Monday, December 22, 2014
Heart of Darkness Part Two
Hi Everyone: Now that we are 2/3 of the way through Heart of Darkness, please write a blog post with comments about the novel so far. You can extend a thought that you have shared in class or respond to a classmate's ideas from an in-class discussion period. Try to refer to specific scenes and details from the text. Thank you, Mr. Telles.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The way that Joseph Conrad writes has confused me through the majority of the first ⅔ of The Heart of Darkness. However, I think that I am finally getting used to his style, and better understanding the plot. My favorite scene so far is during the trip, when the ship is ambushed. I think that the bloody shoes being thrown overboard represents something more than ,as said in class “Marlow not being able to handle the death” or “Marlow not mourning the helmsman”. I think that the bloody shoes overboard is symbolic of Marlow not letting anything stand in the way of meeting Kurtz. Had he kept the shoes they would have been a constant reminder to him that if the helmsman had been killed in an attack, so too could have Kurtz. This would further drive Marlow crazy, because he already has those thoughts prior to landing on the shore and being reassured of Kurtz’s safety by the local. Had he kept the shoes, would insanity even land him on the shore to meet the native or would he have turned around? Ditching the shoes is symbolic of the continued venture to his goal of meeting Mr. Kurtz.
ReplyDeleteI personally have more to say about the way that Conrad wrote the novel than the point he's trying to make throughout the story. I get the main idea of it, I believe: Marlow follows the stories and people who know Kurtz on this adventure down the Congo, all the while the crew on the Thames are listening to him narrate this story. If I can say one thing about the books' plot line, I'd say that it confuses me. After further reading I can say that I am becoming accustomed to his literary technique of having Marlow be the second narrator. The moment when we, the readers, are brought back to the Thames was when I really forced to focus and look more deeply into the story. It seems like everyone is much less hardworking than Marlow and I do believe that Kurtz is really insane. I believe that the meeting between Marlow and Kurtz is the main idea of the book, and his road to insanity narrates that. Though reading it takes time and effort to avoid losing my own sanity, I enjoy reading about the perspectives Conrad takes on throughout the novel. Looking back, I did agree with the essay claiming his racist tendencies. But now I can confidently say that I believe the perspectives were made up specifically for use in the novel by Conrad, previously existing outside of his private opinions.
ReplyDeleteI believe Conrad is trying to show that his first narrator is against racism and that Marlow is extremely racist. Anything that Marlow says or does that is inexplicably racist or inhumane is explained to be a hyperbole used to further the narrator's point. The narrator doesn't really know what Marlow thinks or says, and is filling in details with his own opinions as he relays the story he was told first hand. We receive the story after it has passed through many hands, and because of this it is hard or impossible to understand Conrad's own opinion.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, the role of Mr. Kurtz in the story is quite interesting. It seems that everyone worships him, and that the natives, and Marlow, see him as a God. The narrator is trying to make Marlow's hatred of the natives ironic by giving them something in common that is a central part of all of them. Yet the narrator is also furthering his agenda by making parallels to Cortez and the Aztecs. The natives have hailed to Kurtz, but Kurtz is their enemy, and will betray them. The ivory he is so obsessed with is like the gold of the Aztecs. Yet this is white gold. White obsession is the evil. This obsession is metaphorically imperialism, and power. The real question remains, is Conrad trying to make us overthink this and distrust the narrator, furthering his racist agenda, or trying to hide his ideals in the plot structure and through irony force the reader to disagree with racism? It is impossible to conclude.
When Marlow expresses disbelief at the native that is a fireman, and when he feels disgust at himself for liking one of the natives, the narrator is trying to make his racism to overt to be plausable, and make the listeners distrust him. When Marlow goes insane after thinking Kurtz died, the narrator is also trying to create distrust. And the way that the narrator forces Kurtz into the story is much like imperialism upon the natives. He has Marlow learn Kurtz' life story and builds up suspense as Marlow moves down the river until he finally meets Kurtz. Imperialism was something that you knew was going to happen without knowing when or why. You understand that you will have to live under the control of the invaders but the specific details are cloudy. This is just as it is with Kurtz. Even when Marlow talks to those that have talked to Kurtz, like the Russian, he is simply told that "One does not talk to Kurtz, one only listens." This mysteriousness is supposed to reflect the opinion of the natives, and I predict that just as the natives will hate imperialism, they will begin to hate Kurtz as well.
DeleteSo far in the Heart of Darkness, there has been enormous build up to meeting Kurtz, so I imagine the first encounter with him will be one of the most significant parts of the book. Since Marlow's only task was to deliver a message to Kurtz, Kurtz is made out to be an important person. There is almost a legend surrounding him, as he trades the most ivory and is known as being the best at what he does. The information the reader gets about Kurtz in the first two sections is very limited, and is subject to the perspective of someone else. Seeing the firewood stacked near the shack, and assuming that Kurtz is dead drops the suspense of finally meeting him, and gives a sense of pointlessness for the whole trip. However, when it is later learned that Kurtz did not actually die, the anticipation is restored and strengthened. A purpose for the trip is asserted, and now the goal of delivering a message to Kurtz is seen as a delicate opportunity, with the death of Kurtz being a viable threat. The pressure of the scenario and the stakes are both raised. Conrad does not introduce Kurtz in the second section, even after the Russian talks about him, and after the previous build up to finally reaching Kurtz after being ambushed by natives. The continual mentioning of Kurtz creates something like a cult of personality for him, so there is more anticipation for his first encounter with the reader. The idealized image of Kurtz, and his success and influence in the trading company places him symbolically as the head of imperialism. This makes how the natives respond to Kurtz crucial to the book, because it might be a depiction of how the natives respond to imperialism.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the first parts of Heart of Darkness I will admit the plot has somewhat confused me. Throughout the novel there are many significant moments as Marlow travels down the Congo River in search of Kurtz. One moment that stood out to me so far in the book is when one of the crewmates gets killed by a spear thrown at him. He dies in Marlow's arms and the deck is filled with his blood. What really stood out to me is the underlying brutality in the novel that expresses itself through this scene. When they talk about the disposal of the body cannibalism is a thought that is mentioned. Disgusted Marlow throws the body overboard. The theme of brutality follows the main characters throughout the novel with the treatment of the natives and the treatment of each other and the nature around them. Blood fills Marlow's shoes which I believe is another motif of how the brutality is still with them even though a body may not be. There is cruelty show throughout the novel, one could even say towards the entire continent of Africa as the critic's reviews we have read which criticize Conrad for using Africa as a 'backdrop' and not showing the full importance of the culture. The scene of the stabbing simply highlighted the brutality of the journey and the overall meaning of the story for me, it simply made everything stand out because of the heartlessness shown over a man's death and how some simply saw the death as an opportunity (cannibalism) rather than a tragedy. When people came to Africa to colonize they did the same thing. They saw the continent as an opportunity rather than a continent full of civilizations already existing. Through imperialism they took control and brutalized a nation. The cannibalism suggested in the book connected me to the opportunity that is often seen even in times of tragedy and woe. These opportunities are not often good and that is shown when the body is simply thrown overboard after the discussion.
ReplyDeleteIn part 3, when Marlowe begins his journey out of the "heart of darkness" with what's left of Kurtz in tow, the scene strikes me as one of foreboding, not unlike the book's opening. The inevitability of Kurtz' death hangs over the third act, not unlike the fog from the previous one, bringing with it a sense of dread. Meanwhile, the way that the different characters react to Kurtz' inevitable demise shows a lot about their character. Such as how the Russian acts as if Kurtz is immortal, and will never die, similar to how real people of the time may have assumed that the spirit of imperialism will never change or evolve, leading to a sort of denial. This is further compounded by the generally frank and simple naturee of the way the death itself is described, such as the simple announcement, "Mistah Kurtz, he dead." It is also sort of interesting that one of the black crewmembers gives this announcement, as opposed to a white deckhand or something. This may be a stretch, but this may even be a metaphor for the old ideals being ushered out by the actions of the oppressed populace. Overall, while the book is extremely confusing and cerebral, it is that cerebral-ness that forces the reader to think of the characters as symbols, thus allowing the book's true message of anti-colonialism and cautious optimism to shine through the fog of words.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the first 2/3’s of the novel, the book makes me feel sad. There is a pervasive mood of melancholy in the book. Marlow is excited to meet Kurtz, yet all around him things are going wrong. His crew is starving, his helmsman has died and while Marlow registers these things and cares he also ignores them on his quest to meet Kurtz.Though, Marlow seems happier because he has a purpose and is determined to get to Kurtz, you still feel sad because the setting of the book is so dark and hopeless, a jungle that people traverse and never come out quite the same. There is always the fear that something will go horribly wrong for Marlow and that there is something we are missing even though we have the previous knowledge that he is on the boat telling the story. Reading the book you feel resigned to the fact that Kurtz is not going to be the way Marlow imagines him. Before Marlow meets the russian on the bank of the station he discusses meeting Kurtz, and he is just a voice, as Marlow expected, yet the Russian tells him odd things about the relationship between Kurtz and the natives. From now on, I feel the mood of the book will continue to get darker and darker and darker.
ReplyDeleteAt this point in the novel I feel I have not picked up on certain details and that I am struggling to find the underlying theme or central idea in the book. I have only been successful in picking up minor bits of what could be seen as racism. But while some understand it to be racism, I think otherwise. I don’t believe that Conrad is portraying or promoting racist ideas but rather accurately showing how people of those times reacted to people of different colors. Conrad allows Marlow to speak and express ideas as would have been appropriate at the time. I also do not feel that Marlow is racist but that he thought his ideas were appropriate, for at the time it was not frowned upon to be racist and no one was told otherwise. My theory is strengthened by the bond and mysterious connection Marlow feels towards the natives. He seems to internally struggle with how he should feel about the natives and what he truly wants to feel about them. I am also mesmerized by Marlow’s obsession with Mr. Kurtz, even though he has never met him. He worries for his life and fears he is dead after the native attack. To me this obsession is quite creepy and makes me uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteThe essence of Joseph Conrad's styles throughout The Heart of Darkness is that of losing parts from a dream. Which is fascinating for a book which seems to be framing major issues in humanity. To me it seems obvious that is some way Conrad's intention was not to tell a tale of a man voyaging through the heart of Africa, that there is a larger scale motive behind the book. The question then, and perhaps the question the novel lets on the least about, is what angle exactly Conrad wishes to push. Looking through Heart of Darkness and pointing out areas of the book where racial tensions, and clear prejudice shine through is simple enough. Synthesizing the entire work into a clear argument for anything is a completely different matter. It seems to me that Joseph Conrad does a good job of hiding the larger truth. Disguised by more intriguing concepts such as Marlow, Kurtz or the entire unfolding journey, is perhaps a more significant thought process. Through a little more than 2/3 of the novel, I cannot myself determine if Conrad's argument is taking advantage of the African cultures, or using it as a foil for Europe, but I think most people can see that he is doing much more behind the scenes with his language than we can read into. I can think most clearly upon the scene of the helmsman dying onto Marlow's feet. It seems general opinion that the actions of Marlow reflect his own racial beliefs, or even the racial prejudices of Joseph Conrad. Without become too enveloped in the intricacies of the language, each scene holds its literal addition to the story line as well as an addition to the deeper goal of Conrad. In the end I think that the novel is in many ways even more complex than it seems on the surface.
ReplyDeleteI am particularly intrigued by Marlowe’s personal interactions with the natives, and the tension he seems to uncover when trying to evaluate their humanity. He largely casts them off as sub-human beings that are in no way related to his species, without giving them much of a chance to prove their equality. Even the man that maintains the boilers can only do enough in Marlowe’s book to become an “improved specimen”. However, when Marlowe’s first-mate is killed by a spear, his dying gaze seems to tug at something within Marlowe. It is as if that gaze pierces the callus shell that Marlowe has imposed upon his view of the natives, briefly allowing their humanity to shine through. However, that shell is sealed just as quickly. The gaze falls out of Marlowe’s mind and is immediately replaced with concern over his bloody shoes. Once again there is a reduction in the humanity of the natives, placing them on the same level as mere objects. The racist overtones continue to convince me that it is more than just an attitude surrounding Marlowe, but to an extent a continuation of Conrad’s thoughts as well.
ReplyDeleteMarlowe’s description of the river reminds me a mystical place, instead of simply a river. He uses words like “impenetrable” (60), “unknown planet” (63), to describe the river. These words are associated with the idea of Marlowe’s inability to conquer the river, because the river is beyond his comprehension. The reason why the steam boat continuously breaks down, is because Conrad is expressing how modern technology can’t always conquer natural environments. Marlowe throws his show into “the devil-god of that river”(87), as a way to give in to the mystery of the river, and his inability to conquer it even with his modern technology. The term “devil-god” is another way of saying that the river has a force that is directly against him. He felt that the river itself is telling him that he is not welcome there, especially when the fog came “there, standing all around you like something solid.” (71). The word “solid” gives the impression of something still and immobile. In other words the fog is an impenetrable force that can’t be conquered by Marlowe’s superior technology.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of part two they decided to add hungry cannibals to the crew. Although they are hungry, they do not eat the crew. They're constantly judged by travelers and colonists but that just shows that everything or everyone shouldn't be judged on the title they carry. A little later at the inner station, Marlow ran into a Russian whom then updated Marlow on Kurtz. Marlow noticed the Russian's rag-like clothing and how it was multicolored just like Kurtz. Society back then was very similar to society today in which the Russian followed Kurtz too closely and it will just send them into a dark place in which they won't know how to escape. Now going into part 3 a wee bit, we see Marlow changing a bit. Typically when people see heads on sticks, they tend to freak out while Marlow didn't. He's starting to find humor in horror.
ReplyDeleteSomething that I have noticed in the first two thirds of this book is Marlow’s relationship to the native people who live here. The people who live in Africa are portrayed as being less important compared to Marlow of the white crewmembers, as Conrad writes on page 93, “a savage who has no more account than a grain of sand in a black Sahara”. In addition, Marlow also describes the natives by saying, “they were not human”, which shows that Marlow thinks so little of these people that he will not even recognize them as being of the same species as he. The description of these people makes it apparent that Marlow is a racist and thinks little of these people, which poses the question; what is Joseph Conrad’s view on the issue? Are his views the same as Marlow’s or did he write Marlow in a way to show something about imperialism and European society as a whole? At the beginning of the book it was harder to tell the distinction between the author and his character, but as the book progressed, it became clearer that there may be a distinction between Joseph Conrad and Marlow. In order to prove his point about the racism and imperialism in Europe, it was necessary for him to have his characters with different views than his own to show an accurate depiction of how European’s viewed Africa at this time.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Joe's comment about the grand importance of Kurtz to the Heart of Darkness, I agree that the escalation from the beginning of the story to when Marlow is about to meet Kurtz is one of, if not the most, climactic spots in the novel. Kurtz's reputation and credibility is the only impression we get of this character, excluding the already minimal detail given towards his physical appearance. Though, now having the advantage of reading the final chapter and witnessing Marlow and Kurtz’s first encounter, I can say that the irony of Kurtz character is impressive. The majority of the book is spent inadvertently learning about a man who becomes almost like an idol to Marlow, and when we finally meet this legend of the Company, he is nothing like we expected. Kurtz was continuously rumored throughout the story to be sick, and maybe it was simply a detail that I missed, but I didn’t expect Kurtz to be mentally ill until he was introduced to us. I suspected he was merely weathered by the conditions of the jungle, but when we meet Kurtz, he is as deranged and unpredictable as the harsh nature of the forests surrounding them. The irony between what Kurtz was made to be-- strong, intuitive, an excellent forger, a brilliant ivory collector, a leader-- and what we perceive him as throughout the final chapter-- frail, aged, obsessive, irrational, scattered-- is one of the most interesting and entertaining parts of the story.
ReplyDelete