"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?
When I first began reading Heart of Darkness, I didn’t know what to expect, even as I reached the tenth page. I was rather confused during my first lecture, as in the beginning I couldn’t really make out who the narrator was. Obviously, the novel ultimately (after a couple of pages) centers in on Marlow’s tale; yet I still can’t quite grasp who is speaking before he enters. The beginning of the actual story is a strange yet innovative one in my opinion, as Marlow begins his tale in the middle of a long description. Not only does the tale begin quite untraditionally, it also does so quite abruptly, in medias res. Indeed, the first time we hear Marlow, he is the sole speaker, and he is in the middle of his speech. Like Frankenstein, there seems to be a box-narrative, something that in my opinion makes the novel more intriguing, as it makes it somewhat more subjective; it makes the book more interesting in the sense that the story itself demands thorough knowledge of the narrator (in this case Marlow) in order to fully grasp what is true, what is stretched and what is fiction, at least in the context of the story. I enjoy this kind of narrative; it makes me feel more engaged while reading. One thing I realized as I was reading this was how good the narration is. Reading Marlow’s tale, I couldn’t help but forget the larger narrative of the play. I was actually surprised at one point, nearing the end of the first part, when the narrator came back in after a twenty or so page absence.
When I first began reading Heart of Darkness, I didn’t know what to expect, even as I reached the tenth page. I was rather confused during my first lecture, as in the beginning I couldn’t really make out who the narrator was. Obviously, the novel ultimately (after a couple of pages) centers in on Marlow’s tale; yet I still can’t quite grasp who is speaking before he enters. The beginning of the actual story is a strange yet innovative one in my opinion, as Marlow begins his tale in the middle of a long description. Not only does the tale begin quite untraditionally, it also does so quite abruptly, in medias res. Indeed, the first time we hear Marlow, he is the sole speaker, and he is in the middle of his speech. Like Frankenstein, there seems to be a box-narrative, something that in my opinion makes the novel more intriguing, as it makes it somewhat more subjective; it makes the book more interesting in the sense that the story itself demands thorough knowledge of the narrator (in this case Marlow) in order to fully grasp what is true, what is stretched and what is fiction, at least in the context of the story. I enjoy this kind of narrative; it makes me feel more engaged while reading. One thing I realized as I was reading this was how good the narration is. Reading Marlow’s tale, I couldn’t help but forget the larger narrative of the play. I was actually surprised at one point, nearing the end of the first part, when the narrator came back in after a twenty or so page absence.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete