"L'enfer c'est les autres"--JP Sartre
This year, students will explore the theme of otherness. What defines the mainstream and how does this mainstream dictate to others? What does it mean to be marginalized? How has the mainstream impacted the world of ideas across the centuries?
Marlow’s descriptions of the men he sees once arriving in Africa seem to be described as a part of an impressionistic painting. “Black shapes crouched, lay, sat between the trees, leaning against the trunks, clinging to the earth, half coming out, half effaced within the dim light.” (p20) This description portrays the image of almost unrecognizable shapes that seem to meld together with the trees, the earth. They seem only to be shapes, and not distinct people, “bundles of acute angles.” This idea resurfaces by the way Marlow refers to them as “its,” which dehumanizes them. Instead of saying “his” eyelids, Marlow describes a man by saying, “the eyelids rose.” (p 20) The dehumanization of the people parallels the blur of an impressionistic painting; in such paintings, each element is not important on its own, only the feeling and image in its entirety is what allows the painting to be understood. This is the case with the African people, as Marlow seems to picture them as a whole; their dehumanization reflects their unimportance separately according to Marlow. Nevertheless, perhaps this is not according to Marlow and Marlow is only showing the way in which so many people imagined the African people. Their dehumanization allows the reader to question Marlow's true point of view. Is he against imperialism and the colonists, or does he share their same ideology? Nevertheless, it is impossible to know whether it is Marlow who dehumanizes the African people or if it is the narrator of the novel.
Marlow finds himself then trapped for ten days in a world even more unreal. There are two elements that make this layover seem unreal: the Company’s chief accountant and the slaves dying in the shade of the trees. These two elements are so opposed to each other, as well as to their surroundings. First off, the chief account is dressed in European fashion that stands out with his hot, steamy surroundings. He seems calm but we end up learning that he hates the natives because they disrupt his work. Like Fresleven, his nature conflicts with Africa: they want to bring Europe there but the two are fundamentally incompatible. We see the effect of this on the slaves. They retreat to die like animals in the shade, no one caring. This is what the cover represents to me: the African man made slave now contorting because of the agony inflicted on him by the greed of others. The man on the cover is white not black: for me that symbolizes the fact that Conrad means to show that slaves are men, just like whites are. When you think about it, the position of agony the white man is in could be the punishment for his evil deeds. That scene truly made me uncomfortable. What is strange is that I find myself like Marlow, sometimes unable to describe exactly what he feels. Here, the first description of the people laying under the trees was so imaged: they are “black shapes” that seem to be crawling in and out of the earth like zombies or hellish creatures. They aren’t even human.
[...]Speaking of style, I think that the description of the nature is very instructive. The African fauna seems to be a reflection of the African people. There is one description in particular that spoke to me:
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 flowed broadly without a murmur. All this was great, expectant, mute while the man jabbered about himself. I wondered whether the stillness of the face of the immensity looking at us two were meant as an appeal or a menace. […] Could we handle the 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. (31-31)
(Long I know but so full of meaning). This African landscape, mute and deaf, is exactly like the African. He is undecipherable to the white man because the latter doesn’t try to understand, and if he had that damage done would ruin all chances of understanding. The slave “without a murmur” goes about his tasks. The fact that all slaves are grouped and become an entity makes the analogy that much more potent: the moon spreads over everything –all of them– and makes it glitter. Marlow describes this phenomenon when he spoke of the black men rowing and glistening with sweat. What struck me the most was the description of the emotions attributed to the forest. It/they are expectant and yet mute; it/they seem to appeal to the white man and yet the latter can also sometimes see a menace there. The most important is the question: can we handle it? In this inquiry the Africans and Africa merge in the most interesting way: these two belong together and the white man has reduced them to silence. The question is, how to deal with this now deaf and mute Africa, especially when one wants to survive?
In Marlow's narrative, he makes multiple references to "white" and "black" ("black neck" and "white thread" page 20) also seen through the use of the diction of "dark" and "light" ("lighted", "sombre", "torchlight", "sinister" page 30). This contrast may serve to show how Marlow was brought up and how his opinion towards blacks was initially racist. The distinction between the two races was clear to him at the time due to people, such as his aunt ("weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways"), strongly influencing his opinion. At the same time, he seems somewhat skeptical of the entire situation which can serve as a foreshadowing of the fact that his point of view may change as his narration continues. Still, it is hard to tell if he will care more about the ignorance Europeans demonstrate when it comes to colonialism or the affect colonization has on the colonizers themselves. Marlow's eloquent narration of his story makes him seem like an intelligent person leading us to believe that he may see past the racism but his word choices when it comes to describing Africans sometimes makes it seem to be just the opposite. Marlow's use of irony and skepticism also makes his position unclear to the reader. He also appears to be somewhat shocked and disturbed by the prominent violence and death he witnesses in the Congo whereas the other characters show indifference. Perhaps the horrors of colonialism will have a stronger affect on Marlow later on. One thing is clear, Marlow is different and separate from the other characters in the book thus far and therefore his attitude toward the situation is different from the others as well.
And as this passage comes to a close to open the longer, and personally preferred one, the criticism shifts in a slightly different direction. As previously mentioned, it opens with “they were dying slowly” showing the state of colonialism in Africa through the state of the Natives that suffer it. When he looks down to find a shadow of a man so to say, seeing as he is so starved and at the end of his strength and will, he notices a white string tied around the man's neck, followed by a string of self-questioning about its purpose: “He had tied a bit of white worsted round his neck – Why? Where did he get it? Was it a badge – an ornament – a charm – a propitiatory act? Was there any idea at all connected with it?” I found it to be mocking of the superiority the colonizers believe they have. The tie, an english word for cravat, an innovation from 17th century Croatia, was and still is a staple of Western apparel. This Congolese man's feeble attempt at mimesis of the neck tie through a sting shows the meaninglessness of this article of clothing which is accepted as the norm for modern business men and the likes but when taken out of context, as is the case hear, is completely nonsensical and is not understood by Marlow. This image and message is emphasized by the appearance of the company's top accountant and his “clear silk necktie”. All really just to criticize western, colonialist norms. It paints the tie as a ridiculous article of clothing, which when you think about it, it really is, I mean really, what's the deal with the neck tie? It's just a lengthy piece a fabric hanging off your neck. What's it' purpose? Is it an evolution of an ancient leash people used to be held on to by? What were those Croatians thinking? ( À la Jerry Seinfeld)
Conrad covers an important theme in part one and that is one of deceit even “fakeness”. The colonist intentions for example are fake intentions; all they want is ivory and wealth not the civilization of the indigenous populace. I find that it the colonists and their actions are fake that it becomes absurd at times, like when the colonists make the salves blow up the cliff, which was not in anyone’s way, but is blown up anyway because they want to keep the slaves miserable and busy. The manager is one example of this fakeness; I don’t fall for the “chattering idiot” act. Marlow characterizes him as “uneasy”. His eyes are “remarkably cold”, Marlow can’t tell if he is smiling or not. This uneasiness I believe is just another form of the fakeness. When I say fakeness I speak of him putting on this facade, yet what lies within him is nothing. He has not substance, but is empty: “Perhaps there was nothing within him. (26)” I believe Marlow realize that these men are empty. The manager even admits to this emptiness when he says: “Men who come out here should have no entails. (26)” What he is saying here is that men who go to the Congo have nothing within them, not even their organs, the parts of their body that keep them alive. There is something supernatural/inhuman about this, they are not human which then justifies Marlow labeling him (the manager) a devil. The devil isn't human, he may have human characteristic on the outside, but on the inside the devil has nothing: no morals, no empathy like these men from the Congo. In addition, the manager always has this smile, maybe even a smirk and in regular representations of the devil, he sometimes smirks and this only further proves the atrocious side of these colonists, for they are reincarnations of the devil figure in their hell, i.e. the Congo.
Conrad cuts deeper into the theme of deceit and fakeness through the brick maker. This brick maker is not actually a brick maker. He is a spy for the manager, which proves even more the manager’s fakeness, because he has this aristocrat doing his dirty work by spying (the devil’s advocate). He just as deceitful and fake as all the others men. Marlow even says: “it seemed to me that if I tried I could poke my forefinger through him, and find nothing inside but a little loose dirt, maybe. (31)” He too has no real substance. He also has fake intentions; he presses Marlow for information slyly. What I find interesting is that Marlow criticizes these men of their deceitful ways: “They beguiled the time by backbiting and intriguing against each other in a foolish kind of way (29)”, yet he also falls into this foolish game of deceit when he lies about his influence in Europe. He feels so strongly about lies and yet he does what he hates, doesn't that mean his is cheating himself and becoming like them? Has he thus become tainted already? Marlow goes to an extant to justify his absolute hatred for lying, and lies for a man he hasn't met, Kurtz: “This simply because I had a notion it somehow would be of help to that Kurtz (32).” Marlow doesn’t even know the man and he is already defending him, he has created this connection. Might it be maybe because Kurtz himself like Marlow had exposed the deceit and fakeness through the oil pastel painting? Kurtz has drawn a woman who is blindfolded in the dark carrying a lighted torch. This painting is very symbolic to the colonists' reality, because it exposes the corruption that has manifested. The woman is supposed to be Astraea the goddess of justice (who I believe is a representation in a way the slaves and their land) but in the Congo there is no justice, because as shown on the painting she is blindfolded from the truth. Normally since she is in the darkness she would be lost, but she has the light that is guiding her and this can be applied to the slaves and colonists. The colonists are the light that is supposed to shine on the slaves’ dark path in the Congo, but since the colonists are fakes/quacks the blindfold has covered the woman (the slaves) from the right path and the light (the colonists) does not serve its purpose as it is supposed to. It is interesting to see that Kurtz has drawn this because he is a big part of the operation, he actually provides more ivory than any other station, yet he denounces himself and the others through this painting in a way.
The exact image given by Conrad of such a task is shown through the adventures of the old ship captain, Fresleven, who in the attempt to: “civilize” an African society was killed. This gives the illustration of Europe being unable to convert Africa into what they will, because ultimately the colonies will either leave or die. Although the biggest symbol is one of the men Marlow meets on his way up the Congo River, the doctor. The doctor, who tries to define the inside of Marlow's skull, the brain, with the outer measurements of the skull, an image that can be translated to the European countries conquering African countries without truly understanding them and there cultures.
Conrad crafts multiple details that indicate the white men’s incompetence. The passage in which Marlow and his manager meet is quite ironic. Marlow disparages him; he claims that he has earned his position thanks to “triumphant health…a kind of power in itself.” Indeed, the manager appears as lacking skill and judgment, “he had no learning, and no intelligence.” If the manager of the station has no power and is incapable of maintaining order, than this nullifies the validity of the station’s action. The “trad[ing]” of men to civilize them no longer seems reasonable. This is an omen to what is bound to happen. Conrad poses these details to foreshadow the tragedy and the demise of the European conquerors due to their foolish acts and petty judgment.
In contrast to the ignorant men of the Company, Marlow is rational. He laughs at the brickmaker’s false beliefs concerning their altruistic action. The brickmaker believes that Kurtz is “the chief of the best station” and that Marlow is “of the new gang—the gang of virtue.” This of course, makes Marlow laugh because he very well knows that neither he, nor his Company is acting virtuously. This underlines the extent of the conquerors foolishness. Marlow realizes how much the men believe wrong about his purpose. Once again, Conrad uses the image of the light that illuminates the unknowledgeable soul to show that Marlow is the only rational one here: “light dawned upon me.” And Marlow finds pathetic the way the Europeans manipulate the imperialists into believing that what they do is right, hence, “[he] nearly burst into a laugh,” when he heard the brickmaker’s claims. And Conrad portrays this episode as “great fun” to prove Marlow’s lucidity. Although Marlow is still a criminal to imperialize and torture the Conogolese, I find it reassuring that as a narrator—the specter through which we read this tale—he is rational.
When he compares telling his story to telling a dream, he emphasizes the idea that it is a sensation that cannot be written on paper, an impossibility to reproduce. He says, “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…” (p.33) I thought that in this passage, he is describing the sensation of a nightmare more than one of a dream; the sensation of being trapped, having nowhere to go and being lost in one’s own definition of hell. I think that the fact that he is using the word “dream” instead of nightmare is showing that he wants to change his own mind about what he saw, that he might want to make it seem better than it was, even though he knows that the story he has to tell is awful. Could he be withholding the truth because he knows that the people hearing the story have to embark on the adventure that he is talking about?
The most interesting aspect of the first part of Heart of Darkness is the overhanging question of: “why are we here?” There does not seem to be any reason for Marlow and the crew to go into Africa. Conrad shows the reader that, in Europe, the consensus is that Europeans are going to Africa to humanize the “savage” Africans. Indeed, Marlow’s aunt talked about “weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways.” However, it seems to me that Marlow does not agree with the feeling that Europeans are going for humanitarian reasons; instead, he goes to Africa for financial reasons. Nevertheless, the best example of the meaninglessness of the Europeans’ presence in Africa is the Frenchman bombing the African coast for no reason. Actually, the Frenchman is losing money and ammo by bombing the African coast, so the reader cannot assume that Conrad is saying that the Europeans are going into Africa for economic reasons. Instead, it seems as if Conrad is making the point that there is no justifiable reason for European presence in Africa.
The grass is a recurring image in the first part 1: it grows through the bones, through the streets and now a grass shed. The grass symbolizes that life goes on, that it grows no matter what and here one of the grass sheds is burnt down, which is ironic since the grass is suppose to be life and here life is being destroyed: which again can be a foreshadowing of what is yet to come. Furthermore, the sunken ship, another dark omen, that Marlow does not ignore this time but he tries to fix it, however he is unable to because the rivets do not come. Rivets are small screws so it is almost ironic that something so small can determine whether or not something can be fixed. The ship needs the rivets to hold together, perhaps this is a metaphor that the white man needs the African slaves in other to continue living comfortably because without the African slaves, many European economies are nothing: they would lose an insane amount of money if they stopped using slaves. Here the rivets are the slaves and the ship represents the broken down economy of European countries.
With all this, the reader can’t help but wonder whether he or she should sympathize with any of the characters, and more importantly whether Marlow deserves it more than anyone else, in Conrad’s novel. If he seems like a nice character in the beginning, isn’t it possible that he will turn out just like Frankenstein? Those of us who have read Shelley’s novel thus go into Marlow’s story cautiously and when he later goes on to tell us about his aunt, who helped him obtain the job of pilot on a river steamboat, some immediately perceive him as patronizing, condescending, and ungrateful while others believe him to be a sexist as the portrayal of women in his narrative is quite pejorative. What we may fail to grasp, however, is why Marlow reacts this way towards his aunt and other women in the novel. If one were to go deeper into the story, he or she would ultimately agree with the manner Marlow handled the situation as his aunt’s callowness in deeming that Colonialism was ideal and that the Africans should suffer, ultimately revolts the reader who is then able to speak up thanks to the main character’s voice. On the other hand, if the rest of the women in this first section are described as witches such as the women in the Company’s waiting room, where Marlow goes to sign his contract, whom, he claims, fail to warn him that he would soon be setting off for the heart of Darkness, the heart of the Congo, then one must also realize that the men in the story are not described any better. In fact, with this seemingly mad doctor, this mysterious yet somewhat bewitching Mr. Kurtz, and this general manager who might have purposely sunken Marlow’s boat, the men of the story do not seem any less mysterious and bizarre than do the women. Thus, as the reader is propelled into this dark “fairytale-esque” world, where buildings, cities, and paintings seem to come to life, such as the city that reminds Marlow “of a whited sepulcher” and Mr. Kurtz’s painting of a blindfolded woman holding a torch, the characters themselves become animated in the reader’s head as caricatures symbolizing various elements. This description somewhat distracts the reader from what seems to be the true message of Marlow’s story, presumably that of the horrors and injustices going on due to Colonialism, as it becomes overshadowed by descriptions, comparisons, and images affecting him personally.
I definitely agree with your opinion on this. Marlow paints very a negative picture of the slaves. I think that Marlow makes it a point to mention their close relationship with the earth to further stress how the Congo and the slaves are the same in a way and are enduring the same problems at the hands of the colonists. Both parties are being exploited by the white colonists: the slaves for their manual labor and the Congo for its natural resources such as ivory and rubber. The slaves are being “consumed” because of the earth they inhabit and come from, so there is a sort of connection between both the slaves and nature. On the one hand it seems that the earth is feeding on them, yet on the other hand the slaves are literally holding onto their land for comfort because they have nothing left, not even their humanity. I also agree that the slaves are degraded and dehumanized. They become degraded to a point that they seem like animal-like creatures. One can see when Marlow attributes animal like characteristics to describe the black prisoners, stating they have tails: “the short end behind wagged to and fro like tails (18)”. The slaves seem like pathetic dogs. On to add to this Marlow describes one (a slave) as: “one of these creatures rose to his hands and knees, and went off on all-fours towards the river to go drink (20)”. Marlow even uses the term “creature” and describe this person to become something that is not human. I do feel that Marlow point of view is subjective; it is very difficult to say where his opinions lie with the slaves because at the beginning when he first sees them he calls them criminals then he calls them enemies and them pities them. He doesn’t understand them, so we don’t get a clear image of these slaves and their condition. On the one hand he is still attached to his own world where he is taught to be racist, but then we see this other side that is emerging, where he is seeing the injustice, but does he understand it is the big question. I believe that he is seeing this and in a way does denounce the colonists’ abuse by being sarcastic about the situation, because that is his way of dealing with it, but he is not going to do anything about. I believe it is going to take some time for him to fully understand the slaves’ dehumanization which I think he notes. At the moment he is confused and trying to find his way and form his opinions, so we have to wait and see if he will take the colonists’ side or the salves’ side.
I would firstly like to start off with the way the British viewed Africa, and how this is said without truly being said during the first part of the text. Marlow explains that he came across his desire to travel to Africa by seeing a map of the country in a store window. Seeing this map brought him back to his childhood of wanting to find out what exactly those “blank spaces” were. What I found interesting about Marlow is that he actually wondered what these spaces were instead of just dismissing them. This gives the reader a sense of what to expect vis a vis Marlow’s character leading me to think that he is really into this job for the adventure and not for any other motives he may be driven by. Instead of travelling to the Belgian Congo for money or diamonds or rubber, I have the unwavering sense that Marlow is in it for the thrill and the adventure of discovery.
The second symbol I would like to discuss is Marlow’s aunt and what role she plays in the first part of the novel. I feel that she represents British Society in her reservations about Marlow’s trip, expressing how fearful she is for him to go to such a “savage” place. His aunt wants him to go and “civilize” the people there, when in fact it seems as though he will learn more from them than they will learn from him. Something that also bothered me was that Marlow felt that he had to keep his aunt in the dark about the realities of his tip not because of her prejudice but because of the fact that she was a woman. In this day and age in Britain women we not treated with the same equality as men, because men do not want to fluster them by telling them anything too harsh. This therefor creates the impression that they are “ out of touch with the truth.” In my opinion, Marlow’s aunt symbolizes everything he is trying to escape by entering on this journey, which is he has no regrets when he leaves her.
I completely agree with the fact that a good part of Marlow's choice of traveling to the Belgian Congo is for the adventure and the thrill. But, at the same time, I feel that he subconsciously is searching for the truth. His skepticism towards colonialism is made clear when his aunt tells him to "civilize the savages" and his reaction to that comment was rather condescending, as if he understood that she was being naive. From the beginning, Marlow demonstrates that he is not completely convinced by the idea of colonization. He may not express his hesitation and skepticism clearly but it is there nevertheless and he needs to see for himself that what Europeans are doing in the Belgian Congo is a positive thing like everyone says or if they are in fact just exploiting the people. It is a constant internal battle for Marlow as he seems to be afraid of the truth and afraid to consciously acknowledge the fact that there is no real use for the Europeans to be in there in the first place. Perhaps Marlow needs to go on this trip to find not only a deeper understanding of the situation first-hand, but also to "find himself". Marlow doesn't seem to understand himself very well just as we (the readers) have a hard time analyzing Marlow's motives and opinions. His opinions are not clear to him either making this part of the purpose for him to go on the trip.
Something negative about this book is the story itself. A lot of negative actions and events occur. This can show some foreshadowing of this novel, showing that everything will be negative. Personally, I don’t appreciate stories with much violence. This is the case in A Heart of Darkness. Already, the title of this novel can give us an idea about the story. When I first read the title, I had an idea of negativity. When I read the word “darkness”, I thought about negative things, and then when I read “heart” in that same sentence, it made me think of people willing to commit negative crimes.
What struck me the most in the story was clearly the description Joseph Conrad made as Marlow arrived in Africa, and saw the workers dying in a forest. The way the author depicted it rendered a very vivid and horrid image of the scene; in fact, all of Conrad’s descriptions amazed me as he described scenes in a very misty climate, but very detailed at the time. It made me think of impressionist paintings: although the background appears as mysterious and foggy, there are some details that overhang, such as the prisoners that Marlow tries to avoid, or the dying people in the forest; despite the lack of precise details the vivid effect the narrator created made me feel I was almost assisting to the scene. These descriptions reminded me of dreams, even nightmares, where everything is mysterious but clear at the time and in which only some details remain clear and precise.
Andrew, I am not sure if Marlow is really trying to criticize the Western norms here. I understand more that Marlow is immersing himself in the African traditions by asking himself the many questions about the man’s white string around his neck. Perhaps he asks the many questions because he wants to understand this person more. This is a moment where the reader may believe that Marlow does not dehumanize the African people because he is perceiving this man as a reasonable person who has a life, a thought process, and desires. I think it is important that Marlow takes interest in the man’s choices because it shows that Marlow thinks of the people as humans, while many of the colonists did not. Indeed, Marlow even takes the time to offer him some of his biscuits that he had in his pocket (p 20). Furthermore, I like the possibility of the man using the white string as an attempt to have his own version of a tie. The tie is indeed a symbol of civilization and formality. It is also interesting how both cultures have their own version of perhaps the same meaning. It is impossible to know why or what the white string represents for the man; however, it could be an attempt of “decoration” and status. Either way, the articles are very different which represents the distinction between cultures. The tie is a long piece of cloth that descends from the neck to the mid-stomach, while the string stays close to the man’s neck. The fact that the tie reaches away from the neck and head could represent how the whites try to expand themselves and their culture into other cultures. This idea also reflects the way the white string stays close the man’s neck, just as the African people were not trying to spread their culture away from themselves. Nevertheless, both articles share the same color. I think that the color of both articles, “clear silk necktie,” is ironic because the color white represents the colonists and therefore power. Therefore, even though the articles are very different, they both could be trying to show the person’s status and power.
I think that the section in the part 1 of the story where Marlow examines the idea that maybe Africa changes the colonizers is relevant here. Although it seems as though Marlow has been raised in a society that stereotype's the African culture, i believed that he is too juvenile and immature of a character to really formulate true beliefs of his own. I think that once he enters Africa and really sees and identifies the injustices and human exploitation/dehumanization that he really starts to have a bias. Therefore, i disagree that maybe he has racist tendencies because he takes the job knowing nothing about social darwinistic pretext and tendencies-in fact he gets the job out of luck and connections. The other colonizers and people who has settled in Africa for some while show indifference to the horrors that they have caused because they are motivated by greed and the belief that it is the white man's burden to bring civilization to the "brutes". They are all about keeping appearances in order to develop their profitable trade at the extent of the African people who they do not even consider as humans. Marlow is in fact different because he shows concern even though his only means of helping the black man is by offering him a biscuit. This demonstrates his regard to human life and the fact that he notices precisely the sad characteristic of their "sunken eyes" exhibits his observation of the pain and agony of the African people. However, i have to say that I do not trust Marlow as being a very highly intelligent and literate character. His story is in fact being retold by the real narrator who opens the book. In fact, in the opening of the first part we see the same type of style being used as in Marlow's speech which leads me to believe that his tale has in fact been altered or beautified. I envision him more as a juvenile and perhaps confused lone wanderer of the sea as sailing is all he really has regards for and knowledge of. Therefore, I am a bit skeptical and slightly disappointed that Marlow is not in fact this grand intellectual and also that i have to ask myself if we can really trust the tale. Finally, as a little comment to what Oliver said about Frenslover-Frenslover was killed for trying to "civilize" Africa and it is almost as if his inability to adapt to their culture killed him off. Africa discarded of him because he was an "intruder" and did not have a place in their society. Africa is a organism that has been taken over and it is only able to rid itself of the disturbance one small and insignificant victory at a time which leads to the theme of the loss of hope in the book so far. If we want to go back to the image of Africa as a brain well then the colonizers are the disease or disturbance that is causing that entity to malfunction and it will only get darker as Marlow sails upstream.
Furthermore Marlow makes a description of words that both rung true and gave me shivers: “words –the gift of expression, the bewildering, the illuminating, the most exalted and the most contemptible, the pulsating stream of light, or the deceitful flow from the heart of an impenetrable darkness. (58)” I have to say, as an “L” or maybe just because of how I am, that is my favorite sentence so far. It is so well written and full of meaning. It encapsulates the spirit of the Congo, the voyage the “demon-god” snake river, everything in the book: each detail can be understood one of both ways. Even this, what I’m saying, can be taken both ways: things and Europeans in the Congo can be understood either through the illuminating light of the idea of colonizing or through the lens of hell, devilish activities and fear. That sentence also summarizes all of language, to be understood in many different ways by many people but also to have one true meaning; to come from a place of good intention and straightforwardness or to originate from the darkest of hearts.
As a continuation from Part I, the reader notices Marlow’s ambiguous stance on whether he is on the colonists’ side, or feels for the Africans. As Marlow does not know any other point of view than that of the European’s, it is of course difficult for him to treat the Africans in any other way than the colonists do. Nevertheless, it seems as though Marlow’s instinct tells him that he should feel compassion for them, which he shows in some circumstances such as when he handed the dying man a biscuit in Part I. In Part II, Marlow’s presence of compassion is brought to another level once he begins to try to understand the Africans. Indeed, Marlow begins to wonder why the Africans do not just overtake the colonists on the boat and eat them, as they are being starved. Marlow saw something in them, a sort of restraint, (p51) that made them seem more human to him. Marlow is trying to integrate himself more by understanding them, “I looked at them with a swift quickening of interest” (p51). Further, Marlow even realizes that he had formed a sort of bond with the “helmsman” who dies while they are attacked. Marlow realizes that he misses him once he is gone, which shows how Marlow is really becoming closer and more a part of his surroundings. Even though Marlow might not have been completely aware at the time that he felt something for them, Marlow was definitely taking interest in the Africans and giving some of his compassion to them. As he tells the story, he even uses sarcasm in order to denounce the colonists who did not care about whether or not the natives on the boat would be able to eat, and how their strategy for the Africans to eat did not work, “You can see how that worked.” (p 50). Whether subconsciously or consciously, as Marlow went deeper into Africa, he himself went deeper into the understanding of the people there.
I'd like to touch on what Tessia was saying about the grass. It got me thinking on two things. For one, what she says is true: grass is the symbol of life and it is quite ironic that is appears in places of death. Furthermore, I was thinking that grass could also be a symbol of purity. Even after a raging fire (one that would turn the earth black - heart of darkness, anyone?), grass will grow back. When we think of grass we think of spring, renewal and joy. I find it wonderfully significant that grass grow between Freselven's ribs. This purity and life in the grass reaches F., the european only after death. To me, this symbol gives Africa a new strength. Even after all the evils europeans wreak: a young sprout of grass can appear. It grows through and thanks to his decay: the european's death only makes Africa stronger. The Congo, like a god or Mother Earth takes all in, whites and blacks alike, and uses them to their advantage. It all reduces them to the same level (after all aren't we all fertilizer in the end) and puts everything in perspective, like in the Keats poem: " then on the shore Of the wide world I stand alone, and think Till love and fame to nothingness do sink."
Another thought the grass image stirred was that of how all these important motifs originate or are found in nature. Grass, fog, light, darkness it is all in nature. The Congo surrounds them and seems to be playing tricks on the narration, pulling all the strings...
As the steamer continues to navigate up the river, it comes to a halt and rest for the night. Upon morning, the ship seems to be surrounded by fog, this fog is a sign of engulfment and total entrapment, literally and figuratively. The fog inhibits and paralyzes the steamer from moving any further up the river as it blinds its crew. The fog also announces the total engulfment of wilderness and primitiveness around them, it marks a certain point of no return, after passing the fog, bad things will happen. As the steamer enters deeper and deeper into the wilderness, things seem to occur more and more often, as warnings not to push on, continue up into the depths of the Congo. A major moment in the passage is helmsman's death, it marks the first true death and a blood stains on Marlow. Marlow seems to understand, that despite the primitive weapons used, there is still danger and the risk of death exist. As a response to such an event, Marlow changes socks and shoes, equips himself for the adventures to come and in a way to adapt to the environment he happens to be engulfed in. Although, the only thing keeping him to move up the river, is his eagerness to meet with Kurtz, to find out whether he still lives or not.
The third thing that I thought had some importance is insanity. Sure in this first part there is no mention of anyone going insane, but let’s be honest; I saw a part of the movie and after that foreshadowing seems pretty evident. Marlow proceeds to go off in the wild following the footsteps of Kurtz; a character who seems to have some similarities to our hero yet he has not yet been found. Our hero first has to see a doctor who actually finds interest in his mental state of mind. The doctor explicitly says his patients never come back and warns Marlow he should remain calm and patient. That can imply something right? Secondly Marlow is told the story of a Swedish man who was to make the same voyage he is taking and the man proceeded to hung himself. The horrors of this so called civilization, the grandeur of the unknown, we aren’t entirely sure what caused the guy to commit suicide, but one thing we are sure of is something is waiting for him there; waiting to change him. Symbols are implied as well; the knitting women representing Fates who use black material; a color of darkness and instability. He is following in the footsteps of Kurtz who we know will be important in the future of the story. And we know Kurtz seems to have some health defects from what has been told to us. We aren’t sure of what’s going to happen yet, but we can expect unsettling events in the near future.
I would like to start of off by declaring that this type of writing can be way to ambiguous and confusing at times; It took me more than half of the second chapter to realize the manager had stopped talking and we were back to the Marlow narrative (hehehe). Now talking about the manager I would like to go back on the subject and contrast of white vs. black and the imposing westernized man on the helpless savages. We talked about this for a bit in class but I find it funny that the colonization era had this generalized idea of their superiority on the natives or as we saw in history “the white man’s burden.” Yet the second passage starts off showing the exact opposite; Marlow first overhears the Manager speaking to his uncle and realized they were talking about Kurtz, about the influence he must hold in the Company and his unconventional ways: "'Is he alone there?' 'Yes,' answered the manager, 'he sent his assistant down the river with a note to me in these terms: 'Clear this poor devil out of the country, and don't bother sending me more of that sort. I had rather be alone than have the kind of men you can dispose of with me.' That was more than a year ago. Can you imagine such impudence?' 'Anything since then?' asked the other hoarsely. 'Ivory,' jerked the nephew, 'lots of it--prime sort--most annoying, from him.'" The manager wants to get rid of Kurtz by simple jealousy. He puts all logistics aside that state the man is the biggest asset to the company by providing most of the ivory. They can consider this plan because "anything can be done in this country." They both still retain a sense of law, but the base components of their personalities control their intentions. They consider themselves out of the modern world’s watchful eye and return to their primal instincts. There is no question that the manager is a brute and the same can be said to most of the white men there. They want to act out of complete irrationality because no one is there to impose the law; they are the law. This shows only how stupid man can get when power is at play. In this sense they are no better than the cannibals…and yet to me the cannibals uphold a complete superiority in their state of mind compared to the white man. Marlow became much closer to them than he did to the other white men. They received a meager pay which they were supposed to trade for food; as a result they were always hungry. They were badly viewed by the five white men on this single boat, the five defenseless arrogant pricks who seem to dominate with injustice and deliberate cruelty, but no punishment is seen from the cannibals. As Marlow remarks, they never lay a hand on the white men; they are able to sustain their hunger and dominate their envy unlike the manager and his men who find pleasure in breaking all moral rules.
Part II of Heart of Darkness opens with Marlow overhearing a conversation between two men about Kurtz. We learn that Kurtz is a man who has power and influence and that in fact many of the Europeans dislike him or fear him. Furthermore, we learn that Kurtz dislikes many of the Europeans; he is clearly fed up with his situation and likes to be alone. He is different than the others, which worries the Europeans. Kurtz does many peculiar things: first he tells the others that he no longer wants more people sent to his station and then after coming about half way to the another station he decides to turn back on his own with four rafters. These things make the others wonder about him and distrust him; we can also see that he is a loner like Marlow. Then the two men mention another man and one suggests to the other to have him hanged because no one will question his authority here. This reminded me of the story of the white man who died because he struck the chief with a stick and was killed by the son’s chief easily with a staff going through his shoulder blades. I feel like this man who believes he has this same authority will suffer a similar fate and he represents the white man in Africa in general at that time the only ones who seem to escape from this stereotype are Marlow and Kurtz. Another thing that struck me was that as the two men are leaving, Marlow says: “then pretending not to know anything of my existence”, meaning the men knew he was there the entire time which could lead the reader to question the truth behind everything they said; we’re they trying to trick him or scare him off?
Response to Tessia Part I post: Let's do this part by part. First off, although I do agree with this reading of the grass image, I think it is important to add a few others. The grass to me primarily represents the way in which the nature, the savage wilderness, overcomes the Europeans, as is the case for Marlow's predecessor, whose bones have been overtaken by the grass. This represents in itself a portrayal of both colonizers and colonized, the cold, lifelessness of the Europeans versus the life that slowly springs up in Africa as the Europeans exit. I also found the sunken ship to be another representation of Europe's failed system of colonialism. The sunken nature of the ship may refer to the immoral acts of colonialism, or the idea that it is a failing system. The rivets on the other hand, could be that missing link, the lack of understanding between Europeans and the Congolese. This being said, I wouldn't have necessarily thought of Tessia's interpretations, which makes her post fairly useful, as far as I am concerned.
I agree with Matt that one must be blind not to see the signs of the upcoming danger awaiting one in Congo. Marlow is, like Layla pointed out, very juvenile, so he can’t entirely realize that this adventure will change him. However, he does not go to the Congo, not out of insanity, but because he is curious and passionate about traveling. Sure the Doctor warns Marlow of the condition the men have when they go/ return from the Congo, but doesn’t that just increase his curiosity?
And with the insanity comes the fog. All of this haze and confusion denotes that Marlow did not know what he was doing. He was in a dream, or in a nightmare. When he goes to Brussels he believes he is in the whited sepulcher, where people are dead inside, but polished, prettied up on the outside. This only increases his curiosity, as he wants a clearer view on the situation. He wants to know why people become ill in the Congo, and why people are dead inside. However, when he is in the Congo, he only finds more whited sepulchers (the Chief of the inner station for example—polished, European, yet inhuman) and it is even more difficult for him to understand what is happening. The painting is even more surreal. The deeper he tries to enter in the Congo, the foggier it is, and the more difficult it is to grasp what is happening.
As Marlow enters the heart of darkness, he is not insane but mystified. All the signs were omens yet he was too much in the dark, in the fog, to grasp them. This is what is crazy. His inability to realize he shouldn’t go. Yet some interior force (passion? curiosity?) still motivated him to go, and therefore he will probably lose himself. So yes, he is crazy, not because he follows his heart, but because he is in the haze and goes on a predictably dangerous adventure.
Marlow presents Kurtz as a rival. He knows very well that Kurtz’ disproportionate power is dangerous because he knows “it was not good for one either” to try to imagine “to how many powers of darkness claimed him for their own.” Kurtz worries Marlow, and he claims that his audience cannot understand to what extent this man is dangerous. Hence the rhetorical question, “how could you?” We can hear his ironic tone in multiple passages: “I was cut to…having lost the inestimable privilege of listening to the gifted Kurtz,” “save the gifted Mr. Kurtz,” “all Europe contributed to the making fo Kurtz,” “his nerves went wrong and caused him to preside at certain midnight dances.” Marlow repeats the word “gifted” to exaggerate that despite Kurtz’ exceptional eloquence, most of it did not make sense. Kurtz was indeed a good man, but he was contradictory. His words were burning and noble and flowed like a “magic current.” Kurtz seems like an imposter. He appears like he is manipulating both the European and the Congolese because his message “Exterminate all the brutes!” is quite ambiguous. Is he talking about the Europeans or the Congolese?
Furthermore, up to now, Kurtz is only an idea—we have not been introduced to him yet. He is only a voice, or a ghost that needs to be remembered. In fact, he is believed to be dead at the end of part 2 although we still have not met him, which is quite ironic. Kurtz is his voice. This metonymy underlines that his only aspect is his prowess of conveying ideas. “He was very little more than a voice.” Marlow explains to what extent Kurtz irritates him, because he has heard enough of this irking, manipulating, erroneous voice. Marlow had never imagined Kurtz as doing, but only as discoursing. Kurtz’ only power is to speak. He has no ability to act : “I had never imagined him of doing, you know, but as discoursing.” This man that seems harmless, that does not take action, irks me very much as he has still “collected, bartered, swindled, or stolen more ivory than all of the other agents together!” It is ridiculous that despite this, the Congolese and the Europeans still adore him.
Marlow is very fascinated with Kurtz, as are many others, but his fascination is not simply limited to his admiration of Kurtz. He mentions Kurtz constantly and seems to feel that it is his duty to keep Kurtz in his memory, as if they had some sort of connection. Kurtz seems to be someone Marlow can compare himself to and base his opinions on. Kurtz had a great impact on Marlow and they may resemble one another in certain aspects: both are eloquent speakers that have the power to draw people in when they speak or tell their stories. This shows that Marlow, too, can have the power to influence and fascinate the people around him. The Russian trader is yet another character who deeply admires and is a devoted follower of Mr. Kurtz and this power that Kurtz has over the Russian trader could be the same power Marlow could have later on.
In the beginning and the end of this section of the book, I feel like Marlow has completely changed. In the beginning, I felt like Marlow was justifying the reasons that he was there, the reasons for which they were colonizing and ruining people’s lives. He says, “you thought yourself bewitched and cut off for ever from everything you had known once–somewhere–far away–in another existence perhaps.” (41) I felt like by saying that he was so far away from reality and that nothing was like back in England, he was acting as if what they were doing was acceptable, as if they were actually helping people instead of hurting them. On the other hand, as they get deeper and deeper into the Congo, he lets some of his old self out, and lets the black people in. The fact that he let himself create a bond with a black man shows that he is leaving Europe behind in order to create a better version of himself. Because Marlow is creating this bond with a black man, he is also creating it with every other black man. He is now able to realize the injustices carried out by all of them. By the end of this part, when the helmsman dies, Marlow changes completely when he says: “Perhaps you will think it passing strange this regret for a savage who was no more account than a grain of sand in the black Sahara. […] Thus a subtle bond had been created, of which I only became aware when it was suddenly broken.” (62) In this passage, Marlow is making us realize the extent of the bond, which unified them, but the problem was that he did not know of the bond until he had lost it.
Finally in this part, we have a certain representation of Kurtz’s importance to Marlow. As of page 58, we discover that Kurtz intrigues Marlow primarily for the power of his words that are almost like a guiding light in the darkness. This alludes back to the power of words and the circulation of information because the voices of people saying “ivory” now are linked back to Kurtz, as he is the most important ivory trader in the region. We see Kurtz as a devil, which confirms the idea that the river obstacles were trying to save Marlow from ever meeting him. Marlow notices that Kurtz takes possession of everything and is also extremely vain and proud: “my intended, my ivory, my station…everything belonged to him”. Kurtz has committed a grave crime because he has taken possession of a portion of the Congo for himself and is trying to transform it into something that is profitable only to him. In fact, he has taken it under his control to such and extent that even the native’s are incapable of hiding THEIR ivory from him anymore. As Marlow says, ordinary men who did not see the horrors cannot possibly understand because in Europe there is justice and people, such a police, to enforce laws. However, in the Congo, Mr. Kurtz managed to make his own laws that exploited some and benefited only himself and that is unimaginable to any ordinary European man. On the other hand, what is interesting is that Marlow illustrates how Mr. Kurtz was transformed by Africa. The original Kurtz has “sympathies in the right place” which means that he was filled with void as his greed set in and as his stay in Africa continued. This is exactly what the doctor that examined Marlow was referring to-the mental transformation of men once they realize that they can do whatever without any repercussions. Looking back, Marlow finally realizes that he was almost brainwashed by Kurtz charisma and the power of his words that made him believe in the “immensity of benevolence”. However, after hearing more about Kurtz he understands that once again those are the false pretexts of the Europeans. “That was the unbounded power of eloquence-of words-of burning noble words” demonstrates how Marlow feels almost let down by this character of Kurtz because he is just like the other white men even though he was able to mask it with words. Kurtz is therefore extremely dangerous because of his power to manipulate people and his brainwashing abilities. Thankfully, Marlow was quick to realize this but many people, it seems, fell in his trap. After all, he wants to “exterminate the brutes” and that ruins his altruistic appearance for Marlow. Here, Marlow is starting to piece together the contradictions of the men in the Congo and his ability to identify these false aspirations makes me hopeful that he will not be negatively transformed and will not do “witch-dances in his honor”.
I completely agree on the fact that there is a dimension of subconscious there that Marlow has yet to explore. In his search for the truth though he finds himself confronted toward many obstacles and people that have some shady motivations.This is why i feel that his quest for adventure may really be a quest for the truth for despite the little we know about Marlow, I am pretty sure he does not believe everything he is told, explaining why he felt the need to see colonialism through his own eyes.Even though Marlow is not a very likable, or unlikable character for that matter, this is probably what I like about him most, the fact that he need to go see what its all about through his own lens, which makes him respectable and kind of cancel's out the fact that he did set out on journey working for the colonizers....
“We live as we dream – alone”. When one thinks of dreams, the images that come to mind are those of clouds and fog since dreams are defined as a state of mind in which someone is or seems to be unaware of their immediate surroundings. An individual’s conscience is one that is personal and inaccessible to anyone else, therefore leaving one’s memory, experience, thoughts, and dreams only comprehensible to him or herself. Like a dream that one generates at night in the solitude of one’s mind, life in general is one that human beings live alone, isolated from the consciences of others, and unable to understand what someone else is living. Such a realization can truly affect an individual, causing the latter to dive even deeper into isolation, closing off all connections to the rest of the world. In part II of Heart of Darkness, one truly sees that Marlow seems to be going down that path, trying to focus only on driving the steamboat safely across the fog, trying to push out his origins and feelings for the natives of Africa. Why does he do this? Could it be his defense mechanism vis a vis all the conflicting thoughts and emotions he is feeling?
Response to Matt's part 1 post, and Doina's response to the post:
I have quite a few problems with Doina's response to Matt's initial post- I agree when she argues that Marlow is far from being insane, but what I cannot comprehend is how he can be deemed as juvenile? just because he did interpret the warning signs, does not mean he did so purposely or naively. It is so much easier for us, as outsiders, to see all the signs and clues foreshadowing darkness than it is for an insider - I mean, we have all watched detective or crime movies and isn't it true that we always seem to interpret signs, clues, before the characters of the story? Thanks to our outsider point-of-view and our intuition, we know that something bad is probably going to happen when there is a storm outside and the main character of our movie gets stranded in front of this scary-looking house in shambles and decides to go inside anyways as suspenseful music plays in the background and as the spectators cry "don't do it!". Yet, if it weren't a movie and that character was us, wouldn't most of us do the same? wouldn't we try our best not to see the ominous signs in order to act brave, convincing ourselves that nothing bad will happen and that the only way out of this mess is through omitting the possible dangers ahead?- this slight use of dramatic irony by Conrad is not one that aims to describe Marlow as juvenile, but more so as a normal human being, afraid with a self-defense mechanism that subconsciously shields him of any ominous signs or warnings.
In response to Tessias part 1: I agree with some of Tessias points. I agree with the fact that the grass grows and shows the evolution of life and of nature. I do not think that it is ironic that the grass sheds because for many people, life is a struggle and an event can break them apart. The grass being shed can be an image of how someone’s life can get destroyed after a negative event. I agree with Tessia that the grass being shed can be a foreshadowing of a negative event of Marlow. The metaphor that Tessia found regarding the ship and the rivets is a very creative one. I never would have thought that the ship and the rivets could relate to the white men and the African slaves. I didn’t have an opinion on how important the rivets were to the boat but now, it makes sense that the rivets and boats relate to slaves and white men. Without the rivets, the boat will fall apart similarly to the white men that would fall apart without the slaves.
In response to Aurianna's post, not only does his description reflect the dehumanization of the African's but it also shows how he is torn between these two different point of views: dehumanization and humanity. Furthermore, I feel like the haziness and the blurriness of an impressionistic painting reflects Marlow's mindset and his opinion on the Africans: he knows what they are but he can't really see who they are. In addition the blurriness of an impressionistic painting foreshadows one of the main symbols in the second part which is fog. Both of these things allow you to see what something is but you cannot make out the details. it is a theme that is going to continue through out the rest of the book as Marlow tries to pick his side; whether it be with his humanity or the Europeans.
There is just something so interesting in the manner Marlow describes nature: “I saw him extend his short flipper of an arm for a gesture that took in the forest, the creek, the mud, the river—seemed to beckon with a dishonouring flourish before the sunlit face of the land a treacherous appeal to the lurking death, to the hidden evil, to the profound darkness of its heart.” Marlow recounts how the uncle is calling upon a great force, natural elements such as “the forest, the creek, the mud, the river” that form the Congo to bring death upon the land. Nature seems so cruel, so destructive and even Marlow is frightened by this power nature coveys. In my opinion even though the slaves can’t stand up for themselves and their land, their nature is the unspoken hero with the true power. When Marlow is travelling up the river he paints a very powerful image of nature. The nature seems oppressive. For instance, the air is “warm, thick, heavy, sluggish (41).” This nature seems gloomy and unpleasant, it is weighing down on this travelers. This nature Marlow even notes is not peaceful and I agree there is something about this nature, the grandness that is dangerous and violent: “It was the stillness of an implacable force brooding over an inscrutable intention. Nature is man’s foe in the Congo: “It looked at you with a vengeful aspect. (41)” Not only does nature/the wilderness seem threatening, I think it also really shows how these travelers: Marlow, the Cannibals, the manager and the pilgrims are no longer in their element. This nature is so overwhelming that it psychologically degrades Marlow into believing he, his steamboat and fellow travelers have become a little beetle against the dangers of a prehistoric earth. This nature has the power to take advantage of these men. This nature transsforms these men, this naute makes the Congo what is it, and that means the Congo is destructive and dark. This nature is an obstacle that stands in the way of their security. When Marlow says: “We could have fancied ourselves the first of men taking possession of an accursed inheritance… (43)” this inheritance makes me think of the White Man’s Burden which is a poem by Rudyard Kipling. In Kipling’s poem the burden is the duty the colonizers have in educating and conducting the indigenous people. I believe Marlow and his companions have not inherited the same exact burden, but they have inherited a burden where they must carry out the will of the European, that being that these colonists must do everything in their power not to help, but to exploit in order to gain ivory.
Your contemplation on the portrayal of nature in the novel just goes back to the theme of darkness as I see it. Africa and the river upon which Marlow travels through both hold an incredible amount of “darkness”. All the quotes that you used just show how terrifying it seems to be. Marlow himself says, as they continue down the river “deeper into the heart of darkness”. Marlow travels upon the river, and is unable to see more than the superficial shore of the African jungle, making everything past this unknown. The unknown poses a type of mystery, and secrecy is always dark and compelling; even Marlow is compelled to join the natives and abandon the boat. He describes the land, saying that “watching a coast as it slips by the ship is like thinking about an enigma. There it is before you-smiling, frowning, inviting, grand, mean, insipid, or savage and always mute with an air of whispering, ‘come and find out.’” Marlow touches upon the fact that the land is a dark, unknown mystery, where all types of horrors may occur. Africa is also the place where all the dark monstrosities, such as cannibalism and slavery are occurring. Darkness here doesn’t stray far from its stereotype. The darkness represents evil done by man but instead is not fueled by greed but by man’s inherent capacity for evil. Marlow mentions London as once being ‘one of the dark places of the Earth’, referring to the time when the Romans conquered the city and caused murder and bloodshed, a city then covered in darkness and evil. Conrad attempts to associate descriptions of evil and malevolence through use of darkness. A main example being the ‘grove of death’, a vast artificial hole created where ‘helpers (natives) had withdrawn to die’. This grove of death is parallel to Roman dominated London since both are covered in darkness and have evidence of man’s wickedness. Unsurprisingly the manager is also tied to darkness when Marlow refers to the managers smile ‘as though it had been a door opening into a darkness he had in his keeping’, obviously referring to the countless acts of evil performed by the manager and his seemingly never-ending capacity for it. Conrad also mentions an African chain gang with ‘black rags…wound to their loins’ using the black rags as a vehicle for showcasing the taint of man’s evil. In essence as Marlow puts it the Europeans plunge ‘into the depths of darkness’ in return for ‘a precious trickle of ivory’. Everything just seems to relate; the evil of man and the darkness of the woods.
in response to Matthieu's response to Rania: I like this response, Matthieu. As far as the last sentence, I'd like to suggest that the evil and its correlation to nature's darkness are Marlow's reading of this; nature is not dark by itself, but dark to those who are not in tune with it. I think the episode with the hippos and alligators who sun themselves side by side really illustrate that, as does our discussion of snakes. Nature is dangerous to he who doesn't know how to read her, navigate her, wants to push against her currents, violates her. To the natives, nature is natural and not dark or evil. She is savage and superb.
Although I mainly with what she said, I would like to add a few things about what Margaux said in her first RR. First of all, I think that the fact he describes the scene as a dream helps us visualize it better: we all have our representation of the dream, and by knowing that this is the idea that Marlow tries to convey we can better imagine the scene. It gives us a clearer idea about how the situation in Africa doesn’t seem real, and shows that Marlow can’t believe what he sees. The idea of hell is, to me, fits very well with the descriptions: the people dying near the trees, the hill that is blown up for no reason, the papier-mâché Mephistopheles… Africa appears as hell, where the demons are the European colonizers and the damned are the natives. Another point that I would like to comment is the use of the word “dream”. I agree that “nightmare” would be more appropriate, but we should have in mind that a dream is “a succession of images, ideas, emotions and sensations occurring involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep”: that means that a nightmare is a dream. This doesn’t really question the fact that by using “dream” Conrad tries to attenuate the horror, but it shows that more than that he is being vague. The image of horror has already been conveyed, but I believe what he is trying to communicate here is this sensation of loss, of oddity, of not belonging to the scene. He seems to be an exterior narrator; he sees what is happening without intervening at all. I don’t think he is withholding the truth, as Margaux supposes, but more that he is trying to show how far away he is now from what he saw, and even how disconnected he was to the reality when he arrived in Africa, most probably because of the horror he brutally faced as he arrived.
I feel like Christelle is touching on a very interesting point by showing these three characters and what links them. The fact that these three characters are so alike might be a way that Conrad is trying to show their actual differences. Conrad is showing the outcome of these three characters that are essentially the same people in their core, meaning that their connection is what they have in common. All three of them are white men exploring the Congo and all three of them are more or less losing themselves in this adventure. The fact that both the Russian harlequin and Marlow are so devoted to Kurtz shows that he is the man that they want to be; they want the power to change something. But, what I think is very interesting is that Marlow and the Russia are both criticizing Kurtz, despite their fascination. Each one of them brings up things that we do not like about Kurtz: his obsession with ivory, his greed, and his violence. I feel like the fact that they are bringing this up is showing that they too are flawed, like Kurtz. We know that Kurtz had an ulterior motive for his journey to the Congo, meaning that Marlow isn’t really the man we might have thought him to be. Despite this, Marlow does have the choice between ending up like Kurtz and being different. This means that Kurtz and the harlequin have a choice too. I think that the fact that they all made different choices showed that even though they were brought together by the Congo, their adventure had completely different impacts on whom they became.
I agree with Margaux, but I feel that some of the characters have more dimension then the other which is what differentiates them. For instance the character of Kurtz is built up so much that we think that he is going to be a central part of the story, but in the end he is a force pulling us along but in the end I feel that he has no depth as a character. In fact, I don't really think Kurtz serves a purpose as a character, he is more like a motif or a symbol, for ivory and for "savagery". When we look at the example of Marlow, he has more dimension, even though he is just a vehicle for Conrad's message instead of actually enticing the reader. I feel that Heart of Darkness's minor character had more of an impact on me than the so called main protagonists....
I like how Rania touched on the subject of nature because I too find nature to be an important element of the novel. Going up the river and deeper into the Congo, nature becomes more and more powerful. It feels as if the closer the men get to Kurtz the harsher and more intimidating the nature gets. It is as if nature gets stronger when it approaches the heart of darkness. Whereas in London nature is non-existent and factories emitting smoke paints the skyline, in the Congo, massive, intimidating trees are the rulers. I enjoy Rania’s quote “the air is warm, thick, heavy, sluggish” because it paints this image that nature is trying to stop the men from going deeper into the Congo; it shows nature’s power. In class, we mentioned that going up the river was like going back in time where nature was the ruler of the earth. One can simply imagine the humid, hot, insect filled air that Marlow is going through. It would not be hard for someone in these conditions to lose their mind. If you want to survive in this nature, you have to obey by its limitations; you have to become one with the nature. A great contrast of Kurtz, a man who has greatly changed psychologically because of being in the “heart of darkness”, is the manager back in the first station with his gelled down hair, white clothes and hat. The manager would fall victim to nature in a matter of seconds. Pardon me if this may sound racist, but the natives are sort of a version of man at his primeval state; they are not the rulers of their land. So, when Rania says “nature is man’s foe” in the Congo I do not agree with her. To me, nature in the Congo places a whole new set of laws that Europeans are not used to, it really does become a different world. Therefore saying that nature is man’s foe in general is false because, to the natives, nature is their ruler. To the European men, nature is a foe because they refuse to obey by their laws (eg the manager), but if they were to take the step and abandon their past, like Kurtz did, then nature will be with them but they would lose their European state of mind. All of this leads to me believing that the heart of darkness is where the typical laws of man are gone and where man is back at this primeval state where nature is the ruler. Is the heart of darkness when you give your body to nature?
Marlow’s descriptions of the men he sees once arriving in Africa seem to be described as a part of an impressionistic painting. “Black shapes crouched, lay, sat between the trees, leaning against the trunks, clinging to the earth, half coming out, half effaced within the dim light.” (p20) This description portrays the image of almost unrecognizable shapes that seem to meld together with the trees, the earth. They seem only to be shapes, and not distinct people, “bundles of acute angles.” This idea resurfaces by the way Marlow refers to them as “its,” which dehumanizes them. Instead of saying “his” eyelids, Marlow describes a man by saying, “the eyelids rose.” (p 20) The dehumanization of the people parallels the blur of an impressionistic painting; in such paintings, each element is not important on its own, only the feeling and image in its entirety is what allows the painting to be understood. This is the case with the African people, as Marlow seems to picture them as a whole; their dehumanization reflects their unimportance separately according to Marlow. Nevertheless, perhaps this is not according to Marlow and Marlow is only showing the way in which so many people imagined the African people. Their dehumanization allows the reader to question Marlow's true point of view. Is he against imperialism and the colonists, or does he share their same ideology? Nevertheless, it is impossible to know whether it is Marlow who dehumanizes the African people or if it is the narrator of the novel.
ReplyDeleteMarlow finds himself then trapped for ten days in a world even more unreal. There are two elements that make this layover seem unreal: the Company’s chief accountant and the slaves dying in the shade of the trees. These two elements are so opposed to each other, as well as to their surroundings. First off, the chief account is dressed in European fashion that stands out with his hot, steamy surroundings. He seems calm but we end up learning that he hates the natives because they disrupt his work. Like Fresleven, his nature conflicts with Africa: they want to bring Europe there but the two are fundamentally incompatible. We see the effect of this on the slaves. They retreat to die like animals in the shade, no one caring. This is what the cover represents to me: the African man made slave now contorting because of the agony inflicted on him by the greed of others. The man on the cover is white not black: for me that symbolizes the fact that Conrad means to show that slaves are men, just like whites are. When you think about it, the position of agony the white man is in could be the punishment for his evil deeds. That scene truly made me uncomfortable. What is strange is that I find myself like Marlow, sometimes unable to describe exactly what he feels. Here, the first description of the people laying under the trees was so imaged: they are “black shapes” that seem to be crawling in and out of the earth like zombies or hellish creatures. They aren’t even human.
ReplyDelete[...]Speaking of style, I think that the description of the nature is very instructive. The African fauna seems to be a reflection of the African people. There is one description in particular that spoke to me:
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 flowed broadly without a murmur. All this was great, expectant, mute while the man jabbered about himself. I wondered whether the stillness of the face of the immensity looking at us two were meant as an appeal or a menace. […] Could we handle the 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. (31-31)
(Long I know but so full of meaning). This African landscape, mute and deaf, is exactly like the African. He is undecipherable to the white man because the latter doesn’t try to understand, and if he had that damage done would ruin all chances of understanding. The slave “without a murmur” goes about his tasks. The fact that all slaves are grouped and become an entity makes the analogy that much more potent: the moon spreads over everything –all of them– and makes it glitter. Marlow describes this phenomenon when he spoke of the black men rowing and glistening with sweat. What struck me the most was the description of the emotions attributed to the forest. It/they are expectant and yet mute; it/they seem to appeal to the white man and yet the latter can also sometimes see a menace there. The most important is the question: can we handle it? In this inquiry the Africans and Africa merge in the most interesting way: these two belong together and the white man has reduced them to silence. The question is, how to deal with this now deaf and mute Africa, especially when one wants to survive?
In Marlow's narrative, he makes multiple references to "white" and "black" ("black neck" and "white thread" page 20) also seen through the use of the diction of "dark" and "light" ("lighted", "sombre", "torchlight", "sinister" page 30). This contrast may serve to show how Marlow was brought up and how his opinion towards blacks was initially racist. The distinction between the two races was clear to him at the time due to people, such as his aunt ("weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways"), strongly influencing his opinion. At the same time, he seems somewhat skeptical of the entire situation which can serve as a foreshadowing of the fact that his point of view may change as his narration continues. Still, it is hard to tell if he will care more about the ignorance Europeans demonstrate when it comes to colonialism or the affect colonization has on the colonizers themselves. Marlow's eloquent narration of his story makes him seem like an intelligent person leading us to believe that he may see past the racism but his word choices when it comes to describing Africans sometimes makes it seem to be just the opposite. Marlow's use of irony and skepticism also makes his position unclear to the reader. He also appears to be somewhat shocked and disturbed by the prominent violence and death he witnesses in the Congo whereas the other characters show indifference. Perhaps the horrors of colonialism will have a stronger affect on Marlow later on. One thing is clear, Marlow is different and separate from the other characters in the book thus far and therefore his attitude toward the situation is different from the others as well.
ReplyDeleteAnd as this passage comes to a close to open the longer, and personally preferred one, the criticism shifts in a slightly different direction. As previously mentioned, it opens with “they were dying slowly” showing the state of colonialism in Africa through the state of the Natives that suffer it. When he looks down to find a shadow of a man so to say, seeing as he is so starved and at the end of his strength and will, he notices a white string tied around the man's neck, followed by a string of self-questioning about its purpose: “He had tied a bit of white worsted round his neck – Why? Where did he get it? Was it a badge – an ornament – a charm – a propitiatory act? Was there any idea at all connected with it?” I found it to be mocking of the superiority the colonizers believe they have. The tie, an english word for cravat, an innovation from 17th century Croatia, was and still is a staple of Western apparel. This Congolese man's feeble attempt at mimesis of the neck tie through a sting shows the meaninglessness of this article of clothing which is accepted as the norm for modern business men and the likes but when taken out of context, as is the case hear, is completely nonsensical and is not understood by Marlow. This image and message is emphasized by the appearance of the company's top accountant and his “clear silk necktie”. All really just to criticize western, colonialist norms. It paints the tie as a ridiculous article of clothing, which when you think about it, it really is, I mean really, what's the deal with the neck tie? It's just a lengthy piece a fabric hanging off your neck. What's it' purpose? Is it an evolution of an ancient leash people used to be held on to by? What were those Croatians thinking? ( À la Jerry Seinfeld)
ReplyDeletePart 1 of post for reader response
ReplyDeleteConrad covers an important theme in part one and that is one of deceit even “fakeness”. The colonist intentions for example are fake intentions; all they want is ivory and wealth not the civilization of the indigenous populace. I find that it the colonists and their actions are fake that it becomes absurd at times, like when the colonists make the salves blow up the cliff, which was not in anyone’s way, but is blown up anyway because they want to keep the slaves miserable and busy. The manager is one example of this fakeness; I don’t fall for the “chattering idiot” act. Marlow characterizes him as “uneasy”. His eyes are “remarkably cold”, Marlow can’t tell if he is smiling or not. This uneasiness I believe is just another form of the fakeness. When I say fakeness I speak of him putting on this facade, yet what lies within him is nothing. He has not substance, but is empty: “Perhaps there was nothing within him. (26)” I believe Marlow realize that these men are empty. The manager even admits to this emptiness when he says: “Men who come out here should have no entails. (26)” What he is saying here is that men who go to the Congo have nothing within them, not even their organs, the parts of their body that keep them alive. There is something supernatural/inhuman about this, they are not human which then justifies Marlow labeling him (the manager) a devil. The devil isn't human, he may have human characteristic on the outside, but on the inside the devil has nothing: no morals, no empathy like these men from the Congo. In addition, the manager always has this smile, maybe even a smirk and in regular representations of the devil, he sometimes smirks and this only further proves the atrocious side of these colonists, for they are reincarnations of the devil figure in their hell, i.e. the Congo.
Part 2 of post for reader response
ReplyDeleteConrad cuts deeper into the theme of deceit and fakeness through the brick maker. This brick maker is not actually a brick maker. He is a spy for the manager, which proves even more the manager’s fakeness, because he has this aristocrat doing his dirty work by spying (the devil’s advocate). He just as deceitful and fake as all the others men. Marlow even says: “it seemed to me that if I tried I could poke my forefinger through him, and find nothing inside but a little loose dirt, maybe. (31)” He too has no real substance. He also has fake intentions; he presses Marlow for information slyly. What I find interesting is that Marlow criticizes these men of their deceitful ways: “They beguiled the time by backbiting and intriguing against each other in a foolish kind of way (29)”, yet he also falls into this foolish game of deceit when he lies about his influence in Europe. He feels so strongly about lies and yet he does what he hates, doesn't that mean his is cheating himself and becoming like them? Has he thus become tainted already? Marlow goes to an extant to justify his absolute hatred for lying, and lies for a man he hasn't met, Kurtz: “This simply because I had a notion it somehow would be of help to that Kurtz (32).” Marlow doesn’t even know the man and he is already defending him, he has created this connection. Might it be maybe because Kurtz himself like Marlow had exposed the deceit and fakeness through the oil pastel painting? Kurtz has drawn a woman who is blindfolded in the dark carrying a lighted torch. This painting is very symbolic to the colonists' reality, because it exposes the corruption that has manifested. The woman is supposed to be Astraea the goddess of justice (who I believe is a representation in a way the slaves and their land) but in the Congo there is no justice, because as shown on the painting she is blindfolded from the truth. Normally since she is in the darkness she would be lost, but she has the light that is guiding her and this can be applied to the slaves and colonists. The colonists are the light that is supposed to shine on the slaves’ dark path in the Congo, but since the colonists are fakes/quacks the blindfold has covered the woman (the slaves) from the right path and the light (the colonists) does not serve its purpose as it is supposed to. It is interesting to see that Kurtz has drawn this because he is a big part of the operation, he actually provides more ivory than any other station, yet he denounces himself and the others through this painting in a way.
The exact image given by Conrad of such a task is shown through the adventures of the old ship captain, Fresleven, who in the attempt to: “civilize” an African society was killed. This gives the illustration of Europe being unable to convert Africa into what they will, because ultimately the colonies will either leave or die. Although the biggest symbol is one of the men Marlow meets on his way up the Congo River, the doctor. The doctor, who tries to define the inside of Marlow's skull, the brain, with the outer measurements of the skull, an image that can be translated to the European countries conquering African countries without truly understanding them and there cultures.
ReplyDeleteConrad crafts multiple details that indicate the white men’s incompetence. The passage in which Marlow and his manager meet is quite ironic. Marlow disparages him; he claims that he has earned his position thanks to “triumphant health…a kind of power in itself.” Indeed, the manager appears as lacking skill and judgment, “he had no learning, and no intelligence.” If the manager of the station has no power and is incapable of maintaining order, than this nullifies the validity of the station’s action. The “trad[ing]” of men to civilize them no longer seems reasonable. This is an omen to what is bound to happen. Conrad poses these details to foreshadow the tragedy and the demise of the European conquerors due to their foolish acts and petty judgment.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to the ignorant men of the Company, Marlow is rational. He laughs at the brickmaker’s false beliefs concerning their altruistic action. The brickmaker believes that Kurtz is “the chief of the best station” and that Marlow is “of the new gang—the gang of virtue.” This of course, makes Marlow laugh because he very well knows that neither he, nor his Company is acting virtuously. This underlines the extent of the conquerors foolishness. Marlow realizes how much the men believe wrong about his purpose. Once again, Conrad uses the image of the light that illuminates the unknowledgeable soul to show that Marlow is the only rational one here: “light dawned upon me.” And Marlow finds pathetic the way the Europeans manipulate the imperialists into believing that what they do is right, hence, “[he] nearly burst into a laugh,” when he heard the brickmaker’s claims. And Conrad portrays this episode as “great fun” to prove Marlow’s lucidity. Although Marlow is still a criminal to imperialize and torture the Conogolese, I find it reassuring that as a narrator—the specter through which we read this tale—he is rational.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen he compares telling his story to telling a dream, he emphasizes the idea that it is a sensation that cannot be written on paper, an impossibility to reproduce. He says, “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…” (p.33) I thought that in this passage, he is describing the sensation of a nightmare more than one of a dream; the sensation of being trapped, having nowhere to go and being lost in one’s own definition of hell. I think that the fact that he is using the word “dream” instead of nightmare is showing that he wants to change his own mind about what he saw, that he might want to make it seem better than it was, even though he knows that the story he has to tell is awful. Could he be withholding the truth because he knows that the people hearing the story have to embark on the adventure that he is talking about?
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting aspect of the first part of Heart of Darkness is the overhanging question of: “why are we here?” There does not seem to be any reason for Marlow and the crew to go into Africa. Conrad shows the reader that, in Europe, the consensus is that Europeans are going to Africa to humanize the “savage” Africans. Indeed, Marlow’s aunt talked about “weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways.” However, it seems to me that Marlow does not agree with the feeling that Europeans are going for humanitarian reasons; instead, he goes to Africa for financial reasons. Nevertheless, the best example of the meaninglessness of the Europeans’ presence in Africa is the Frenchman bombing the African coast for no reason. Actually, the Frenchman is losing money and ammo by bombing the African coast, so the reader cannot assume that Conrad is saying that the Europeans are going into Africa for economic reasons. Instead, it seems as if Conrad is making the point that there is no justifiable reason for European presence in Africa.
ReplyDeleteThe grass is a recurring image in the first part 1: it grows through the bones, through the streets and now a grass shed. The grass symbolizes that life goes on, that it grows no matter what and here one of the grass sheds is burnt down, which is ironic since the grass is suppose to be life and here life is being destroyed: which again can be a foreshadowing of what is yet to come.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the sunken ship, another dark omen, that Marlow does not ignore this time but he tries to fix it, however he is unable to because the rivets do not come. Rivets are small screws so it is almost ironic that something so small can determine whether or not something can be fixed. The ship needs the rivets to hold together, perhaps this is a metaphor that the white man needs the African slaves in other to continue living comfortably because without the African slaves, many European economies are nothing: they would lose an insane amount of money if they stopped using slaves. Here the rivets are the slaves and the ship represents the broken down economy of European countries.
With all this, the reader can’t help but wonder whether he or she should sympathize with any of the characters, and more importantly whether Marlow deserves it more than anyone else, in Conrad’s novel. If he seems like a nice character in the beginning, isn’t it possible that he will turn out just like Frankenstein? Those of us who have read Shelley’s novel thus go into Marlow’s story cautiously and when he later goes on to tell us about his aunt, who helped him obtain the job of pilot on a river steamboat, some immediately perceive him as patronizing, condescending, and ungrateful while others believe him to be a sexist as the portrayal of women in his narrative is quite pejorative. What we may fail to grasp, however, is why Marlow reacts this way towards his aunt and other women in the novel. If one were to go deeper into the story, he or she would ultimately agree with the manner Marlow handled the situation as his aunt’s callowness in deeming that Colonialism was ideal and that the Africans should suffer, ultimately revolts the reader who is then able to speak up thanks to the main character’s voice. On the other hand, if the rest of the women in this first section are described as witches such as the women in the Company’s waiting room, where Marlow goes to sign his contract, whom, he claims, fail to warn him that he would soon be setting off for the heart of Darkness, the heart of the Congo, then one must also realize that the men in the story are not described any better. In fact, with this seemingly mad doctor, this mysterious yet somewhat bewitching Mr. Kurtz, and this general manager who might have purposely sunken Marlow’s boat, the men of the story do not seem any less mysterious and bizarre than do the women. Thus, as the reader is propelled into this dark “fairytale-esque” world, where buildings, cities, and paintings seem to come to life, such as the city that reminds Marlow “of a whited sepulcher” and Mr. Kurtz’s painting of a blindfolded woman holding a torch, the characters themselves become animated in the reader’s head as caricatures symbolizing various elements. This description somewhat distracts the reader from what seems to be the true message of Marlow’s story, presumably that of the horrors and injustices going on due to Colonialism, as it becomes overshadowed by descriptions, comparisons, and images affecting him personally.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Aurianna's post
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your opinion on this. Marlow paints very a negative picture of the slaves. I think that Marlow makes it a point to mention their close relationship with the earth to further stress how the Congo and the slaves are the same in a way and are enduring the same problems at the hands of the colonists. Both parties are being exploited by the white colonists: the slaves for their manual labor and the Congo for its natural resources such as ivory and rubber. The slaves are being “consumed” because of the earth they inhabit and come from, so there is a sort of connection between both the slaves and nature. On the one hand it seems that the earth is feeding on them, yet on the other hand the slaves are literally holding onto their land for comfort because they have nothing left, not even their humanity. I also agree that the slaves are degraded and dehumanized. They become degraded to a point that they seem like animal-like creatures. One can see when Marlow attributes animal like characteristics to describe the black prisoners, stating they have tails: “the short end behind wagged to and fro like tails (18)”. The slaves seem like pathetic dogs. On to add to this Marlow describes one (a slave) as: “one of these creatures rose to his hands and knees, and went off on all-fours towards the river to go drink (20)”. Marlow even uses the term “creature” and describe this person to become something that is not human. I do feel that Marlow point of view is subjective; it is very difficult to say where his opinions lie with the slaves because at the beginning when he first sees them he calls them criminals then he calls them enemies and them pities them. He doesn’t understand them, so we don’t get a clear image of these slaves and their condition. On the one hand he is still attached to his own world where he is taught to be racist, but then we see this other side that is emerging, where he is seeing the injustice, but does he understand it is the big question. I believe that he is seeing this and in a way does denounce the colonists’ abuse by being sarcastic about the situation, because that is his way of dealing with it, but he is not going to do anything about. I believe it is going to take some time for him to fully understand the slaves’ dehumanization which I think he notes. At the moment he is confused and trying to find his way and form his opinions, so we have to wait and see if he will take the colonists’ side or the salves’ side.
I would firstly like to start off with the way the British viewed Africa, and how this is said without truly being said during the first part of the text. Marlow explains that he came across his desire to travel to Africa by seeing a map of the country in a store window. Seeing this map brought him back to his childhood of wanting to find out what exactly those “blank spaces” were. What I found interesting about Marlow is that he actually wondered what these spaces were instead of just dismissing them. This gives the reader a sense of what to expect vis a vis Marlow’s character leading me to think that he is really into this job for the adventure and not for any other motives he may be driven by. Instead of travelling to the Belgian Congo for money or diamonds or rubber, I have the unwavering sense that Marlow is in it for the thrill and the adventure of discovery.
ReplyDeleteThe second symbol I would like to discuss is Marlow’s aunt and what role she plays in the first part of the novel. I feel that she represents British Society in her reservations about Marlow’s trip, expressing how fearful she is for him to go to such a “savage” place. His aunt wants him to go and “civilize” the people there, when in fact it seems as though he will learn more from them than they will learn from him. Something that also bothered me was that Marlow felt that he had to keep his aunt in the dark about the realities of his tip not because of her prejudice but because of the fact that she was a woman. In this day and age in Britain women we not treated with the same equality as men, because men do not want to fluster them by telling them anything too harsh. This therefor creates the impression that they are “ out of touch with the truth.” In my opinion, Marlow’s aunt symbolizes everything he is trying to escape by entering on this journey, which is he has no regrets when he leaves her.
Response to Maddie's post
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the fact that a good part of Marlow's choice of traveling to the Belgian Congo is for the adventure and the thrill. But, at the same time, I feel that he subconsciously is searching for the truth. His skepticism towards colonialism is made clear when his aunt tells him to "civilize the savages" and his reaction to that comment was rather condescending, as if he understood that she was being naive. From the beginning, Marlow demonstrates that he is not completely convinced by the idea of colonization. He may not express his hesitation and skepticism clearly but it is there nevertheless and he needs to see for himself that what Europeans are doing in the Belgian Congo is a positive thing like everyone says or if they are in fact just exploiting the people. It is a constant internal battle for Marlow as he seems to be afraid of the truth and afraid to consciously acknowledge the fact that there is no real use for the Europeans to be in there in the first place. Perhaps Marlow needs to go on this trip to find not only a deeper understanding of the situation first-hand, but also to "find himself". Marlow doesn't seem to understand himself very well just as we (the readers) have a hard time analyzing Marlow's motives and opinions. His opinions are not clear to him either making this part of the purpose for him to go on the trip.
Something negative about this book is the story itself. A lot of negative actions and events occur. This can show some foreshadowing of this novel, showing that everything will be negative. Personally, I don’t appreciate stories with much violence. This is the case in A Heart of Darkness. Already, the title of this novel can give us an idea about the story. When I first read the title, I had an idea of negativity. When I read the word “darkness”, I thought about negative things, and then when I read “heart” in that same sentence, it made me think of people willing to commit negative crimes.
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me the most in the story was clearly the description Joseph Conrad made as Marlow arrived in Africa, and saw the workers dying in a forest. The way the author depicted it rendered a very vivid and horrid image of the scene; in fact, all of Conrad’s descriptions amazed me as he described scenes in a very misty climate, but very detailed at the time. It made me think of impressionist paintings: although the background appears as mysterious and foggy, there are some details that overhang, such as the prisoners that Marlow tries to avoid, or the dying people in the forest; despite the lack of precise details the vivid effect the narrator created made me feel I was almost assisting to the scene. These descriptions reminded me of dreams, even nightmares, where everything is mysterious but clear at the time and in which only some details remain clear and precise.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Andrew's post...
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I am not sure if Marlow is really trying to criticize the Western norms here. I understand more that Marlow is immersing himself in the African traditions by asking himself the many questions about the man’s white string around his neck. Perhaps he asks the many questions because he wants to understand this person more. This is a moment where the reader may believe that Marlow does not dehumanize the African people because he is perceiving this man as a reasonable person who has a life, a thought process, and desires. I think it is important that Marlow takes interest in the man’s choices because it shows that Marlow thinks of the people as humans, while many of the colonists did not. Indeed, Marlow even takes the time to offer him some of his biscuits that he had in his pocket (p 20).
Furthermore, I like the possibility of the man using the white string as an attempt to have his own version of a tie. The tie is indeed a symbol of civilization and formality. It is also interesting how both cultures have their own version of perhaps the same meaning. It is impossible to know why or what the white string represents for the man; however, it could be an attempt of “decoration” and status. Either way, the articles are very different which represents the distinction between cultures. The tie is a long piece of cloth that descends from the neck to the mid-stomach, while the string stays close to the man’s neck. The fact that the tie reaches away from the neck and head could represent how the whites try to expand themselves and their culture into other cultures. This idea also reflects the way the white string stays close the man’s neck, just as the African people were not trying to spread their culture away from themselves. Nevertheless, both articles share the same color. I think that the color of both articles, “clear silk necktie,” is ironic because the color white represents the colonists and therefore power. Therefore, even though the articles are very different, they both could be trying to show the person’s status and power.
Response to Christelle's Post...
ReplyDeleteI think that the section in the part 1 of the story where Marlow examines the idea that maybe Africa changes the colonizers is relevant here. Although it seems as though Marlow has been raised in a society that stereotype's the African culture, i believed that he is too juvenile and immature of a character to really formulate true beliefs of his own. I think that once he enters Africa and really sees and identifies the injustices and human exploitation/dehumanization that he really starts to have a bias. Therefore, i disagree that maybe he has racist tendencies because he takes the job knowing nothing about social darwinistic pretext and tendencies-in fact he gets the job out of luck and connections. The other colonizers and people who has settled in Africa for some while show indifference to the horrors that they have caused because they are motivated by greed and the belief that it is the white man's burden to bring civilization to the "brutes". They are all about keeping appearances in order to develop their profitable trade at the extent of the African people who they do not even consider as humans. Marlow is in fact different because he shows concern even though his only means of helping the black man is by offering him a biscuit. This demonstrates his regard to human life and the fact that he notices precisely the sad characteristic of their "sunken eyes" exhibits his observation of the pain and agony of the African people.
However, i have to say that I do not trust Marlow as being a very highly intelligent and literate character. His story is in fact being retold by the real narrator who opens the book. In fact, in the opening of the first part we see the same type of style being used as in Marlow's speech which leads me to believe that his tale has in fact been altered or beautified. I envision him more as a juvenile and perhaps confused lone wanderer of the sea as sailing is all he really has regards for and knowledge of.
Therefore, I am a bit skeptical and slightly disappointed that Marlow is not in fact this grand intellectual and also that i have to ask myself if we can really trust the tale.
Finally, as a little comment to what Oliver said about Frenslover-Frenslover was killed for trying to "civilize" Africa and it is almost as if his inability to adapt to their culture killed him off. Africa discarded of him because he was an "intruder" and did not have a place in their society. Africa is a organism that has been taken over and it is only able to rid itself of the disturbance one small and insignificant victory at a time which leads to the theme of the loss of hope in the book so far. If we want to go back to the image of Africa as a brain well then the colonizers are the disease or disturbance that is causing that entity to malfunction and it will only get darker as Marlow sails upstream.
RR#2
ReplyDeleteFurthermore Marlow makes a description of words that both rung true and gave me shivers: “words –the gift of expression, the bewildering, the illuminating, the most exalted and the most contemptible, the pulsating stream of light, or the deceitful flow from the heart of an impenetrable darkness. (58)” I have to say, as an “L” or maybe just because of how I am, that is my favorite sentence so far. It is so well written and full of meaning. It encapsulates the spirit of the Congo, the voyage the “demon-god” snake river, everything in the book: each detail can be understood one of both ways. Even this, what I’m saying, can be taken both ways: things and Europeans in the Congo can be understood either through the illuminating light of the idea of colonizing or through the lens of hell, devilish activities and fear. That sentence also summarizes all of language, to be understood in many different ways by many people but also to have one true meaning; to come from a place of good intention and straightforwardness or to originate from the darkest of hearts.
RR #2
ReplyDeleteAs a continuation from Part I, the reader notices Marlow’s ambiguous stance on whether he is on the colonists’ side, or feels for the Africans. As Marlow does not know any other point of view than that of the European’s, it is of course difficult for him to treat the Africans in any other way than the colonists do. Nevertheless, it seems as though Marlow’s instinct tells him that he should feel compassion for them, which he shows in some circumstances such as when he handed the dying man a biscuit in Part I. In Part II, Marlow’s presence of compassion is brought to another level once he begins to try to understand the Africans. Indeed, Marlow begins to wonder why the Africans do not just overtake the colonists on the boat and eat them, as they are being starved. Marlow saw something in them, a sort of restraint, (p51) that made them seem more human to him. Marlow is trying to integrate himself more by understanding them, “I looked at them with a swift quickening of interest” (p51). Further, Marlow even realizes that he had formed a sort of bond with the “helmsman” who dies while they are attacked. Marlow realizes that he misses him once he is gone, which shows how Marlow is really becoming closer and more a part of his surroundings. Even though Marlow might not have been completely aware at the time that he felt something for them, Marlow was definitely taking interest in the Africans and giving some of his compassion to them. As he tells the story, he even uses sarcasm in order to denounce the colonists who did not care about whether or not the natives on the boat would be able to eat, and how their strategy for the Africans to eat did not work, “You can see how that worked.” (p 50). Whether subconsciously or consciously, as Marlow went deeper into Africa, he himself went deeper into the understanding of the people there.
I'd like to touch on what Tessia was saying about the grass. It got me thinking on two things.
ReplyDeleteFor one, what she says is true: grass is the symbol of life and it is quite ironic that is appears in places of death. Furthermore, I was thinking that grass could also be a symbol of purity. Even after a raging fire (one that would turn the earth black - heart of darkness, anyone?), grass will grow back. When we think of grass we think of spring, renewal and joy. I find it wonderfully significant that grass grow between Freselven's ribs. This purity and life in the grass reaches F., the european only after death. To me, this symbol gives Africa a new strength. Even after all the evils europeans wreak: a young sprout of grass can appear. It grows through and thanks to his decay: the european's death only makes Africa stronger. The Congo, like a god or Mother Earth takes all in, whites and blacks alike, and uses them to their advantage. It all reduces them to the same level (after all aren't we all fertilizer in the end) and puts everything in perspective, like in the Keats poem: " then on the shore Of the wide world I stand alone, and think Till love and fame to nothingness do sink."
Another thought the grass image stirred was that of how all these important motifs originate or are found in nature. Grass, fog, light, darkness it is all in nature. The Congo surrounds them and seems to be playing tricks on the narration, pulling all the strings...
RR #2
ReplyDeleteAs the steamer continues to navigate up the river, it comes to a halt and rest for the night. Upon morning, the ship seems to be surrounded by fog, this fog is a sign of engulfment and total entrapment, literally and figuratively. The fog inhibits and paralyzes the steamer from moving any further up the river as it blinds its crew. The fog also announces the total engulfment of wilderness and primitiveness around them, it marks a certain point of no return, after passing the fog, bad things will happen. As the steamer enters deeper and deeper into the wilderness, things seem to occur more and more often, as warnings not to push on, continue up into the depths of the Congo.
A major moment in the passage is helmsman's death, it marks the first true death and a blood stains on Marlow. Marlow seems to understand, that despite the primitive weapons used, there is still danger and the risk of death exist. As a response to such an event, Marlow changes socks and shoes, equips himself for the adventures to come and in a way to adapt to the environment he happens to be engulfed in. Although, the only thing keeping him to move up the river, is his eagerness to meet with Kurtz, to find out whether he still lives or not.
The third thing that I thought had some importance is insanity. Sure in this first part there is no mention of anyone going insane, but let’s be honest; I saw a part of the movie and after that foreshadowing seems pretty evident. Marlow proceeds to go off in the wild following the footsteps of Kurtz; a character who seems to have some similarities to our hero yet he has not yet been found. Our hero first has to see a doctor who actually finds interest in his mental state of mind. The doctor explicitly says his patients never come back and warns Marlow he should remain calm and patient. That can imply something right? Secondly Marlow is told the story of a Swedish man who was to make the same voyage he is taking and the man proceeded to hung himself. The horrors of this so called civilization, the grandeur of the unknown, we aren’t entirely sure what caused the guy to commit suicide, but one thing we are sure of is something is waiting for him there; waiting to change him. Symbols are implied as well; the knitting women representing Fates who use black material; a color of darkness and instability. He is following in the footsteps of Kurtz who we know will be important in the future of the story. And we know Kurtz seems to have some health defects from what has been told to us. We aren’t sure of what’s going to happen yet, but we can expect unsettling events in the near future.
ReplyDeleteRR #2
ReplyDeleteI would like to start of off by declaring that this type of writing can be way to ambiguous and confusing at times; It took me more than half of the second chapter to realize the manager had stopped talking and we were back to the Marlow narrative (hehehe). Now talking about the manager I would like to go back on the subject and contrast of white vs. black and the imposing westernized man on the helpless savages. We talked about this for a bit in class but I find it funny that the colonization era had this generalized idea of their superiority on the natives or as we saw in history “the white man’s burden.” Yet the second passage starts off showing the exact opposite; Marlow first overhears the Manager speaking to his uncle and realized they were talking about Kurtz, about the influence he must hold in the Company and his unconventional ways: "'Is he alone there?' 'Yes,' answered the manager, 'he sent his assistant down the river with a note to me in these terms: 'Clear this poor devil out of the country, and don't bother sending me more of that sort. I had rather be alone than have the kind of men you can dispose of with me.' That was more than a year ago. Can you imagine such impudence?' 'Anything since then?' asked the other hoarsely. 'Ivory,' jerked the nephew, 'lots of it--prime sort--most annoying, from him.'" The manager wants to get rid of Kurtz by simple jealousy. He puts all logistics aside that state the man is the biggest asset to the company by providing most of the ivory. They can consider this plan because "anything can be done in this country." They both still retain a sense of law, but the base components of their personalities control their intentions. They consider themselves out of the modern world’s watchful eye and return to their primal instincts. There is no question that the manager is a brute and the same can be said to most of the white men there. They want to act out of complete irrationality because no one is there to impose the law; they are the law. This shows only how stupid man can get when power is at play. In this sense they are no better than the cannibals…and yet to me the cannibals uphold a complete superiority in their state of mind compared to the white man. Marlow became much closer to them than he did to the other white men. They received a meager pay which they were supposed to trade for food; as a result they were always hungry. They were badly viewed by the five white men on this single boat, the five defenseless arrogant pricks who seem to dominate with injustice and deliberate cruelty, but no punishment is seen from the cannibals. As Marlow remarks, they never lay a hand on the white men; they are able to sustain their hunger and dominate their envy unlike the manager and his men who find pleasure in breaking all moral rules.
Part II of Heart of Darkness opens with Marlow overhearing a conversation between two men about Kurtz. We learn that Kurtz is a man who has power and influence and that in fact many of the Europeans dislike him or fear him. Furthermore, we learn that Kurtz dislikes many of the Europeans; he is clearly fed up with his situation and likes to be alone. He is different than the others, which worries the Europeans. Kurtz does many peculiar things: first he tells the others that he no longer wants more people sent to his station and then after coming about half way to the another station he decides to turn back on his own with four rafters. These things make the others wonder about him and distrust him; we can also see that he is a loner like Marlow.
ReplyDeleteThen the two men mention another man and one suggests to the other to have him hanged because no one will question his authority here. This reminded me of the story of the white man who died because he struck the chief with a stick and was killed by the son’s chief easily with a staff going through his shoulder blades. I feel like this man who believes he has this same authority will suffer a similar fate and he represents the white man in Africa in general at that time the only ones who seem to escape from this stereotype are Marlow and Kurtz.
Another thing that struck me was that as the two men are leaving, Marlow says: “then pretending not to know anything of my existence”, meaning the men knew he was there the entire time which could lead the reader to question the truth behind everything they said; we’re they trying to trick him or scare him off?
Response to Tessia Part I post:
ReplyDeleteLet's do this part by part. First off, although I do agree with this reading of the grass image, I think it is important to add a few others. The grass to me primarily represents the way in which the nature, the savage wilderness, overcomes the Europeans, as is the case for Marlow's predecessor, whose bones have been overtaken by the grass. This represents in itself a portrayal of both colonizers and colonized, the cold, lifelessness of the Europeans versus the life that slowly springs up in Africa as the Europeans exit.
I also found the sunken ship to be another representation of Europe's failed system of colonialism. The sunken nature of the ship may refer to the immoral acts of colonialism, or the idea that it is a failing system. The rivets on the other hand, could be that missing link, the lack of understanding between Europeans and the Congolese.
This being said, I wouldn't have necessarily thought of Tessia's interpretations, which makes her post fairly useful, as far as I am concerned.
Response to Matt's Post part 1...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matt that one must be blind not to see the signs of the upcoming danger awaiting one in Congo. Marlow is, like Layla pointed out, very juvenile, so he can’t entirely realize that this adventure will change him. However, he does not go to the Congo, not out of insanity, but because he is curious and passionate about traveling. Sure the Doctor warns Marlow of the condition the men have when they go/ return from the Congo, but doesn’t that just increase his curiosity?
And with the insanity comes the fog. All of this haze and confusion denotes that Marlow did not know what he was doing. He was in a dream, or in a nightmare. When he goes to Brussels he believes he is in the whited sepulcher, where people are dead inside, but polished, prettied up on the outside. This only increases his curiosity, as he wants a clearer view on the situation. He wants to know why people become ill in the Congo, and why people are dead inside. However, when he is in the Congo, he only finds more whited sepulchers (the Chief of the inner station for example—polished, European, yet inhuman) and it is even more difficult for him to understand what is happening. The painting is even more surreal. The deeper he tries to enter in the Congo, the foggier it is, and the more difficult it is to grasp what is happening.
As Marlow enters the heart of darkness, he is not insane but mystified. All the signs were omens yet he was too much in the dark, in the fog, to grasp them. This is what is crazy. His inability to realize he shouldn’t go. Yet some interior force (passion? curiosity?) still motivated him to go, and therefore he will probably lose himself. So yes, he is crazy, not because he follows his heart, but because he is in the haze and goes on a predictably dangerous adventure.
RR part 2
ReplyDeleteMarlow presents Kurtz as a rival. He knows very well that Kurtz’ disproportionate power is dangerous because he knows “it was not good for one either” to try to imagine “to how many powers of darkness claimed him for their own.” Kurtz worries Marlow, and he claims that his audience cannot understand to what extent this man is dangerous. Hence the rhetorical question, “how could you?” We can hear his ironic tone in multiple passages: “I was cut to…having lost the inestimable privilege of listening to the gifted Kurtz,” “save the gifted Mr. Kurtz,” “all Europe contributed to the making fo Kurtz,” “his nerves went wrong and caused him to preside at certain midnight dances.” Marlow repeats the word “gifted” to exaggerate that despite Kurtz’ exceptional eloquence, most of it did not make sense. Kurtz was indeed a good man, but he was contradictory. His words were burning and noble and flowed like a “magic current.” Kurtz seems like an imposter. He appears like he is manipulating both the European and the Congolese because his message “Exterminate all the brutes!” is quite ambiguous. Is he talking about the Europeans or the Congolese?
Furthermore, up to now, Kurtz is only an idea—we have not been introduced to him yet. He is only a voice, or a ghost that needs to be remembered. In fact, he is believed to be dead at the end of part 2 although we still have not met him, which is quite ironic. Kurtz is his voice. This metonymy underlines that his only aspect is his prowess of conveying ideas. “He was very little more than a voice.” Marlow explains to what extent Kurtz irritates him, because he has heard enough of this irking, manipulating, erroneous voice. Marlow had never imagined Kurtz as doing, but only as discoursing. Kurtz’ only power is to speak. He has no ability to act : “I had never imagined him of doing, you know, but as discoursing.” This man that seems harmless, that does not take action, irks me very much as he has still “collected, bartered, swindled, or stolen more ivory than all of the other agents together!” It is ridiculous that despite this, the Congolese and the Europeans still adore him.
RR #2
ReplyDeleteMarlow is very fascinated with Kurtz, as are many others, but his fascination is not simply limited to his admiration of Kurtz. He mentions Kurtz constantly and seems to feel that it is his duty to keep Kurtz in his memory, as if they had some sort of connection. Kurtz seems to be someone Marlow can compare himself to and base his opinions on. Kurtz had a great impact on Marlow and they may resemble one another in certain aspects: both are eloquent speakers that have the power to draw people in when they speak or tell their stories. This shows that Marlow, too, can have the power to influence and fascinate the people around him. The Russian trader is yet another character who deeply admires and is a devoted follower of Mr. Kurtz and this power that Kurtz has over the Russian trader could be the same power Marlow could have later on.
RR #2:
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning and the end of this section of the book, I feel like Marlow has completely changed. In the beginning, I felt like Marlow was justifying the reasons that he was there, the reasons for which they were colonizing and ruining people’s lives. He says, “you thought yourself bewitched and cut off for ever from everything you had known once–somewhere–far away–in another existence perhaps.” (41) I felt like by saying that he was so far away from reality and that nothing was like back in England, he was acting as if what they were doing was acceptable, as if they were actually helping people instead of hurting them. On the other hand, as they get deeper and deeper into the Congo, he lets some of his old self out, and lets the black people in. The fact that he let himself create a bond with a black man shows that he is leaving Europe behind in order to create a better version of himself. Because Marlow is creating this bond with a black man, he is also creating it with every other black man. He is now able to realize the injustices carried out by all of them. By the end of this part, when the helmsman dies, Marlow changes completely when he says: “Perhaps you will think it passing strange this regret for a savage who was no more account than a grain of sand in the black Sahara. […] Thus a subtle bond had been created, of which I only became aware when it was suddenly broken.” (62) In this passage, Marlow is making us realize the extent of the bond, which unified them, but the problem was that he did not know of the bond until he had lost it.
RR# 2
ReplyDeleteFinally in this part, we have a certain representation of Kurtz’s importance to Marlow. As of page 58, we discover that Kurtz intrigues Marlow primarily for the power of his words that are almost like a guiding light in the darkness. This alludes back to the power of words and the circulation of information because the voices of people saying “ivory” now are linked back to Kurtz, as he is the most important ivory trader in the region. We see Kurtz as a devil, which confirms the idea that the river obstacles were trying to save Marlow from ever meeting him. Marlow notices that Kurtz takes possession of everything and is also extremely vain and proud: “my intended, my ivory, my station…everything belonged to him”. Kurtz has committed a grave crime because he has taken possession of a portion of the Congo for himself and is trying to transform it into something that is profitable only to him. In fact, he has taken it under his control to such and extent that even the native’s are incapable of hiding THEIR ivory from him anymore. As Marlow says, ordinary men who did not see the horrors cannot possibly understand because in Europe there is justice and people, such a police, to enforce laws. However, in the Congo, Mr. Kurtz managed to make his own laws that exploited some and benefited only himself and that is unimaginable to any ordinary European man.
On the other hand, what is interesting is that Marlow illustrates how Mr. Kurtz was transformed by Africa. The original Kurtz has “sympathies in the right place” which means that he was filled with void as his greed set in and as his stay in Africa continued. This is exactly what the doctor that examined Marlow was referring to-the mental transformation of men once they realize that they can do whatever without any repercussions. Looking back, Marlow finally realizes that he was almost brainwashed by Kurtz charisma and the power of his words that made him believe in the “immensity of benevolence”. However, after hearing more about Kurtz he understands that once again those are the false pretexts of the Europeans. “That was the unbounded power of eloquence-of words-of burning noble words” demonstrates how Marlow feels almost let down by this character of Kurtz because he is just like the other white men even though he was able to mask it with words. Kurtz is therefore extremely dangerous because of his power to manipulate people and his brainwashing abilities. Thankfully, Marlow was quick to realize this but many people, it seems, fell in his trap. After all, he wants to “exterminate the brutes” and that ruins his altruistic appearance for Marlow. Here, Marlow is starting to piece together the contradictions of the men in the Congo and his ability to identify these false aspirations makes me hopeful that he will not be negatively transformed and will not do “witch-dances in his honor”.
Response to Christelle's Post on My Post
ReplyDeleteI completely agree on the fact that there is a dimension of subconscious there that Marlow has yet to explore. In his search for the truth though he finds himself confronted toward many obstacles and people that have some shady motivations.This is why i feel that his quest for adventure may really be a quest for the truth for despite the little we know about Marlow, I am pretty sure he does not believe everything he is told, explaining why he felt the need to see colonialism through his own eyes.Even though Marlow is not a very likable, or unlikable character for that matter, this is probably what I like about him most, the fact that he need to go see what its all about through his own lens, which makes him respectable and kind of cancel's out the fact that he did set out on journey working for the colonizers....
RR2-
ReplyDelete“We live as we dream – alone”. When one thinks of dreams, the images that come to mind are those of clouds and fog since dreams are defined as a state of mind in which someone is or seems to be unaware of their immediate surroundings. An individual’s conscience is one that is personal and inaccessible to anyone else, therefore leaving one’s memory, experience, thoughts, and dreams only comprehensible to him or herself. Like a dream that one generates at night in the solitude of one’s mind, life in general is one that human beings live alone, isolated from the consciences of others, and unable to understand what someone else is living. Such a realization can truly affect an individual, causing the latter to dive even deeper into isolation, closing off all connections to the rest of the world. In part II of Heart of Darkness, one truly sees that Marlow seems to be going down that path, trying to focus only on driving the steamboat safely across the fog, trying to push out his origins and feelings for the natives of Africa. Why does he do this? Could it be his defense mechanism vis a vis all the conflicting thoughts and emotions he is feeling?
Response to Matt's part 1 post, and Doina's response to the post:
ReplyDeleteI have quite a few problems with Doina's response to Matt's initial post- I agree when she argues that Marlow is far from being insane, but what I cannot comprehend is how he can be deemed as juvenile? just because he did interpret the warning signs, does not mean he did so purposely or naively. It is so much easier for us, as outsiders, to see all the signs and clues foreshadowing darkness than it is for an insider - I mean, we have all watched detective or crime movies and isn't it true that we always seem to interpret signs, clues, before the characters of the story? Thanks to our outsider point-of-view and our intuition, we know that something bad is probably going to happen when there is a storm outside and the main character of our movie gets stranded in front of this scary-looking house in shambles and decides to go inside anyways as suspenseful music plays in the background and as the spectators cry "don't do it!". Yet, if it weren't a movie and that character was us, wouldn't most of us do the same? wouldn't we try our best not to see the ominous signs in order to act brave, convincing ourselves that nothing bad will happen and that the only way out of this mess is through omitting the possible dangers ahead?- this slight use of dramatic irony by Conrad is not one that aims to describe Marlow as juvenile, but more so as a normal human being, afraid with a self-defense mechanism that subconsciously shields him of any ominous signs or warnings.
In response to Tessias part 1:
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of Tessias points. I agree with the fact that the grass grows and shows the evolution of life and of nature. I do not think that it is ironic that the grass sheds because for many people, life is a struggle and an event can break them apart. The grass being shed can be an image of how someone’s life can get destroyed after a negative event. I agree with Tessia that the grass being shed can be a foreshadowing of a negative event of Marlow. The metaphor that Tessia found regarding the ship and the rivets is a very creative one. I never would have thought that the ship and the rivets could relate to the white men and the African slaves. I didn’t have an opinion on how important the rivets were to the boat but now, it makes sense that the rivets and boats relate to slaves and white men. Without the rivets, the boat will fall apart similarly to the white men that would fall apart without the slaves.
In response to Aurianna's post, not only does his description reflect the dehumanization of the African's but it also shows how he is torn between these two different point of views: dehumanization and humanity. Furthermore, I feel like the haziness and the blurriness of an impressionistic painting reflects Marlow's mindset and his opinion on the Africans: he knows what they are but he can't really see who they are. In addition the blurriness of an impressionistic painting foreshadows one of the main symbols in the second part which is fog. Both of these things allow you to see what something is but you cannot make out the details. it is a theme that is going to continue through out the rest of the book as Marlow tries to pick his side; whether it be with his humanity or the Europeans.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePost to RR#2
ReplyDeleteThere is just something so interesting in the manner Marlow describes nature: “I saw him extend his short flipper of an arm for a gesture that took in the forest, the creek, the mud, the river—seemed to beckon with a dishonouring flourish before the sunlit face of the land a treacherous appeal to the lurking death, to the hidden evil, to the profound darkness of its heart.” Marlow recounts how the uncle is calling upon a great force, natural elements such as “the forest, the creek, the mud, the river” that form the Congo to bring death upon the land. Nature seems so cruel, so destructive and even Marlow is frightened by this power nature coveys. In my opinion even though the slaves can’t stand up for themselves and their land, their nature is the unspoken hero with the true power. When Marlow is travelling up the river he paints a very powerful image of nature. The nature seems oppressive. For instance, the air is “warm, thick, heavy, sluggish (41).” This nature seems gloomy and unpleasant, it is weighing down on this travelers. This nature Marlow even notes is not peaceful and I agree there is something about this nature, the grandness that is dangerous and violent: “It was the stillness of an implacable force brooding over an inscrutable intention. Nature is man’s foe in the Congo: “It looked at you with a vengeful aspect. (41)” Not only does nature/the wilderness seem threatening, I think it also really shows how these travelers: Marlow, the Cannibals, the manager and the pilgrims are no longer in their element. This nature is so overwhelming that it psychologically degrades Marlow into believing he, his steamboat and fellow travelers have become a little beetle against the dangers of a prehistoric earth. This nature has the power to take advantage of these men. This nature transsforms these men, this naute makes the Congo what is it, and that means the Congo is destructive and dark. This nature is an obstacle that stands in the way of their security. When Marlow says: “We could have fancied ourselves the first of men taking possession of an accursed inheritance… (43)” this inheritance makes me think of the White Man’s Burden which is a poem by Rudyard Kipling. In Kipling’s poem the burden is the duty the colonizers have in educating and conducting the indigenous people. I believe Marlow and his companions have not inherited the same exact burden, but they have inherited a burden where they must carry out the will of the European, that being that these colonists must do everything in their power not to help, but to exploit in order to gain ivory.
In response to Rania
ReplyDeleteYour contemplation on the portrayal of nature in the novel just goes back to the theme of darkness as I see it. Africa and the river upon which Marlow travels through both hold an incredible amount of “darkness”. All the quotes that you used just show how terrifying it seems to be. Marlow himself says, as they continue down the river “deeper into the heart of darkness”. Marlow travels upon the river, and is unable to see more than the superficial shore of the African jungle, making everything past this unknown. The unknown poses a type of mystery, and secrecy is always dark and compelling; even Marlow is compelled to join the natives and abandon the boat. He describes the land, saying that “watching a coast as it slips by the ship is like thinking about an enigma. There it is before you-smiling, frowning, inviting, grand, mean, insipid, or savage and always mute with an air of whispering, ‘come and find out.’” Marlow touches upon the fact that the land is a dark, unknown mystery, where all types of horrors may occur. Africa is also the place where all the dark monstrosities, such as cannibalism and slavery are occurring. Darkness here doesn’t stray far from its stereotype. The darkness represents evil done by man but instead is not fueled by greed but by man’s inherent capacity for evil. Marlow mentions London as once being ‘one of the dark places of the Earth’, referring to the time when the Romans conquered the city and caused murder and bloodshed, a city then covered in darkness and evil. Conrad attempts to associate descriptions of evil and malevolence through use of darkness. A main example being the ‘grove of death’, a vast artificial hole created where ‘helpers (natives) had withdrawn to die’. This grove of death is parallel to Roman dominated London since both are covered in darkness and have evidence of man’s wickedness. Unsurprisingly the manager is also tied to darkness when Marlow refers to the managers smile ‘as though it had been a door opening into a darkness he had in his keeping’, obviously referring to the countless acts of evil performed by the manager and his seemingly never-ending capacity for it. Conrad also mentions an African chain gang with ‘black rags…wound to their loins’ using the black rags as a vehicle for showcasing the taint of man’s evil. In essence as Marlow puts it the Europeans plunge ‘into the depths of darkness’ in return for ‘a precious trickle of ivory’. Everything just seems to relate; the evil of man and the darkness of the woods.
in response to Matthieu's response to Rania: I like this response, Matthieu. As far as the last sentence, I'd like to suggest that the evil and its correlation to nature's darkness are Marlow's reading of this; nature is not dark by itself, but dark to those who are not in tune with it. I think the episode with the hippos and alligators who sun themselves side by side really illustrate that, as does our discussion of snakes. Nature is dangerous to he who doesn't know how to read her, navigate her, wants to push against her currents, violates her. To the natives, nature is natural and not dark or evil. She is savage and superb.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I mainly with what she said, I would like to add a few things about what Margaux said in her first RR. First of all, I think that the fact he describes the scene as a dream helps us visualize it better: we all have our representation of the dream, and by knowing that this is the idea that Marlow tries to convey we can better imagine the scene. It gives us a clearer idea about how the situation in Africa doesn’t seem real, and shows that Marlow can’t believe what he sees. The idea of hell is, to me, fits very well with the descriptions: the people dying near the trees, the hill that is blown up for no reason, the papier-mâché Mephistopheles… Africa appears as hell, where the demons are the European colonizers and the damned are the natives.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that I would like to comment is the use of the word “dream”. I agree that “nightmare” would be more appropriate, but we should have in mind that a dream is “a succession of images, ideas, emotions and sensations occurring involuntarily in the mind during certain stages of sleep”: that means that a nightmare is a dream. This doesn’t really question the fact that by using “dream” Conrad tries to attenuate the horror, but it shows that more than that he is being vague. The image of horror has already been conveyed, but I believe what he is trying to communicate here is this sensation of loss, of oddity, of not belonging to the scene. He seems to be an exterior narrator; he sees what is happening without intervening at all. I don’t think he is withholding the truth, as Margaux supposes, but more that he is trying to show how far away he is now from what he saw, and even how disconnected he was to the reality when he arrived in Africa, most probably because of the horror he brutally faced as he arrived.
In response to Christelle's RR2:
ReplyDeleteI feel like Christelle is touching on a very interesting point by showing these three characters and what links them. The fact that these three characters are so alike might be a way that Conrad is trying to show their actual differences. Conrad is showing the outcome of these three characters that are essentially the same people in their core, meaning that their connection is what they have in common. All three of them are white men exploring the Congo and all three of them are more or less losing themselves in this adventure. The fact that both the Russian harlequin and Marlow are so devoted to Kurtz shows that he is the man that they want to be; they want the power to change something. But, what I think is very interesting is that Marlow and the Russia are both criticizing Kurtz, despite their fascination. Each one of them brings up things that we do not like about Kurtz: his obsession with ivory, his greed, and his violence. I feel like the fact that they are bringing this up is showing that they too are flawed, like Kurtz. We know that Kurtz had an ulterior motive for his journey to the Congo, meaning that Marlow isn’t really the man we might have thought him to be. Despite this, Marlow does have the choice between ending up like Kurtz and being different. This means that Kurtz and the harlequin have a choice too. I think that the fact that they all made different choices showed that even though they were brought together by the Congo, their adventure had completely different impacts on whom they became.
I agree with Margaux, but I feel that some of the characters have more dimension then the other which is what differentiates them. For instance the character of Kurtz is built up so much that we think that he is going to be a central part of the story, but in the end he is a force pulling us along but in the end I feel that he has no depth as a character. In fact, I don't really think Kurtz serves a purpose as a character, he is more like a motif or a symbol, for ivory and for "savagery". When we look at the example of Marlow, he has more dimension, even though he is just a vehicle for Conrad's message instead of actually enticing the reader. I feel that Heart of Darkness's minor character had more of an impact on me than the so called main protagonists....
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Rania's 2nd RR:
ReplyDeleteI like how Rania touched on the subject of nature because I too find nature to be an important element of the novel. Going up the river and deeper into the Congo, nature becomes more and more powerful. It feels as if the closer the men get to Kurtz the harsher and more intimidating the nature gets. It is as if nature gets stronger when it approaches the heart of darkness. Whereas in London nature is non-existent and factories emitting smoke paints the skyline, in the Congo, massive, intimidating trees are the rulers. I enjoy Rania’s quote “the air is warm, thick, heavy, sluggish” because it paints this image that nature is trying to stop the men from going deeper into the Congo; it shows nature’s power. In class, we mentioned that going up the river was like going back in time where nature was the ruler of the earth. One can simply imagine the humid, hot, insect filled air that Marlow is going through. It would not be hard for someone in these conditions to lose their mind. If you want to survive in this nature, you have to obey by its limitations; you have to become one with the nature. A great contrast of Kurtz, a man who has greatly changed psychologically because of being in the “heart of darkness”, is the manager back in the first station with his gelled down hair, white clothes and hat. The manager would fall victim to nature in a matter of seconds. Pardon me if this may sound racist, but the natives are sort of a version of man at his primeval state; they are not the rulers of their land. So, when Rania says “nature is man’s foe” in the Congo I do not agree with her. To me, nature in the Congo places a whole new set of laws that Europeans are not used to, it really does become a different world. Therefore saying that nature is man’s foe in general is false because, to the natives, nature is their ruler. To the European men, nature is a foe because they refuse to obey by their laws (eg the manager), but if they were to take the step and abandon their past, like Kurtz did, then nature will be with them but they would lose their European state of mind. All of this leads to me believing that the heart of darkness is where the typical laws of man are gone and where man is back at this primeval state where nature is the ruler. Is the heart of darkness when you give your body to nature?