not seen as an entity but as parts because they are regarded as tools with parts that will help the Europeans enrich themselves. The dehumanization of the natives is strengthened with many stylistic tools. In the second sentence, there is a descending gradation. The natives are “not enemies, not criminals-nothing but black shadows”. The natives go from being “criminals” or enemies”, two statuses with a certain human identity, to being nothing but “shadows”, which have no concrete human identity and disappear easily. The natives are dehumanized as they are being minimized to inanimate things and objects that have no sentiments or human understanding. This resonates with the ideology of the Europeans because they believed that the natives were uncivilized and therefore had no human emotional of physical traits. This is made evident with metaphors such as “black shadow, moribund shapes, black bones” that demonstrate to what extent the natives are materialized and objectified as tools that benefit the colonizers. As an allusion to the title of the novella, the word “black” is repeated several times along with phrases and words such as “white flicker…which died out slowly” that illustrate the darkness of the Congo. The blackness becomes omnipresent, as it is the most important distinction between the Europeans and the natives. The emphasis placed on the word “black” is meant to transport the reader into this heart of darkness that is both literal and figurative. It is literal in the sense that the natives are people of color and therefore subject to the exploitation of the “white supremacy”. However, the darkness is also the symbol for the unforgivable horrors and crimes that are taking place in the dark and in hiding, away from lucidity in the light European world. Another symbol that is highly repeated as well is that of the eyes. Marlow pays great attention to the eyes because that is how he reads the anguish and pain of the natives. Furthermore, by looking into someone’s eyes, one gives another recognition, which is what Marlow is doing here. On the other hand, the eyes are a sign of passivity as well. The natives are powerless in regards to their fate and their duties. They have no course of action and are therefore limited to witnessing and observing the horrors that make their eyes “sunken, vacant and blind”. Finally, the eyes also represent a symbol of haunting for Marlow because he will forever remember the pain and anguish of the natives and will have to live with the burden of knowing the truth about the Congo.
Marlow’s extremely observant and sensitive character leads him to acknowledge and put forth a dichotomy between the world of the Europeans and that of the natives. The pronoun use in this passage is extremely prominent and pronounced. The natives are characterized as “they” with “they were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly, and they sickened…” The natives are portrayed here as group for they are not individualized and have no freedoms or personal identities. On the other hand, Marlow is the “I” as he was the one originally telling the story. He therefore has an identity, he is directly involved in the action: “I began, I saw, I found, I had…” The difference between the two pronouns immediately creates a distance between the world of the Congo and the natives and that of the Europeans. The natives are a group whereas the Europeans are free individuals with rights. Marlow even says, “with them it’s hard to tell”, as if to disregard their human existence. Therefore, only Marlow has a pronounced identity and can be the keeper of his actions.
In this passage there is also much irony and paradox. The colonizers have invaded the Congo and filled it with “gloom” and “unfamiliar food” that has made the natives “sickened “ and “inefficient”. The colonizers traditions are lost in the Congo because they are not compatible with the natives’ lifestyle or anatomy. This is ironic because the Europeans have rendered the natives inefficient which then takes away from their primary utility. As a result, the word “rest” is used as a euphemism for death because the Europeans are trying to conceal the fact that they are killing their workers. The Europeans way of life has entered “uncongenial surroundings” and therefore cannot have the same efficiency. There is no sense of adaptation on the side of the settlers- they want to keep up a perfect appearance, thus the need for the euphemism.
The theme of paradox continues with the distribution of the Swede’s Ship’s biscuits. First, the scene feeds into the irony of the passage because Marlow is giving the native something that is incompatible with his surroundings just like the Europeans have done. But, the integration of European goods and customs has proved to be devastating in uncongenial surroundings. On the other hand, the biscuit can be a symbol of Marlow’s guilt because ultimately that will be the only thing he will be able to offer the desperate native. What is symbolic in this scene is the fact that the native holds on to the biscuit and makes no other move. He is almost savoring this token and showing his appreciation towards Marlow who has given him kindness before his death. For the native, this present is extremely uplifting because it represents kindness from a white man and therefore he chooses to enjoy it and hold on to it as if it will bring more hope and kindness his way. The biscuit takes the form of a talisman: it is sacred.
Finally, the division between the two societies is made evident at the end of the passage when Marlow notices the “white worsted”. There is a sudden rupture in the passage after Marlow notices this piece of string and the punctuation shifts to include many question marks and hyphens that show Marlow’s perplexed tone. In fact, he does not know what to make of the situation and uses a gradation to demonstrate all the possible things that it could be: “a badge, an ornament, charm, a propitiatory act”. The string around the neck is almost like a leash that is strangling the native but what is curious is that he is the one who put it there. The fact that the string is white is symbolic because it can be seen as a negative symbol showing the restraint that the Europeans impose on the Congolese or a positive symbol denoting the native’s aspiration to become white and transform himself. At the end of the passage, the reader and Marlow are left with a mystery because the native’s actions cannot be explained. This introduces the theme of suspense and suspicion in the book as things are not always directly revealed or revealed at all. In the last sentence of the passage, Marlow calls the idea of the string around the natives neck “startling”. This word in itself is also ambiguous because it can mean amazing or frightening, once again feeding into Conrad’s mystery. Marlow is almost entranced by this string and he clearly separates the “black neck” from the “white thread” to show the rarity of the assimilation of something black to something white. The white thread is presented here as a scar that has tainted the black man and ultimately caused his death. In fact, the thread is “from beyond the seas”, which makes the lesson and symbol of the passage universal. However, the word beyond emphasizes the distance between the two worlds which demonstrates that sanity, structure and justice is a world away which allows the Europeans to act barbaric without repercussion.
Marlow’s first encounter with the natives proves to the reader that he is sensitive and possesses entrails that allow him to see injustice, inequality and division. As a result, Marlow becomes the epitome of a narrator because through his lens, the reader can see the bare truth and not the euphemized European tale. However, this knowledge of the truth proves to be a great burden for Marlow and eventually, he tells his tale to rid himself of his guilt for lying as well as to finally release his emotions and haunting.
A fine commentary overall, with a couple of glitches--one, what you mean rather than tone in the first body paragraph is point of view: Marlow's point of view is key to our reading of the passage and his tone is ironic or questioning or whatever it is...but tone is not a tool per se. After that, you're good. Also, be careful of saying that Marlow's narration is enlightened as we know how ambiguous his reading of the natives can be, and we know that he's saying all of this in retrospect, which adds to his storytelling burden and may make his comments unreliable. Is is to enlightened to give that biscuit? it's also part of his passivity. Set up your thesis in a less clunky way--think of Marlow's overall tone and include it.
-------------------
Commentary – Passage 5
This excerpt of Heart of Darkness is taken from part III of the work. In this passage, Kurtz, who Marlow was sent to rescue because of he was thought to be ill, just died as the characters were heading back to the Central station, and Marlow fell into a great illness of which he nearly died. It is an essential part of the narrative, which is conveyed by the serious tone of the passage, as here Marlow describes his sensations as he approached death and gives the reason why he worships Kurtz, whom he called a “remarkable man” several times throughout the narrative. Through the description of his own experience of death and his comparison to what he believes was Kurtz’s, Marlow ultimately shows that Kurtz has achieved his goal – to be remembered.
Marlow first describes his experience of death, which appears as disappointing, and shows his self-loathing. His words to describe his sensation clearly express this feeling: he felt “humiliation”, and his experience was only “a vision of greyness without form filled with physical pain”. Marlow’s experience appeared to him more as a failure, although he actually vanquished, defeating death. This shows Marlow’s low self-esteem as he could not consider his experience as a victory over death, which had already taken Kurtz. His self-loathing continues as he uses the metaphor of death as an “edge”, telling he “had been permitted to draw back [his] hesitating foot”: although it appears as a favor he has been granted, he considers himself through this action as a coward, who, unlike Kurtz, had hesitated to step over the edge. He even goes to the point that he regrets not having died, believing that all the good, all the truth could be obtained by stepping over this edge (“Perhaps!”). This doubting shows that he hates himself and his decisions so much he was even capable of regretting not to have died.
On the other side, he depicts Kurtz’s death as a victory and an accomplishment that showed he was ‘remarkable’. He describes Kurtz’s experience as opposite to his: “it was a victory!” Although the anaphora “paid for by innumerable defeats, by abominable terrors, by abominable satisfactions” emphasizes Kurtz’s errors, his experience ended up by a victory over the darkness, over all the abominations he had lived through. The citation ‘The horror!’ is the reason why Marlow considered Kurtz as a ‘remarkable man’: Kurtz had approached “the edge”, and had talked. The anaphora “He had summed up – he had judged” emphasizes this ability to talk. Kurtz had seen death, just as Marlow had, but he, he could talk; he could tell what he had seen. Marlow recognizes Kurtz as an amazing person because of his ability, his courage to see things as they were and to characterize them. They had seen the same things, but although Marlow couldn’t express or judge what he had seen, Kurtz could, and did, tell what felt at that time. This ability from Kurtz to judge, to convey what he feels made him a “remarkable man” for Marlow, who even decides to remember Kurtz’s experience of death over his own.
These experiences of death lead Marlow to his own self-loathing, as he concludes from what he lived that life has no real meaning. As he considers his experience as a failure despite his survival and contrasts it with Kurtz’s victory in death, he poses that the real victory in life is dying, and therefore that life is meaningless. His own experience led him to have “a careless contempt for the evanescence of all things -- even of this pain itself”, which shows that he came back looking at life with disdain, questioning even the matter of living. His illness and approach to death have moved him away from life, as his interpretation of Kurtz’s last words led him to glorify death. The anaphora “it had candour, it had conviction, it had a vibrating note of revolt in its whisper, it had the appalling face of a glimpsed truth” illustrates this praise of death, as Kurtz’s whisper appealed to Marlow, and persuaded him of the lack of goal in living; and as he doubts his choice in remaining alive and says “perhaps all the wisdom, and all truth, and all sincerity, are just compressed into that inappreciable moment of time in which we step over the threshold of the invisible” proves his belief in death’s superiority over life. Marlow was persuaded, through his experience and Kurtz’s, that life was empty and that the truth was held in that moment when one dies – the moment that Kurtz passed, when he whispered “The horror!”
Although Marlow discovered the lack of sense in life, he remained alive, because of his admiration for Kurtz, and to spread his story; by doing thus, he accomplished Kurtz’s wish: to mark history. Marlow’s sublimation for Kurtz is evident; he admits it himself, affirming that “Kurtz was a remarkable man”. He even ignores all his bad actions (“innumerable defeats … abominable terrors … abominable satisfactions”) to the profit of his “victory” over death, as a price to this victory. He even declares himself that he has lived to perpetuate this story: “That is why I have remained loyal to Kurtz to the last”. He considers himself as a sort of prophet who would preach Kurtz’s parole to the world, showing what he had seen last, and what the meaning of life is. His fidelity to Kurtz is such that he hears “the echo of his magnificent eloquence thrown to me from a soul as translucently pure as a cliff of crystal”; he was marked by Kurtz to the point that his words stayed in his head. The comparison to a “cliff of crystal” emphasizes here his allegiance to the latter, not even modifying the tone of his words in his recall. Marlow stays in life so that this story could stay alive; he doesn’t live for himself anymore, but for the accomplishment of Kurtz’s wish to be remembered.
In this passage, Marlow’s self-loathing is at his climax, as well as his admiration and sublimation for Kurtz. As he decides to prefer Kurtz’s experience of death over his own, he shows both his hatred of himself and his admiration for Kurtz; and although his conclusion of these experiences is that death is more interesting than life’s emptiness, he decides to live, in order to perpetuate Kurtz’s story and words and allow him to be remembered. This passage shows a real shift in the character of Marlow, who starts actually hating himself, a feeling that is felt before in the story as it is told by Marlow in the future, who shows contempt towards his past.
Comment: fine elements here, and a well constructed commentary, with good attention paid to devices and to the work as a whole. You can push yourself a bit further, however, in terms of a few things. First off, Marlow's death is not the same because, well, he didn't die, which you say but then talk about his death anyway. The embrace of truth is a goodness, but doesn't make Kurtz good. It does make him remarkable, but not good since he's embracing horrible truths which Marlow can't, but Marlow also hates the hypocrisy of life. Can you be more explicit about those things, the horrors and the hypocrisies, a double horror? Can you dwell on the image of the grey form that Marlow is, in consequence? can you relate it to the book as a whole? And has Marlow truly been loyal to Kurtz's memory? Perhaps he is now, in the form of the storyteller, but what of the lie he told the intended? To what memory has marlow been loyal? And this, too, is part of his self loathing...
------------------
Heart of Darkness
Passage 11 Close Reading
This passage from Heart of Darkness is situated in part 1, Marlow has just reached the other station only to find his steamboat wrecked; there he meets this man whom he refers to as a “papier-mache Mephistopheles” and learns that this man among others wanted Kurtz’s job. The passage seems to show an opposition between Marlow and this man with the nature that surrounds them, which represents Marlow’s state of mind: curiosity. The tone through out this passage is confusion but at the same time curiosity; Marlow is not very interested with the fellow but more with his surroundings that he analyzes and tries to understand.
The diction of this passage shows this opposition between Marlow and the man with nature. We first note an over abundance of the diction of nature: “mud”, “forest”, “river”, “carcass”, “moon”, and “grass”; this shows us the huge presence of nature in Marlow’s mind and how he’s focus is on his surroundings and not on the man who is talking to him. This diction is opposed with that of man-made objects: “wall”, and “steamer”, however the fact that there are so few shows the preference that Marlow has for nature. Furthermore, one can say he is fascinated by his surroundings, as it can be seen with the alliteration and anaphor: “gap glittering, glittering”. This fascination lures him in to taking a deeper look into the forest that surrounds him. We also see a negative diction: “nothing”, “dirt”, “Mephistopheles” and “carcass”, these words characterize the man and the man made objects, which reinforces the opposition between man and nature seen through out this passage.
In addition, this fascinating can also be seen with the anaphor: “primeval” which means to resemble the earliest stages of the world, reinforces his fascination. One could also say that he is amazed by it: “how big, how confoundedly big” the repetition of the word “big” shows how astonished he is and the use of the adjective “confoundedly”, however can switch the meaning of his expression because of its negative connotation, however in this case it helps show Marlow’s shock as to how enormous nature is. Through diction, alliteration and anaphora, Marlow gives the reader a glimpse of what is going through his mind: his fascination and curiosity for nature.
The author also uses imagery in order to show us where Marlow’s interest attention lies and that emphasize the opposition between the two men and their environment. Firstly, he refers to the man that Marlow is talking to as a “papier-mache Mephistopheles”; Mephistopheles was, in the Bible, one of the more minor devils under Satan’s command, therefore not only is Marlow giving this man an extremely negative image but also by calling him a minor devil it also shows how low the level of his importance is. “papier-mache” Is a sort of substance of which one can make almost anything out of, however it will not be sturdy because it is hollow: “it seemed to me if I tried I could poke my forefinger through him, and find nothing inside but a little loose dirt, maybe.” This man is empty; he has no substance and therefore he cannot have more depth to him than the surface: “what you see is what you get”. Furthermore, his insides are rotten: “find nothing inside but a little loose dirt, maybe” he has dirt within him showing that he is not a good person. By characterizing this character as these things so quickly, Marlow shows the reader how little interesting this man is and then moves on to observing the nature that surrounds him. In addition, Marlow is also paying little attention to what this man is saying: “He talked precipitately and did not try to stop him. I had my shoulders against the wreck of my steamer” Marlow’s body is in a very relaxed position: he is leaning on his ship, one can sort of imagine him there leaning with his head back and arms crossed. His body language suggests that he isn’t acknowledging the man and that he is trying something else to focus on. Also the sarcasm said in “don’t you see” reinforces his lack of interest.
Marlow moves on to admire and observe the nature that surrounds him: “The moon had spread over everything a thin layer of silver -over the rank grass, over the mud, upon the wall of matted vegetation standing higher than the wall of a temple, over the great river I could see through a somber gap glittering, glittering, as it allowed broadly by without a murmur.” Marlow is captivated by the beauty of this image: he speaks of both the beauty and the grandness of nature and how it concurs everything: the vegetation grows taller the walls of a temple. He also speaks of how nature has the ability to grow and appear through man-made things: here the moonlight has an omni-presence and the river seems to go through without being disturbed. Marlow gives the reader an image of serenity, beauty and greatness, which opposes to the description of the “papier-mache Mephistopheles”.
Furthermore, Marlow seems to be transported into a different world and his thoughts: “All this was great, expectant, mute, while the man jabbered about himself.” The irony of this sentence makes this scene almost comical: the reader can picture Marlow trying to enjoy the scenery while this man goes on complaining about his life. This emphasizes the opposition between Marlow and the “papier –mache Mephistopheles”. However we see that Marlow is now no longer in the realm of men he has passed on into his own world where men become superfluous. Marlow saw nature and man as two separate things that could not be intertwined: “I could see a little ivory coming out from there, and I had heard Mr. Kurtz was in there.” Ivory, that was the reason that Mr. Kurtz was there and the reason why he was there; he could not see its link to nature this grandiose and amazing thing; almost like it had been tainted by the hands of man and therefore was no longer part of nature. He could not associate these two things together, which again emphasizes the sense of opposition between the two worlds and also Marlow’s curiosity of lays behind the trees.
Finally, we see this opposition and Marlow’s curiosity through rhetorical questions and personification. Through the end of the passage Marlow’s curiosity surfaces completely and he begins to question nature: “I wondered whether the stillness on the face of the immensity looking at us two were meant as an appeal or as a menace.” In this sentence, Marlow is personifying nature saying that it has a face and that it has the ability to either be appealing or a menace. This notion refers to how nature can be the most beautiful thing but also the most dangerous and Marlow understands that; compared to the other settlers who don’t. “What were we who had strayed in here? Could we handle the dumb thing or would it handle us?” Theses two questions show that Marlow understands the power of nature but also he is curious of how man planned to take over it: he is referring to the settlers and how Africa will change you but you cannot change Africa; life in Africa will not stop because some settlers have decided that it will. Theses questions also reinforce the opposition between settler and nature: so here between the “papier-mache Mephistopheles” and the nature that surrounds him. “I felt how big, how confoundedly big, was that thing that couldn’t talk, and perhaps was deaf as well,” Again, Marlow is personifying nature saying that it might be deaf and also he mentions the enormity of it: this shows how insignificant man is compared to nature. “What was in there? […] Yet somehow it didn’t bring any image with it –no more than if I had been told an angel or a fiend was in there.” Here we definitely see Marlow’s curiosity but we also see that Marlow did not come to Africa with a set point of view but rather a with a torn one waiting to be formed. Through these questions and personifications we see the oppositions between the man and nature.
Finally, through diction, rhetorical questions and imagery the author gives the reader Marlow’s analyze of nature: how he questions it and how he feels about it. We notice that there is an opposition between the men and nature and that Marlow is fascinated by it as well. We can link this character to Darl from As I Lay Dying by Faulkner. Darl, is a thinking character just as Marlow, although there is no opposition between him and nature but there is one between him and the rest of the human population just as there is one between Marlow and the settlers such as the “papier-mache Mephistopheles”. Another connection would be with Ruth May from Poisonwood Bible, she like Marlow has a fascination for nature: in particular the green mamba snake amazes her. But also, she is an outsider and is different from the rest of her family just like Marlow is different from the settlers.
Comment: An intelligent commentary that builds naturally and well to a penultimate point, with good attention to detail and meaning. I think you can push your discussion of the various qualities nature has even further--you go quickly over its primeval quality which contrasts somewhat with the glitter and temple elements and might be worth weighing out. Still, i truly enjoy your analysis of the contrast and even the humorous aspect the passage contains. The links are good, but need to be developed further.
1."I began to feel slightly uneasy. You know I am not used to such ceremonies, and there was something ominous in the atmosphere. It was just as though I had been let into some conspiracy -I don't know -something not quite right; and I was glad to get out. In the outer room the two women knitted black wool feverishly. People were arriving, and the younger one was walking back and forth introducing them. The old one sat on her chair. Her flat cloth slippers were propped up on a foot-warmer, and a cat reposed on her lap. She wore a starched white affair on her head, had a wart on one cheek, and silver-rimmed spectacles hung on the tip of her nose. She glanced at me above the glasses. The swift and indifferent placidity of that look troubled me. Two youths with foolish and cheery countenances were being piloted over, and she threw at them the same quick glance of unconcerned wisdom. She seemed to know all about them and about me, too. An eerie feeling came over me. She seemed uncanny and fateful. Often far away there I thought of these two, guarding the door of Darkness, knitting black wool as for a warm pall, one introducing, introducing continuously to the unknown, the other scrutinizing the cheery and foolish faces with unconcerned old eyes. Ave! Old knitter of black wool. Morituri te salutant. Not many of those she looked at ever saw her again -not half, by a long way.
2. You know I hate, detest, and can't bear a lie, not because I am straighter than the rest of us, but simply because it appalls me. There is a taint of death, a flavor 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. Temperament, I suppose. Well, I went near enough to it by letting the young fool there believe anything he liked to imagine as to my influence in Europe. I became in an instant as much of a pretense as the rest of the bewitched pilgrims. This simply because I had a notion it somehow would be of help to that Kurtz whom at the time I did not see you understand. He was just a word for me. I did not see the man in the name any more than you do. Do you see him? Do you see the story? Do you see anything? It seems to me I am trying to tell you a dream -making a vain attempt, because no relation of a dream can convey the dream-sensation, that commingling of absurdity, surprise, and bewilderment in a tremor of struggling revolt, that notion of being captured by the incredible which is of the very essence of dreams...."
He was silent for a while.
". . . 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...."
3. The wilderness had patted him on the head, and, behold, it was like a ball -- an ivory ball; it had caressed him, and -- lo! -- he had withered; it had taken him, loved him, embraced him, got into his veins, consumed his flesh, and sealed his soul to its own by the inconceivable ceremonies of some devilish initiation. He was its spoiled and pam- pered favourite. Ivory? I should think so. Heaps of it, stacks of it. The old mud shanty was bursting with it. You would think there was not a single tusk left either above or below the ground in the whole country. 'Mostly fossil,' the manager had remarked, disparagingly. It was no more fossil than I am; but they call it fossil when it is dug up. It appears these niggers do bury the tusks sometimes -- but evidently they couldn't bury this parcel deep enough to save the gifted Mr. Kurtz from his fate. We filled the steam- boat with it, and had to pile a lot on the deck. Thus he could see and enjoy as long as he could see, because the appreciation of this favour had remained with him to the last. You should have heard him say, 'My ivory.' Oh, yes, I heard him. 'My Intended, my ivory, my station, my river, my --' everything belonged to him.
4."Going up that river was like traveling back to the earliest beginnings of the world, when vegetation rioted on the earth and the big trees were kings. An empty stream, a great silence, an impenetrable forest. The air was warm, thick, heavy, sluggish. There was no joy in the brilliance of sunshine. The long stretches of the water-way ran on, deserted, into the gloom of over-shadowed distances. On silvery sand-banks hippos and alligators sunned themselves side by side. The broadening waters flowed through a mob of wooded islands; you lost your way on that river as you would in a desert, and butted all day long against shoals, trying to find the channel, till you thought yourself bewitched and cut off for ever from everything you had known once -- somewhere -- far away -- in another existence perhaps. There were moments when one's past came back to one, as it will sometimes when you have not a moment to spare for yourself; but it came in the shape of an unrestful and noisy dream, remembered with wonder amongst the overwhelming realities of this strange world of plants, and water, and silence. And this stillness of life did not in the least resemble a peace. It was the stillness of an implacable force brooding over an inscrutable intention. It looked at you with a vengeful aspect. I got used to it afterwards; I did not see it any more; I had no time.
5. . I was within a hair's breadth of the last opportunity for pronouncement, and I found with humiliation that probably I would have nothing to say. This is the reason why I affirm that Kurtz was a remarkable man. He had something to say. He said it. Since I had peeped over the edge myself, I understand better the meaning of his stare, that could not see the flame of the candle, but was wide enough to embrace the whole universe, piercing enough to penetrate all the hearts that beat in the darkness. He had summed up -- he had judged. 'The horror!' He was a remarkable man. After all, this was the expression of some sort of belief; it had candour, it had conviction, it had a vibrating note of revolt in its whisper, it had the appalling face of a glimpsed truth -- the strange commingling of desire and hate. And it is not my own extremity I remember best -- a vision of greyness without form filled with physical pain, and a careless contempt for the evanescence of all things -- even of this pain itself. No! It is his extremity that I seem to have lived through. True, he had made that last stride, he had stepped over the edge, while I had been permitted to draw back my hesitating foot. And perhaps in this is the whole difference; perhaps all the wisdom, and all truth, and all sincerity, are just compressed into that inappreciable moment of time in which we step over the threshold of the invisible. Perhaps! I like to think my summing-up would not have been a word of careless contempt. Better his cry -- much better. It was an affirmation, a moral victory paid for by innumerable defeats, by abominable terrors, by abominable satisfactions. But it was a victory! That is why I have remained loyal to Kurtz to the last, and even beyond, when a long time after I heard once more, not his own voice, but the echo of his magnificent eloquence thrown to me from a soul as translucently pure as a cliff of crystal.
6.We felt meditative, and fit for nothing but placid staring. The day was ending in a serenity of still and exquisite brilliance. The water shone pacifically; the sky, without a speck, was a benign immensity of unstained light; the very mist on the Essex marsh was like a gauzy and radiant fabric, hung from the wooded rises inland, and draping the low shores in diaphanous folds. Only the gloom to the west, brooding over the upper reaches, became more somber every minute, as if angered by the approach of the sun. And at last, in its curved and imperceptible fall, the sun sank low, and from glowing white changed to a dull red without rays and without heat, as if about to go out suddenly, stricken to death by the touch of that gloom brooding over a crowd of men.
7."Mind," he began again, lifting one arm from the elbow, the palm of the hand outwards, so that, with his legs folded before him, he had the pose of a Buddha preaching in European clothes and without a
lotus-flower -"Mind, none of us would feel exactly like this. What saves us is efficiency -the devotion to efficiency. But these chaps were not much account, really. They were no colonists; their
administration was merely a squeeze, and nothing more, I suspect. They were conquerors, and for that you want only brute force -nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an
accident arising from the weakness of others. They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got. It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind -as is very proper for those who tackle a darkness. The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretense but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea -something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to..."
8.Once, I remember, we came upon a man-of-war anchored off the coast. There wasn't even a shed there, and she was shelling the bush. It appears the French had one of their wars going on thereabouts. Her ensign dropped limp like a rag; the muzzles of the long six-inch guns stuck out all over the low hull; the greasy, slimy swell swung her up lazily and let her down, swaying her thin masts. In the empty immensity of earth, sky, and water, there she was, incomprehensible, firing into a continent. Pop, would go one of the six-inch guns; a small flame would dart and vanish, a little white smoke would disappear, a tiny projectile would give a feeble screech -and nothing happened. Nothing could happen. There was a touch of insanity in the proceeding, a sense of lugubrious drollery in the sight; and it was not dissipated by somebody on board assuring me earnestly there was a camp of natives -he called them enemies! -hidden out of sight somewhere.
9."Instead of going up, I turned and descended to the left. My idea was to let that chain-gang get out of sight before I climbed the hill You know I am not particularly tender; I've had to strike and to fend off.
I've had to resist and to attack sometimes -that's only one way of resisting -without counting the exact cost, according to the demands of such sort of life as I had blundered into. 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 rapacious and pitiless folly. How insidious he could be, too, I was only to find out several months later and a thousand miles farther. For a moment I stood appalled, as though by a warning. Finally I descended the hill, obliquely, towards the trees I had seen.
10"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. Brought from all the recesses of the coast in all the legality of time contracts, lost in uncongenial surroundings, fed on unfamiliar food, they sickened, became inefficient, and were then
allowed to crawl away and rest. These moribund shapes were free as air -and nearly as thin. 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 the 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 them it's hard to tell. I found nothing else to do but to offer him one of my good Swede's ship's biscuits I had in my pocket. The fingers closed slowly on it and held -there was no other movement and no other glance. He had tied a bit of white worsted round his neck -Why? Where did he get it? Was it a badge –an ornament -charm -a propitiatory act? Was there any idea at all connected with it? It looked startling round his black neck, this bit of white thread from beyond the seas.
11."I let him run on, this papier-mache Mephistopheles, and it seemed to me that if I tried I could poke my forefinger through him, and would find nothing inside but a little loose dirt, maybe. He, don't you see,
had been planning to be assistant-manager by and by under the present man, and I could see that the coming of that Kurtz had upset them both not a little. He talked precipitately, and I did not try to stop
him. I had my shoulders against the wreck of my steamer, hauled up on the slope like a carcass of some big river animal. The smell of mud, of primeval mud, by Jove! was in my nostrils, the high stillness of
primeval forest was before my eyes; there were shiny patches on the black creek. The moon had spread over everything a thin layer of silver -over the rank grass, over the mud, upon the wall of matted
vegetation standing higher than the wall of a temple, over the great river I could see through a somber gap glittering, glittering, as it allowed broadly by without a murmur. All this was great, expectant, mute,
while the man jabbered about himself. I wondered whether the stillness 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? 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 fiend was in there.
12.The earth seemed unearthly. We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there -- there you could look at a thing monstrous and free. It was unearthly, and the men were -- No, they were not inhuman. Well, you know, that was the worst of it -- this suspicion of their not being inhuman. It would come slowly to one. They howled and leaped, and spun, and made horrid faces; but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity -- like yours -- the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar. Ugly. Yes, it was ugly enough; but if you were man enough you would admit to yourself that there was in you just the faintest trace of a response to the terrible frankness of that noise, a dim suspicion of there being a meaning in it which you -- you so remote from the night of first ages -- could comprehend. And why not? The mind of man is capable of anything -- because everything is in it, all the past as well as all the future. What was there after all? Joy, fear, sorrow, devotion, valour, rage -- who can tell? -- but truth -- truth stripped of its cloak of time. Let the fool gape and shudder -- the man knows, and can look on without a wink. But he must at least be as much of a man as these on the shore. He must meet that truth with his own true stuff -- with his own in-born strength. Principles won't do. Acquisitions, clothes, pretty rags -- rags that would fly off at the first good shake. No; you want a deliberate belief. An appeal to me in this fiendish row -- is there? Very well; I hear; I admit, but I have a voice, too, and for good or evil mine is the speech that cannot be silenced. Of course, a fool, what with sheer fright and fine sentiments, is always safe.
13
There was a pause of profound stillness, then a match flared, and Marlow's lean face appeared, worn, hollow, with downward folds and dropped eyelids, with an aspect of concentrated attention; and as he took vigorous draws at his pipe, it seemed to retreat and advance out of the night in the regular flicker of tiny flame. The match went out.
"Absurd!" he cried. "This is the worst of trying to tell. . . . Here you all are, each moored with two good addresses, like a hulk with two anchors, a butcher round one corner, a policeman round another, excellent appetites, and temperature normal -- you hear -- normal from year's end to year's end. And you say, Absurd! Absurd be -- exploded! Absurd! My dear boys, what can you expect from a man who out of sheer nervousness had just flung overboard a pair of new shoes! Now I think of it, it is amazing I did not shed tears. I am, upon the whole, proud of my fortitude. I was cut to the quick at the idea of having lost the inestimable privilege of listening to the gifted Kurtz. Of course I was wrong. The privilege was waiting for me. Oh, yes, I heard more than enough. And I was right, too. A voice. He was very little more than a voice. And I heard -- him -- it -- this voice -- other voices -- all of them were so little more than voices -- and the memory of that time itself lingers around me, impalpable, like a dying vibration of one immense jabber, silly, atrocious, sordid, savage, or simply mean, without any kind of sense. Voices, voices -- even the girl herself -- now -- "
14. Mind, I am not trying to excuse or even explain -- I am trying to account to myself for -- for -- Mr. Kurtz -- for the shade of Mr. Kurtz. This initiated wraith from the back of Nowhere honoured me with its amazing confidence before it vanished altogether. This was because it could speak English to me. The original Kurtz had been educated partly in England, and -- as he was good enough to say himself -- his sympathies were in the right place. His mother was half-English, his father was half-French. All Europe contributed to the making of Kurtz; and by and by I learned that, most appropriately, the International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs had intrusted him with the making of a report, for its future guidance. And he had written it, too. I've seen it. I've read it. It was eloquent, vibrating with eloquence, but too high-strung, I think. Seventeen pages of close writing he had found time for! But this must have been before his -- let us say -- nerves, went wrong, and caused him to preside at certain midnight dances ending with unspeakable rites, which -- as far as I reluctantly gathered from what I heard at various times -- were offered up to him -- do you understand? -- to Mr. Kurtz himself. But it was a beautiful piece of writing. The opening paragraph, however, in the light of later information, strikes me now as ominous. He began with the argument that we whites, from the point of development we had arrived at, 'must necessarily appear to them [savages] in the nature of supernatural beings -- we approach them with the might of a deity,' and so on, and so on. 'By the simple exercise of our will we can exert a power for good practically unbounded,' etc., etc. From that point he soared and took me with him. The peroration was magnificent, though difficult to remember, you know. It gave me the notion of an exotic Immensity ruled by an august Benevolence. It made me tingle with enthusiasm. This was the unbounded power of eloquence -- of words -- of burning noble words. There were no practical hints to interrupt the magic current of phrases, unless a kind of note at the foot of the last page, scrawled evidently much later, in an unsteady hand, may be regarded as the exposition of a method. It was very simple, and at the end of that moving appeal to every altruistic sentiment it blazed at you, luminous and terrifying, like a flash of lightning in a serene sky: 'Exterminate all the brutes!' The curious part was that he had apparently forgotten all about that valuable postscriptum, because, later on, when he in a sense came to himself, he repeatedly entreated me to take good care of 'my pamphlet' (he called it), as it was sure to have in the future a good influence upon his career. I had full information about all these things, and, besides, as it turned out, I was to have the care of his memory
15 "She walked with measured steps, draped in striped and fringed cloths, treading the earth proudly, with a slight jingle and flash of barbarous ornaments. She carried her head high; her hair was done in the shape of a helmet; she had brass leggings to the knee, brass wire gauntlets to the elbow, a crimson spot on her tawny cheek, innumerable necklaces of glass beads on her neck; bizarre things, charms, gifts of witch-men, that hung about her, glittered and trembled at every step. She must have had the value of several elephant tusks upon her. She was savage and superb, wild-eyed and magnificent; there was something ominous and stately in her deliberate progress. And in the hush that had fallen suddenly upon the whole sorrowful land, the immense wilderness, the colossal body of the fecund and mysterious life seemed to look at her, pensive, as though it had been looking at the image of its own tenebrous and passionate soul.
"She came abreast of the steamer, stood still, and faced us. Her long shadow fell to the water's edge. Her face had a tragic and fierce aspect of wild sorrow and of dumb pain mingled with the fear of some struggling, half-shaped resolve. She stood looking at us without a stir, and like the wilderness itself, with an air of brooding over an inscrutable purpose. A whole minute passed, and then she made a step forward. There was a low jingle, a glint of yellow metal, a sway of fringed draperies, and she stopped as if her heart had failed her. The young fellow by my side growled. The pilgrims murmured at my back. She looked at us all as if her life had depended upon the unswerving steadiness of her glance. Suddenly she opened her bared arms and threw them up rigid above her head, as though in an uncontrollable desire to touch the sky, and at the same time the swift shadows darted out on the earth, swept around on the river, gathering the steamer into a shadowy embrace. A formidable silence hung over the scene.
"She turned away slowly, walked on, following the bank, and passed into the bushes to the left. Once only her eyes gleamed back at us in the dusk of the thickets before she disappeared.
16 "His was an impenetrable darkness. I looked at him as you peer down at a man who is lying at the bottom of a precipice where the sun never shines. But I had not much time to give him, because I was helping the engine-driver to take to pieces the leaky cylinders, to straighten a bent connecting-rod, and in other such matters. I lived in an infernal mess of rust, filings, nuts, bolts, spanners, hammers, ratchet-drills -- things I abominate, because I don't get on with them. I tended the little forge we fortunately had aboard; I toiled wearily in a wretched scrap-heap -- unless I had the shakes too bad to stand.
"One evening coming in with a candle I was startled to hear him say a little tremulously, 'I am lying here in the dark waiting for death.' The light was within a foot of his eyes. I forced myself to murmur, 'Oh, nonsense!' and stood over him as if transfixed.
"Anything approaching the change that came over his features I have never seen before, and hope never to see again. Oh, I wasn't touched. I was fascinated. It was as though a veil had been rent. I saw on that ivory face the expression of sombre pride, of ruthless power, of craven terror -- of an intense and hopeless despair. Did he live his life again in every detail of desire, temptation, and surrender during that supreme moment of complete knowledge? He cried in a whisper at some image, at some vision -- he cried out twice, a cry that was no more than a breath:
"'The horror! The horror!'
"I blew the candle out and left the cabin. The pilgrims were dining in the mess-room, and I took my place opposite the manager, who lifted his eyes to give me a questioning glance, which I successfully ignored. He leaned back, serene, with that peculiar smile of his sealing the unexpressed depths of his meanness. A continuous shower of small flies streamed upon the lamp, upon the cloth, upon our hands and faces. Suddenly the manager's boy put his insolent black head in the doorway, and said in a tone of scathing contempt:
"'Mistah Kurtz -- he dead.'
17. I was within a hair's breadth of the last opportunity for pronouncement, and I found with humiliation that probably I would have nothing to say. This is the reason why I affirm that Kurtz was a remarkable man. He had something to say. He said it. Since I had peeped over the edge myself, I understand better the meaning of his stare, that could not see the flame of the candle, but was wide enough to embrace the whole universe, piercing enough to penetrate all the hearts that beat in the darkness. He had summed up -- he had judged. 'The horror!' He was a remarkable man. After all, this was the expression of some sort of belief; it had candour, it had conviction, it had a vibrating note of revolt in its whisper, it had the appalling face of a glimpsed truth -- the strange commingling of desire and hate. And it is not my own extremity I remember best -- a vision of greyness without form filled with physical pain, and a careless contempt for the evanescence of all things -- even of this pain itself. No! It is his extremity that I seem to have lived through. True, he had made that last stride, he had stepped over the edge, while I had been permitted to draw back my hesitating foot. And perhaps in this is the whole difference; perhaps all the wisdom, and all truth, and all sincerity, are just compressed into that inappreciable moment of time in which we step over the threshold of the invisible. Perhaps! I like to think my summing-up would not have been a word of careless contempt. Better his cry -- much better. It was an affirmation, a moral victory paid for by innumerable defeats, by abominable terrors, by abominable satisfactions. But it was a victory! That is why I have remained loyal to Kurtz to the last, and even beyond, when a long time after I heard once more, not his own voice, but the echo of his magnificent eloquence thrown to me from a soul as translucently pure as a cliff of crystal.
18. I rang the bell before a mahogany door on the first floor, and while I waited he seemed to stare at me out of the glassy panel -- stare with that wide and immense stare embracing, condemning, loathing all the universe. I seemed to hear the whispered cry, "The horror! The horror!"
"The dusk was falling. I had to wait in a lofty drawing-room with three long windows from floor to ceiling that were like three luminous and bedraped columns. The bent gilt legs and backs of the furniture shone in indistinct curves. The tall marble fireplace had a cold and monumental whiteness. A grand piano stood massively in a corner; with dark gleams on the flat surfaces like a sombre and polished sarcophagus. A high door opened -- closed. I rose.
"She came forward, all in black, with a pale head, floating towards me in the dusk. She was in mourning. It was more than a year since his death, more than a year since the news came; she seemed as though she would remember and mourn forever. She took both my hands in hers and murmured, 'I had heard you were coming.' I noticed she was not very young -- I mean not girlish. She had a mature capacity for fidelity, for belief, for suffering. The room seemed to have grown darker, as if all the sad light of the cloudy evening had taken refuge on her forehead. This fair hair, this pale visage, this pure brow, seemed surrounded by an ashy halo from which the dark eyes looked out at me. Their glance was guileless, profound, confident, and trustful. She carried her sorrowful head as though she were proud of that sorrow, as though she would say, 'I -- I alone know how to mourn for him as he deserves.' But while we were still shaking hands, such a look of awful desolation came upon her face that I perceived she was one of those creatures that are not the playthings of Time. For her he had died only yesterday. And, by Jove! the impression was so powerful that for me, too, he seemed to have died only yesterday -- nay, this very minute. I saw her and him in the same instant of time -- his death and her sorrow -- I saw her sorrow in the very moment of his death. Do you understand? I saw them together -- I heard them together. She had said, with a deep catch of the breath, 'I have survived' while my strained ears seemed to hear distinctly, mingled with her tone of despairing regret, the summing up whisper of his eternal condemnation. I asked myself what I was doing there, with a sensation of panic in my heart as though I had blundered into a place of cruel and absurd mysteries not fit for a human being to behold. She motioned me to a chair. We sat down. I laid the packet gently on the little table, and she put her hand over it. . . . 'You knew him well,' she murmured, after a moment of mourning silence.
"'Intimacy grows quickly out there,' I said. 'I knew him as well as it is possible for one man to know another.'
SAMPLE COMMENTARY:
19. "'His words will remain,' I said.
"'And his example,' she whispered to herself. 'Men looked up to him -- his goodness shone in every act. His example -- '
"'True,' I said; 'his example, too. Yes, his example. I forgot that.'
"But I do not. I cannot -- I cannot believe -- not yet. I cannot believe that I shall never see him again, that no-body will see him again, never, never, never.'
"She put out her arms as if after a retreating figure, stretching them back and with clasped pale hands across the fading and narrow sheen of the window. Never see him! I saw him clearly enough then. I shall see this eloquent phantom as long as I live, and I shall see her, too, a tragic and familiar Shade, resembling in this gesture another one, tragic also, and bedecked with powerless charms, stretching bare brown arms over the glitter of the infernal stream, the stream of darkness. She said suddenly very low, 'He died as he lived.'
"'His end,' said I, with dull anger stirring in me, 'was in every way worthy of his life.'
"'And I was not with him,' she murmured. My anger subsided before a feeling of infinite pit
"'Everything that could be done -- ' I mumbled.
"'Ah, but I believed in him more than any one on earth -- more than his own mother, more than -- himself. He needed me! Me! I would have treasured every sigh, every word, every sign, every glance.'
"I felt like a chill grip on my chest. 'Don't,' I said, in a muffled voice.
"'Forgive me. I -- I have mourned so long in silence -- in silence. . . . You were with him -- to the last? I think of his loneliness. Nobody near to understand him as I would have understood. Perhaps no one to hear. . . .'
"'To the very end,' I said, shakily. 'I heard his very last words. . . .' I stopped in a fright.
"'Repeat them,' she murmured in a heart-broken tone. 'I want -- I want -- something -- something -- to -- to live with.'
"I was on the point of crying at her, 'Don't you hear them?' The dusk was repeating them in a persistent whisper all around us, in a whisper that seemed to swell menacingly like the first whisper of a rising wind. 'The horror! The horror!'
"'His last word -- to live with,' she insisted. 'Don't you understand I loved him -- I loved him -- I loved him!'
"I pulled myself together and spoke slowly.
"'The last word he pronounced was -- your name.'
"I heard a light sigh and then my heart stood still, stopped dead short by an exulting and terrible cry, by the cry of inconceivable triumph and of unspeakable pain. 'I knew it -- I was sure!' . . . She knew. She was sure. I heard her weeping; she had hidden her face in her hands. It seemed to me that the house would collapse before I could escape, that the heavens would fall upon my head. But nothing happened. The heavens do not fall for such a trifle. Would they have fallen, I wonder, if I had rendered Kurtz that justice which was his due? Hadn't he said he wanted only justice? But I couldn't. I could not tell her. It would have been too dark -- too dark altogether. . . ."
Marlow ceased, and sat apart, indistinct and silent, in the pose of a meditating Buddha. Nobody moved for a time. "We have lost the first of the ebb," said the Director suddenly. I raised my head. The offing was barred by a black bank of clouds, and the tranquil waterway leading to the uttermost ends of the earth flowed sombre under an overcast sky -- seemed to lead into the heart of an immense darkness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This passage from Heart of Darkness forms the last page of the novella, the last words Marlow expresses, followed by the last words of the outer narrator. At this point in the narrative, Marlow has returned from his journey up the Congo River where he discovered Kurtz's savage horrors and returned to Europe to bring Kurtz's letters back to his "Intended." In this passage, Marlow struggles with what he should tell the Intended, whether he should reveal the truth of what he witnessed, or whether he should lie, and tell her what she waits to hear, as confirmation of the beliefs to which she has devoted her life. Ultimately, Marlow's self-loathing reveals itself as he chooses a lie, a moral compromise, to keep her belief strong and his knowledge hidden; this knowledge is what casts a darkness over his words and his thoughts forever, as well as over those of the outer narrator.
To begin, Marlow devotes time to the Intended's description as a mourning figure, which sets him ill at ease because he knows she is mourning a lie. He takes the time to describe the way she stretches out her arms after him, clasping her pale hands, longing for her lost love. She weeps and is triumphant in this incarnation of the grieving girl, one of the beautiful women in their beautiful world he detailed early in the narrative. This creates discomfort because if she has mourned for him faithfully, believing herself his own true love, devoted forever to his memory, Marlow remembers another compelementary figure in the darkness who has done the same: "I shall see her, too, a tragic and familiar Shade, resembling in this gesture another one, tragic also, and bedecked with powerless charms, stretching bare brown arms over the glitter of the infernal stream, the stream of darkness." Marlow's details always offer a contrast of black and white or white and black, as they do here: the pale hands against the sheen of the window and the dusk outside, in the civilized world; the dark arms with the glitter of the charms and of the stream of darkness, a reference to the river and a metaphor for the ongoing flow of the darkness that consumes him and creates this constant contrast in his visual faculty. The effect of the contrast is to collapse the two different worlds: the good white world of Europe and the black bad world of the Congo. Ultimately, there can be no difference, only a belief in such differences, which is what the Intended espouses, but which Marlow has discovered is false.
Further, most of the passage consists of a tense dialogue between Marlow and the Intended, tense because she is faitfully asking him for something he knows is a hollow sham--the one in which Kurtz was faithful, but also in which he upheld the high moral principles that she cherishes. She is sure of everything, of knowing him above all, and of meaning more to him than anything else. Her belief is unshatterable, as is her sense of his need for her:"'Ah, but I believed in him more than any one on earth -- more than his own mother, more than -- himself. He needed me! Me! I would have treasured every sigh, every word, every sign, every glance.' Her certainty is heard in her exclamations, from the apostrophe Ah to the excalmation marks, in her emphatic insistence on herself, (me, me) as the guiding principle, and on the enumeration she characterizes with the superlative "every" that accompanies all the gestures she would cherish. Many of her sentences are fragments, bits of beliefs she looks to cling to, that she is asking Marlow, in fact, to give her to live with : 'I want -- I want -- something -- something -- to -- to live with.' The repetition within the fragment intensifies the appeal, doubling the pressure of the moment at hand.
Because Marlow knows how far Kurtz has fallen from these ideals, how he has embraced ivory, wilderness and even a Congolese mistress, how Kurtz deteriorated to a mere shade of his former self before he died, Marlow's unease grows throughout the passage. He knows that if he gives her what she wants, it will be at his own expense. At first, in response to his unease, he tries to address her vaguely, with answers that contain a double meaning: "'His words will remain,' Marlow says, but he doesn't say which words. He knows that the Intended will think these are the same words that are contained in the pamphlet Kurtz has written, and not the words of the postscript, Exterminate the Brutes, or the ones he has heard Kurtz say on his deathbed, the ones that have followed him all the way home: "the horror, the horror," words that are ringing in his ear even as he struggles to speak with her. This is a type of double speak, not lying exactly, but not telling the truth, either, because he knows what she is taking away, compared to what he means. When she adds that his example will also remain, he can confirm that too, because again, his example could be the good one that she believes him to have, or the extreme one that he has witnessed first hand, that of the deity in the jungle, the one who has put the shrunken heads on stakes, the one who fell from ideals to barbaric behavior and died, so Marlow says, making a statement about his destruction and about the darkness that lies within us all.
As the passage evolves, Marlow's speech deteriorates to "dull anger" and eventually a "mumble," as the Intended continues to press him to share Kurtz's final moments with Marlow. Within these editorial comments on the part of Marlow the narrator, we can discern his looking at himself in this defining moment, and this can only reveal self-hatred. Marlow is pushed against the wall here, because this declaration of faith is precisely what he wishes to avoid talking to her about--Kurtz's last moments were not the triumph she sought, but a proclamation of horror, followed by a lonely death, one that Marlow himself did not even witness, one he walked away from. Surely this is what gnaws away at him--he did not proclaim; he survived and stepped away from the truth. As she presses him towards that truth now, he resists, saying "don't," and then feeling a tight grip in his chest. He has heard the words incessantly, hears them even now, and the dusk closes in on him in the room. The element of the dusk is an important one, as it is the moment of dusk, as the room has been ever darkening since he has arrived and as the only light that continues to exist is the one on her forehead. Dusk is the last drop of light before night hits, or it can also be a place of ambiguous darkness, not white and not black exactly. This is where Marlow is right now, as he is deciding what to do with her appeal.
Marlow wants to ask her if she doesn't hear the words, as it seems impossible to him that only he can, but ultimately he chokes and uses the vague words to offer the biggest lie in the book:
"I pulled myself together and spoke slowly.
"'The last word he pronounced was -- your name.'
The gift of this lie is one he fools himself he's giving her to live by, but it really is his own lie, for the sake of self-preservation, as he clearly can't stand the idea of breaking this world up: it would be too dark altogether. This is a justification, and certainly one we can understand. surely it is cruel to bring down her world as she is grieving. However, with all of the darkness descending in this place, something else is happening here. Marlow feels a need to keep a separation, of giving her the continued belief that she pronounces with certainty, a certainty he feels a need to repeat:'I knew it -- I was sure!' . . . She knew. She was sure. His repetition underlines his bitterness and wish to be where she is, in a place of certainty. Instead, he is nowhere: neither in the darkness of truth with Kurtz, nor in the lightness of lies with the Intended. He is in limbo, in a place where he is left to wonder what the price of this declaration will be.
It's a lie, but ironically, incidentally, this lie is also a truth. It's quite possible to interpret the horror, the horror as the Intended's name, at the end of the day. Everything that she stands for, as we see here, is a lie, a sham, one of the horrors that Kurtz has discovered and has led him to embrace the opposite reality--instead of the moral world of lies, so much better the dark world of impulse and greed, and both of these worlds are a horror, a word perhaps worth repeating to grab both meanings at once. So the lie that Marlow tells, whether this is the meaning that Kurtz intended or not, is a truth. But the ture horror is that Marlow in this moment has made a decision regarding the meaning of Kurtz's words, a decision that isn't his to make, that is a lie to the memory of Kurtz which he has sworn to uphold, and that's something he is going to have to live with.
Lies, in fact, come with a price...and in this climactic moment of his existence, Marlow seems sure that the world will come to an end. But it doesn't.. As he says" the heavens do not fall for such a trife." The tone offered in that statement denotes that Marlow has learned of his insignicance, that his defining moment is a nonentity that bothers noone but him. This is what has given him his so called wisdom, as we rediscover Marlow sitting in his Buddha position, as described by the outside narrator. But his enlightenment, and his jabber, are borrowed from another man's defining moment of horror and by his own inability to do the same, to bring those words back to the Intended. He is left with unanswered questions--what would have happened if he had given Kurtz his justice? For if Kurtz lived the horror, his proclamation was a justice and Marlow's lie is a hollowness of injustice he has pronounced and which has returned him nothing of significance in return. And that perhaps is the worst of it: that the world does not collapse in our moments of moral compromise.
But the passage does not end here. Instead, it ends with the outside frame of the story. We have come full circle. We opened the novella on the Nellie, in the earliest signs of an evening's darkness. The taint of that darkness is both the darkness of that evening as well as the darkness of the tale that has corrupted both of its storytellers and its listeners. The outside narrator when he started to speak already saw the world through tainted eyes, and as he closes the story, it is clear that Marlow has corrupted him. All that he sees is darkness, and it, here, will be the last word of the passage and of the text.
Links:
Clearly Conrad had read Coleridge's "Rime of the Ancient Mariner, " the tale of experience that must be shared when a kindred spirit is met. Marlow is that Ancient Mariner (also a seaman on a dangerous voyage where innocence is absurdly killed) and the outside narrator is the Wedding Guest who cannot choose but hear, and who is corrupted by the truth. Is it plagiarism or a great adaptation? One could ask the same question of Apocalypse Now, Coppola's Vietnman War tribute to Conrad. Ultimately, to hear these stories is as dark as having embarked upon them, and we become wise, but sadly so, after hearing these tales. What good can such knowledge bring us? Surely only self-loathing.
This is a theme often repeated: dangerous knowledge brings destruction of the same sort, exactly, in Frankenstein, where the Wedding Guest role is played by Walton and the Ancient Mariner by Victor, whose entire mission is also dangerous knowledge, that snake that charms. The snake is the very symbol of temptation in Western thought, and it brings man to his downfall, as it did to Victor, the Modern Prometheus, who stole forbidden knowledge, sought out nature in her secret hiding places, to master her, rape her, be her God. In that sense, he is so much like Kurtz, devil and God of the Belgian Congo, a man who could have been so great, had his knowledge been applied for good, but who cut himself off from everything wholesome and good, cut off from all external checks, much like Victor in his workshop of filthy creation. Both men cut themselves loose from the moral ties that bound him, Kurtz because he discovered their sham, so much that he embraced the intoxication of the reverse form of power, and Victor because he was intoxicated by the power of creation, selfishly cut off from his society, a warning to the Romantic spirit that was ultimately so wrapped up in itself that it smashed up all community values. Victor plays both Kurtz and Marlow, though, since he's the storyteller, the one who is bound to tell the tale. But he can die, unlike the Ancient Mariner and Marlow who seem destined, as part of the limbo they are in, to tell the story over and over again as a form of expiation. The mariner feels a burning pang and must release his story. Marlow sits with sunken cheeks, like a Buddha, but by the end of the story, it's clear that he isn't an idol to worship, but a man spent and worn by this costly wisdom.
Dangerously free. Cholly in the Bluest Eye was so, but without the power of these white men, Kurtz and Victor. They are both supreme, elite. Victor has access to the great universities and could make everything of himself. If Kurtz came from a more modest background than the Intended, the tools of success were at his fingertips. Both of these men are tragic heroes, bound to fall and become dangerously free because of their hubris, errors in judgment, their white supremacy over the world of men or over the world in general. In Cholly's version, only self destruction is involved, and the price paid is paid by the weakest of the weak, a young girl. No true power, even of the fleeting kind, except for the power of rape. Cholly can have no achievement, and his dangerous freedom is the end result of decades of humilisation of learning that the white authority is also a hollow sham, but one that enjoys power at his expense. He learned that when the whites flashed a light on his behind while he was having sex for the first time. Indeed, the whites in his community exhibit similar savage behavior as what we witnessed in Conrad, wielding power and authority as the civilized ones, but displaying savage behavior and feeling superior in the process. The difference is that this time Morrison tells the tale from the point of view of the defeated, whereas Conrad's voice is that of the conqueror, however semi-enlightened he might be. It would take three quarters of a decade to tell the other side of that story. But you can't fault Conrad, surely, for being one of the first to tell the tale of what he saw. There's tremendous ambiguity in what Marlow says about the natives, but his Bluest Eye is different from the gaze of the other white men, or of those in Morrison's novel. He's trying, and he's also helping expose a genocide that needed telling, just as Morrison needed to tell the story of Cholly and Pecola.
Heart of Darkness
Part 1 checklist of places, names and symbols
The Nellie
The great knight-errants of the sea
The Romans
The outside narrator
The “whited sepulcher”
The knitting women
The doctor
Marlow’s aunt
Fresleven
The French man-of war
The First Station/the grove of death
The first station accountant
The central station
The manager
The papier-mache Mephistopheles
The oil painting
The Eldorado Exploring Expedition
Ivory . . .
In reading part 1 of Heart of Darkness, the reader has a difficult task in front of her. She must find her way through the highly stylized and impressionistic broodings of a literate and literary outside narrator, the true teller of this tale. He sets the mood for the story and weaves in the subsequent voices. We think we are off on an imperialist story of colonial horrors, but we are stuck on the Thames waiting for the tide. We are then confused by the back and forth between this outer narrator and Marlow. How do we know these are really Marlow’s words? Well, in any event, whoever the words belong to, they prove to be equally hard to follow. Romans and living in flickers, the fascination of the abomination…these things seem like random ideas and thoughts that are hard to follow. Dashes, ellipses. Well, we have read Virginia Woolf. We must be patient readers, then, since we know that truth doesn’t come in nuggets. Let us live in this haze and see what texture appears. But we are warned by the end of part 1 that it is impossible to convey what we experience..like a dream sensation…”we live as we dream, alone.”
So: What have we learned beyond the artistic impression, the impressionistic palettes at the start, the Dali worthy absurd/surreal landscape of umbrella cover and boot chin women and knitters of black wool? We glimpse musings of brutality involved in the stories of conquest; we are told of the universal patterns that occur when men leave the known world for one where trees have not been cut down into clearings, where there are no identifying markers, no falernian wine and…no external checks. We live in the flicker; where are those Romans now? The dark place is now civilized. But for how long?
Marlow sets the stage. His story begins, and it is at first one of fascination for maps, that snake like river, particularly..does a boy’s notions of exploration, born in storefront windows in England, begin his relationship with the fascination of the abomination? Is that why he ignores the signs: his predecessor Fresleven whose bones lay in the grass that grows through his ribcage; the two guardians of the doorway who knit black wool feverishly; the phrenologist that finds him scientifically interesting and tells him “du calme, du calme. Adieu.” Marlow has traveled before; he is uncomfortable with his aunt’s notions that he will be an emissary of light. He has some idea of the economics that drive the African story, but cannot possibly anticipate the absurd and inhuman realities he is about to discover once he leaves this city, the one that reminds him of a “whited sepulcher.” White. Shiny. Outside. Rot. Black. Inside. Why does this continental city have that image associated to it?
Marlow travels on the steamer, following the line of the continent. His first impressions are geographically the periphery of the continent, the surface of things. The chaps have a vitality but also grotesque maps. Still he looks. He doesn’t overlook. And the French man of war fires pop! Pop! Into the continent. These seem like toy guns. Too bad they are not toy people. This is just the beginning. Marlow will now discover the first station of that continental company whose purpose is ivory trade. Ivory. White. Ivory. Precious. What does he discover there? Ruined, decaying machinery littering the landscape. Useless blasting. Chain gangs of starving natives who are discarded and turn into acute angles when they are no longer efficient. Because efficiency is everything out in Africa. Efficiency and an idea behind the mission. The aunt believes in these ideas. The company men believe in the efficiency. And Marlow? Marlow who was disturbed by the placid indifference of the knitters and who sees the vitality of the men, what does he do?
To quote T.S. Eliot: “Let us go and make our visit.”
Morituri te salutant. Don’t say I didn’t warn you before you crossed the threshold.
