Blog 6

Death by Japanese Fisherman


The film The Cove, directed by Louie Psihoyos in 2009, was a revelation to viewers because of the harsh treatment Japanese fishermen use when they are literary murdering dolphins. The entire movie is focused on a single town in Japan that kills dolphins at an alarming rate. The Americans in the movie go to great lengths in order to prove their point against this horrible treatment of mammals. While the film does give a little insight as to why Japanese fishermen kill dolphins, it does not provide a strong argument as to why these fishermen kill the dolphins because there is simply no need too.


During the film, there are countless attempts to influence the viewer’s perception of the events that go on in Japan however; there are always two sides to an argument. The director attacks the Japanese fishermen for placing the dolphin meat that contains high concentrations of mercury into stores for people to buy. Yet, the director does not go into a lot of detail as to why the Japanese people do this. Usually, there are reasons behind the actions that people do. Yet, the producers and director did not feel the need to place them into this movie. Psihoyos simply did not allow the movie to provide a convincing counterargument to the issue of killing dolphins. Also, throughout the movie only one Japanese government official is interviewed. This one government official ended up getting fired and thus providing for a great interviewee for the movie. If Psihoyos wanted to make a move convincing argument in favor of the Japanese people, he could have easily interviewed more officials about the issue and added more examples as to why the fishermen in Japan killed dolphins. One interview cannot be considered a fair counterargument. But, frankly Psihoyos did not and should not add more examples in favor of the fishermen because he is under no obligation to provide a counterargument.


A persuasive movie should never provide a counterargument that could possibly hinder the views of the audience watching. The producers wanted the audience to make a difference after a watching the persuasive movie. By placing a counterargument within in the film could be harmful to the overall movie. This is even the same for immoral and unethical arguments. The argument within the movie is that people are killing dolphins daily, something that is absolutely horrible to even think about. A counterargument for the sake of fairness is absurd. If people are so obsessed with arguments having two sides then, these same people need to have the Japan provide an argument as to why they are killing dolphins. No film director should feel the need to provide a counterargument for something that they feel is just plain wrong.

Blog 5

Our Lives in Turmoil

Godfrey Reggio’s movie Koyaanisqatsi, made is 1983, is a film that can capture the attention of audience with only a single word being spoken. Reggio uses only images and music as he illustrates the beauty and horror of the world people live in. The director exemplifies the uniformity in technology and the irregularity in nature through the accretion and juxtaposition of images within his film.


In the beginning of the film, the beauty of nature is shown vividly. Nature is shown as a peaceful image and then suddenly the film switches to the front of a truck bulldozing the landscape. This juxtaposition of scenes comes suddenly and surprisingly. First, everything is calm. Then, everything is chaotic. Reggio uses outlooks such as this to explain to the viewer how technology is destroying nature and putting our life into turmoil. Also, when the film showed a picture of nature everything was curved and irregular while, the cities only had straight lines making everything look the same. These great technological cities created by men are nothing but bland and uniform lines. The beauty of the world is forgotten as the human race creates regularity. Every view of the city is layered on top of each other making the city and the technologies created by man seem less impressive. Reggio wants the observer to understand that the true beauty of the world lies within the nature that man is destroying. This argument by Reggio can be explained with the scene of the atomic bomb. As the mushroom cloud from the bomb slowly ascends towards the sky, the fear slowly enters the minds of all of the people viewing the movie. Reggio’s use of slow-motion and accretion creates the longest, most fearful buildup to an explosion that I have ever seen. The viewer can only watch as the movie shows countless times how technology is destroying our world. Each and every scene within Reggio’s movie presses his argument against technology.


The director’s argument is very much present throughout his movie. The word koyaanisqatsi means life in turmoil and that is what Reggio wants the viewer to know. The technology the human race has created is destroying the beauty of nature. Also, the technology the human race has created is destroying the asymmetrical nature and is replacing it with regular and featureless straight lines. Reggio uses the word koyaanisqatsi because we are destroying what makes our world diverse. I completely agree with Godfrey Reggio because soon our planet may become nothing more than a giant computer chip. A world without diversity is a world without beauty.

Blog 4

The Next Heart of Darkness

Francis Ford Coppolia’s 1979 movie Apocalypse Now Redux (2001) was created as the next Heart of Darkness. Throughout the movie, connections can be made to the novella written by Joseph Conrad. In the movie, Willard is exposed to the same realities that Marlow had experienced during his time in Africa. Both characters watch as their ships got attacked by natives but, each experienced a different scene when one of their workers died.
Traveling up a dangerous river both Willard and Marlow had an unexpected visit from the natives of the country. In the book, Conrad writes that “the river, the shore, the woods were very quiet” when suddenly arrows starting shooting from the shore (Conrad 44). This is similar to the movie when the North Vietnamese started shooting at the American boat. Both were startled by the onslaught of arrows that were being shot at them. Also, the movie has a spear hit the captain in the stomach just like the helmsman, in Conrad’s story, who had “the shaft of a spear” go through his body (Conrad 46). Once the arrows started flying, the captain started to act erratically. Soon afterwards the spear went through his body. Coppolia filmed this aspect of the scene similar to Conrad’s scene because Marlow’s helmsman was acting erratically shortly before his own death. Both started to fear what was happening around them, as they traveled further into the unknown. Coppolia mimicked Conrad in this aspect to illustrate the madness people go through during a life or death situation. The captain lost any sense of his former civilization seconds before his death. Both shipmen died similar deaths yet, Coppolia still differed from Conrad on a couple of small details.
While the overall ambush scene was similar there were a few details that contrasted between the book and the movie. The fallen helmsman’s “eyes shone with an amazing [luster],” he laid quietly looking at Marlow speaking nothing or moving at all (Conrad 46). The scene is opposite to how the captain on Willard’s boat acted. The captain tried to kill Willard by pushing his head through the spear seconds before he succumbed to his wounds. In Marlow’s case there was a sense of camaraderie between the two helmsmen. While in Willard’s case, the captain showed hatred and disdain towards Willard and the war effort. Coppolia altered from the book on this facet because he needed to show why soldiers were losing interest in the war. The captain was unable to stay civilized any longer in the Southeast Asia jungle as he turned savage. Willard understood this once the captain started pulling Willard’s head towards the end of the spear. On the other hand, Marlow grew closer to the dead African as he started to recognize the change in behavior people have in an unknown land. It was a small difference between the two scenes that still generated the same conclusion.
Both Marlow and Willard watched as the darkness took over someone near them. They both saw the effects of a man losing his morals. Even though the details were different, the overall explanation was the same. In a place where survival rules over morals, everyone loses their civilization.

Works Cited
Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. Ed. Paul B. Armstrong. W.W. Norton: New York, 2005.

Achebe essay

Sorry Achebe, Heart of Darkness is a Great Work of Art
In Chinua Achebe’s analysis “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness”, he makes many assertions towards the author of the Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad. Achebe is out to damage Conrad as he uses Conrad’s own writing to prove his point. Achebe creates strong analysis when he states that Africa was “the other world” in Conrad’s story (Achebe 338). Unfortunately, Achebe is flawed when he starts making conclusions about Conrad as many quotations are taken out of proportion or when he suddenly reverses his own opinion in attempt to prove his point even more. Achebe lost his focus of critiquing the story and started to focus on critiquing the author. The technique of ad hominem may provide for a persuasive argument, but it may not be the most ethical approach. Even though Achebe is correct about the prejudice against Africans in Conrad’s novella, he accuses Conrad of being bigoted, he anachronistically applies contemporary standards to a late 19th century work of fiction, and he neglects the novels literary qualities.
Achebe is completely correct in saying that the story of Heart of Darkness created a difference between two areas of the world through racism. In the story Africa was set “up as a foil to Europe” where Europe attempted to manifest its spiritual grace (Achebe 337). Through the eyes of a European, Africa was a prehistoric continent with nothing in common with the European civilization. Europeans considered themselves superior to all others and thought if these other people acted like Europeans they too could be civilized. Achebe is appalled by this conceited behavior of Europeans during the time period shown throughout Conrad’s story. Achebe also points out that almost every African in the story is “ugly” (Achebe 339). Conrad definitely uses much more description with the Africans in the story compared to the Europeans. This is also because Europeans are considered “normal” while the Africans have strange features to the eyes of a European that distinguish them. Thus, Achebe proves his point again about how the story is contrasting the two ethnic groups making the European seem superior in all aspects of physical appearance. Finally, Achebe points out that during Conrad’s story the Africans “in place of speech” spoke “a violent babble of uncouth sounds” and were usually “too busy with their frenzy” (Achebe 341). Conrad certainly wanted to express the difference in the two groups of people by allowing one to speak normally and only allow the other to use gibberish. The way Marlow points out the difference in language makes him seem like he is prejudiced against the African way of communication. Still, Marlow was no expert on Africa language and can only retell what he thought he heard from the natives. Achebe correctly points out that Conrad’s characters apply racism in their descriptions of the natives, but Achebe cannot understand that there is a difference between a character and an author.
Achebe considers Conrad and Marlow to be the same person even though that is not the case. Throughout his criticism, Achebe states that Conrad is referring to Africans in a negative way even though the story is through the eyes of Marlow (Achebe 338-343). Just because Marlow is making racist comments, Achebe goes straight to the conclusion that Conrad must believe in the same ideas. Conrad’s novella is layered purposely to avoid what Achebe believes. In the book an unknown narrator speaks of the history that Marlow experienced through his time in Africa. By using this technique, Conrad exemplifies the barrier between his characters’ ideals and his own ideals. Achebe does not understand this concept when he states, “Joseph Conrad was a thoroughgoing racist” and from this point on Achebe starts attacking Conrad personally (Achebe 343). Achebe uses the simple assertion that since Marlow is a racist and Conrad and Marlow are the same person, then Conrad must be a racist too. Sadly, simple assertions usually do not work out so well. Achebe provides little proof other than a “close [similarity] between their two careers” as to why he feels Conrad and Marlow are the same person (Achebe 342). Through Achebe’s own statements he is literally condemning the entire European continent as racist. Conrad, who was writing to a European community, wanted to show a defined difference in the two types of people. However, Achebe still feels the need to condemn Conrad’s book for not involving an African perspective. Conrad did not write Heart of Darkness with an African perspective because Conrad is a European.
Achebe attacks Conrad even when Conrad speaks of beauty within the natives. Even though the mysterious African woman is defined as “superb” and “magnificent” as she looks upon of the Europeans “without a stir and like the wilderness”, Achebe still considers her “a savage counterpart to the refined, European woman” that appears later in the story (Achebe 341). Conrad is elucidating to his audience the elegance that is hidden away in the heart of Africa. The mysterious woman is meant to be a part of the jungle as she is compared to the wilderness that surrounds her. Achebe wants everything Conrad says in his novella to be prejudiced even though that is not the case. Also, when the Africans do speak within the book Achebe says that “they constitute some of his [Conrad] best assaults” because it weighted the “necessity for consistency in the portrayal of the dumb brutes against the sensational advantages of securing their conviction” due to the words spoken out of their mouths (Achebe 341). Yet, Achebe does not specify what the natives should sound like. Does Achebe want the natives to sound like Europeans? Europeans and Africans sound nothing alike, so Achebe is more or less just complaining about the fact that Conrad differentiates between the two races. Conrad’s novella would have been worse off if the vernacular of the two races were the same. Achebe is scornful of Conrad and his piece of literary merit because Achebe thinks this book pertains to life in the late 20th century even though the book was written almost a hundred years earlier.
Achebe provides contrasting conclusions to his claim of Conrad’s racism that cannot apply to a story written a hundred years earlier. Achebe is irritated that no other scholars thought of the “ultimate question of equality between white people and black people” during a time where imperialism existed (Achebe 342-343). Imperialism is the policy of extending the rule or influence of a country over other countries, so basically there was no thought of equality. Europeans thought they were better than Africans and that alone does not make a person a racist. During this time period equality was not stressed because it was a time of exploration where the country with the most control was considered the greatest. Also, Achebe even points out that this story was written in the late 1800’s when his “own father was still a babe in arms” (Achebe 346). Conrad, who sailed down to the Congo before writing his book, has a more vivid description of imperialism in this time period than Achebe. Conrad has firsthand knowledge of the situation during the imperialistic times while Achebe only has secondhand knowledge told through stories and read from books. Achebe attempts to disprove these challenges but fails in doing so.
Achebe who never lived in this time period states that even though he never lived in the 1800’s he will not “accept any traveler’s tales solely on the grounds that I have not made the journey myself” (Achebe 346). Up until this point in Achebe’s article, he has listened to the traveler’s tales spoken by Marlow and has taken great offense to them. Yet, when his own opinion is challenged, Achebe completely reverses his stance stating that a traveler’s tales may not be true. Hence, the reason Joseph Conrad wrote Heart of Darkness as a work of fiction. Conrad layered his story with multiple narrators to also express the uncertainty in all matters. Achebe acts like many of Conrad’s characters who constantly contradict themselves in order to move up in the world. Achebe will never understand why Conrad wrote his story the way it was written because they lived in different time periods. That, along with Achebe’s wavering opinions, harms his overall argument.
Achebe expresses no open-mindedness towards the excellent story written by Conrad. Achebe criticizes Conrad’s oxymoronic phrases as a “mere stylistic flaw” and says that they only “[induce] hypnotic stupor in his readers” (Achebe 338). What Achebe considers a flaw, many other people consider a perfect writing technique. Conrad wants the reader to be constantly asking questions when he adds uncertainty throughout his novella. Achebe is too busy obsessing over the racism displayed by the characters to even notice the importance of the uncertainty. Also, Achebe considers Conrad’s multiple narrators as a ploy to “draw a cordon sanitaire” between himself and his character and also says that it was a “[total] waste because he neglects to hint…at an alternative frame of reference” (Achebe 342). Yet, again Conrad is illustrating that sense of uncertainty the story involves. Conrad wants readers to ask questions such as if the story Marlow retold was actually true. Conrad’s main purpose was for the reader to ask questions that only the reader could answer for his or her self. However, Achebe shows no tolerance to this type of story-telling, writing it off as inept. Finally, Achebe articulates that Conrad’s novella cannot be called a great work of art because of “his obvious racism” as it “depersonalizes a portion of the human race” (Achebe 344). Achebe is essentially stating that all books that explore the idea of racism towards a group of people with some historical prevalence should be censored. Should all books that speak of the racism during the American civil rights movement be censored too? Achebe cannot seem to tolerate the book that references the racism in Africa because Achebe feels like the man who wrote the story was a racist. If Achebe reads Conrad’s story with an open mind he may uncover the absolutely remarkable literary qualities the novel possesses.
Chinua Achebe is by no means a fan of Joseph Conrad or his work. Achebe continually attacks Conrad’s literary techniques and Conrad himself, even though Achebe contradicts himself in the process. Conrad wanted only to display a significant difference between two races that are significantly different. Conrad’s novella displayed multiple accounts of racism, yet Achebe attacks Conrad’s morals and beliefs. Conversely, Achebe should check his own morals as he acts similar to the manager in Conrad’s story as he contradicts himself in order to provide an argument to prove Conrad was a racist. Achebe acts like a savage when he attacks Conrad. Achebe feels entitled to his opinion because he knows a “traveler” such as Conrad cannot be telling the truth. Conrad’s novella was a masterpiece and sadly Conrad will never be able to defend himself, leaving the rest of the world in doubt to what the actual truth is.



 
Work Cited
Achebe, Chinua. “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness.” Armstrong 336-349.
Armstrong, Paul B., ed. Heart of Darkness. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.

Blog #3

Current Event: U.S. Hikers Held Captive in Iran
The three Americans were arrested in July 2009 while hiking in the mountains near Iran’s border (Yong). The hikers crossed into Turkey from northern Iraq but apparently crossed the border into Iran (“Iran to Release”). The hikers maintained their innocence while many Americans felt the U.S. government should get involved. Early in the month of September the topic started to heat up again as Iran was willing to let one of the Americans leave on bail.


On September 9th, Iran said that they would plan to return Sarah Shourd back to the United States. Iran chose to return Ms. Shourd because she had “medical problems, including precancerous cervical cells and a breast lump” (“Iran to Release”). Unfortunately, just a day later Iran postponed the release of the American woman because “the judiciary process [had] not been completed in her case” (“Iran Halts”). The fate of the other two hikers, Shane M. Bauer and Joshua F. Fattal, had yet to be expressed by the Iranian government. It is thought that Iranian officials could attempt to trade these two young men for Iranians being held in the U.S. Now the American public wants to know whether the U.S. government is willing to trade possible Iranian terrorists for a couple of American hikers. Finally on September 14th, Ms. Shourd was released “from prison in Tehran” and left Iran where she arrived in Oman later that day. A report of Press TV’s website site states that she was released on $500,000 bail fourteen months after being arrest for espionage (Mackey). Ms. Shourd returned to the United States shortly afterwards. Afterwards, P.J. Crowley, a State Department spokesman stated that “the United States did not pay anything for her [Sarah Shourd] release” (Mackey).


After another week, Ms. Shroud was still the only American released. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran made a statement that Ms. Shourd’s release was “a huge humanitarian gesture” (MacFarquhar). Thus, the president of Iran was guaranteeing that no more Americans would be let free. Many people such as Christiane Amanpour question whether Iran was holding the two remaining hikers like hostages to exchange for other Iranians (MacFarquhar). Amanpour asks a strong question of whether the Iranians are using innocent people as barging tools. However, Mr. Ahmadinejad replies “how would you know these Iranians are criminals? Are you a judge?” (MacFarquhar). The President provides the counterargument for the issue. Only a judge can decide the fate of a person and not an angry mass of people. On September 26th, Mr. Ahmadinejad suggested that the two men might be released after a trial. He hopes that the hikers “had no ill intention in crossing the border, so that their release can also be secured” (Yong). No new news has formed from this elongated event since then.


This is issue a caused an extreme tension between to the two nations. While the U.S. and rest of world waits to see whether or not the two hikers will return to their native country, many people wonder whether Iran is morally just to hold noncitizens for years at a time without a trial. Yet, many people also understand that the U.S. is just as morally wrong when we hold many criminals for long periods of time as well.
 
Works Cited
Mackey, By Robert. "Released U.S. Hiker Leaves Iran" NYTimes.com. New York Times, 14 Sept. 2010. Web. 06 Oct. 2010.
MacFarquhar, Neil. "American Asks Iran to Free Others." NYTimes.com. New York Times, 19 Sept. 2010. Web. 06 Oct. 2010.
Worth, Robert F. "Iran Halts Release of American Held for a Year." NYTimes.com. New York Times, 10 Sept. 2010. Web. 6 Oct. 2010.
---. "Iran to Release Detained U.S. Hiker." NYTimes.com. New York Times, 9 Sept. 2010. Web. 06 Oct. 2010.
Yong, William. "Omanis Arrive in Iran to Aid 2 U.S. Hikers, Paper Reports." NYTimes.com. New York Times, 26 Sept. 2010. Web. 06 Oct. 2010.

Blog #2

Reviewing the Heart of Darkness

Both Chinua Achebe’s “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness” and J. Hillis Miller’s “Should We Read ‘Heart of Darkness’?” identify Joseph Conrad’s writing characteristics in Heart of Darkness. Each article contrasts immensely from the other as each author had his own views on Conrad and his writing style. Miller considers Conrad a great writer of his time period while Achebe regards Conrad as a racist who should not be read by students across the world.
Achebe writes a criticism to the Conrad’s novella that is driven and well thought out. Achebe states that Conrad’s book displays “the desire … in Western psychology to set up Africa up as a foil to Europe” (Achebe 337). The author believes that Conrad wrote to promote Europe as this great society compared to the poor and desolate African jungle. Achebe feels that Conrad knows nothing about Africa and should have never written a story about something that he could not relate to. This leads to Achebe main point in his article where he states, “Joseph Conrad” was a thoroughgoing racist” (Achebe 343). From this point of in the criticism, Achebe stops attacking the story Conrad wrote and starts attacking Conrad. This technique of ad homien makes Achebe look as though he is insulted by Conrad’s work of literary merit. Sadly, Achebe shows great weakness by attacking Conrad personally. It is unprofessional to consider someone a racist when Achebe never lived during the same time as Conrad. Achebe forgets that Heart of Darkness is a work of fiction. Achebe believes in “a close [similarity]” between Marlow and Conrad even though Marlow is a creation that Achebe did not create (Achebe 342). Achebe should not have the audacity to consider Conrad a racist because of a fictional tale Conrad wrote.
On the other hand, Miller presents great accolades to Conrad for his piece of literature. Miller criticizes Achebe stating that “it is impossible to decide authoritatively whether or not we should read ‘Heart of Darkness’” (Miller 463). Miller believes that it is up to the reader to decide if they want to read Conrad’s novella, not some English professor that lived fifty years after Conrad died. Through the article, Miller states everything Achebe says and then provides examples as to why Achebe’s wrong. Miller main point comes at the end of his article where he states, “Heart of Darkness should be read” and “ought to be read” (Miller 474). The author feels that Conrad’s story is too mesmerizing to be ignored. Miller’s great strength is that correctly understands the mystery behind Conrad. When speaking about the book Miller states that “the clear answer is that it is not” (Miller 472). Miller wants to answer the questions that Conrad placed in his novella and Miller provides the readers some questions to ask as he refers to the confusion behind the African jungle. Miller provides a great article that neither insults nor degrades Joseph Conrad.
Both authors have opposing viewpoints for which they are completely entitled too. Miller takes the professional path as he commends Conrad for writing his fictional tale. Achebe attacks Conrad’s morals because of the fictional story. Achebe attacks Conrad without knowing him personally, similarly too the how the Europeans attacked the natives that Conrad’s Heart of Darkness was written about.

Works Cited
Achebe, Chinua. “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness.” Armstrong 336-349.
Armstrong, Paul B., ed. Heart of Darkness. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.
Miller, J. Hillis. “Should We Read ‘Heart of Darkness’?.” Armstrong 463-474.

Heart of Darkness Essay

The Ironic “Truth”: European Savages
In the novella The Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad tosses around the idea of who a savage really is. Throughout the book, the Europeans refer to the Africans as savages but, Conrad wants the reader to belief that what is said to true may not always be the case. Conrad continually contradicts himself with oxymoronic phrases such as “fascinating abomination” (6) and “lugubrious drollery” (14) to describe the metamorphosis that overwhelms people within the heart of Africa. Europeans characters like Europeans, Marlow, the manager and Kurtz all face serious difficulties when faced with an ethical dilemma. During the story these characters must decide whether to choose the ethically wise path or the path that could save their life. Conrad writes a story where each and every person that enters the heart of darkness becomes a savage, when a moral challenge presents itself.
The white Europeans were in a strange and bizarre world that had no internal checks or rules that people were forced to abide by. This was first pointed out by Conrad when Marlow was approaching the mouth of the Congo River, where a European ship would fire off cannonballs every so often, reach the land and do nothing (6). The Europeans did whatever they wanted and were comically trying to fight an entire continent with a single ship. The natives belonged on this piece of land and the Europeans who tried to control the land would end up becoming just as savage and barbaric as the Africans when taking their resources and using them as workhorses. These men of a sophisticated society were “cruel without courage” with no serious intentions of providing a better life for African communities; the only thing that these men desired was to “tear treasure out of the bowels of the land” (30). Throughout history Europeans would enter a new land stating good intentions but, the Europeans would only destroy the land, kill the natives and takes the riches for themselves. The Europeans from the story were no missionaries, their only purpose was to make money and leave without serious illness or death. No person or rule told them otherwise because in Africa there was no jail, only survival and without these checks men became savage monsters. A prime example is Marlow’s first European counterpart who despite being quite “too fleshy” was trekking through the African jungle for only one reason, to “make money” (20). Men will do anything for money; the Europeans at this time were obsessed by greed and it is humorous just how oblivious people, like Marlow’s aunt, were to the true reason behind imperialism. A true savage will kill, destroy or imprison anything that may harm their goal in life. When the pilgrims on Marlow’s boat started shooting the unarmed natives, it was just the final and most apparent justification Conrad made to prove who the savages truly were. The Europeans gave themselves a sense of entitlement to be the rulers of the African people because it was what history told them to do. It was not “for the greater good” for the Europeans to use force against this cannibalistic society and only Marlow could figure that out during his time in the darkness. In Africa, the way of the natives was a civilized way of life unlike the cruel and barbaric way Europeans attempted to rule a land that they had no rights too.
Contrary to the common belief about the book, Marlow became a savage in Africa. Marlow thought of himself as a man who could never lie but, just like many other characters Conrad wrote about, he contradicted his morals. It all started early in the story when he even said, “I was getting savage” (21). This statement by Marlow means that Marlow started to feel the moral dilemmas disappear as he felt control the Europeans had over the natives. As he entered further and further into the depths of Africa, his ability to live a European lifestyle disappeared and he was soon acting in survival mode. Throughout his entire time in Africa Marlow is undergoing a dramatic change. As he watches the other Europeans around him kill and destroy the lives of the natives, he notices the savage behavior these people that he use to consider similar to himself. Yet, Marlow still looked out only for himself as he was an observer of the events that took place in front of him. He felt no sympathy for the “heads on the stakes” and it did not even surprise him that much (57). Marlow wavered between a savage and an observer but in the end he chose to ignore his principles.
While Marlow saw firsthand how the Europeans ignored their moral beliefs, he also started to ignore his own moral beliefs. Marlow never cared about enlightening people back in Europe about the wrongdoings that were going on in the heart of Africa. He “resented the sight of people” as he considered their beliefs fallacy and wanted to get away from the world (70). He was in many ways similar to Kurtz as both felt that nobody would understand or even listen to what Europeans are really attempting with imperialism. And finally Marlow succumbed to horrible deeds that even his morals would never approve of, he lied. He told the woman who loved Kurtz that “the last word he pronounced was -- your name” even though it was not true and when “the heavens [did] not fall for such a trifle” he understood that people should not always know the actual facts of a situation (77). It is better for people to hide what may harm society then it is to expose it. Sometimes you must go against principles and become a lying, cruel human just to make the world a better place. Marlow’s epiphany gives proof to the fact that even Marlow became a savage after entering the heart of Africa.
The manager plays a savage who only looks out for the company’s best interest as he wants to be remembered as a great company manager. First described with “cold eyes” the manager always had “something stealthy” about his lips, even the likes of Marlow could only feel awkwardness towards him (21). Through the description, the manager is shown in a different light. This uneasiness that Marlow felt was from the fact the Marlow had never spoken to a man with no morals before. The manager had no conscious because he felt no attachment towards others and would always be willing to belittle someone else in order to become a greater force in the world. Then, the manager becomes increasingly contradicting when speaking about how “Mr. Kurtz has done more harm than good to the company” (61) yet, only says that Kurtz’s methods were “unsound” (62) a little later in the story. The only reason for these contrasting statements is to not allow others to know how the manager truly feels about Kurtz killing the inhabitants. If the manager only truly cares about the ivory then he should not feel any pain from seeing the destruction that Kurtz left behind in the center station. Yet, the administration back in Europe would disprove of the methods used by Kurtz and since the manager wants only a better place in the world for himself, he must lie to keep moving up in the world. Conrad wants the reader to understand that Kurtz and the manger are quite similar in that each are willing to go to greats length with little regard of what they have destroyed. This behavior is further exemplified by the “[dark] menacing” behavior of the manager when no information about Kurtz was given to him by Marlow (71). The manager was willing to make Marlow’s life a living hell if he would not give up some type of information about Kurtz. The manager did not care about anything Kurtz had provided in the past to profit the company; he only wanted the accolades of proving what happened to Kurtz. The irony of the book is that the manager was as every bit as cruel as the man he felt threatened by.
Kurtz, the beloved member of the company, is the most savage of all the Europeans but, understands his issues and comes to terms with his brutal behavior. The reason Kurtz is the least civilized is because his district is furthest into the heart of Africa. Compared to the Accountant who still wears his European attire, Kurtz is a completely different man who has no morals and feels like he is entitled to everything. The farther a person traveled into the jungle, the less they see a civilized land and the more savage they became. The same rules apply for Marlow, who also traveled deeper and deeper into Africa. Kurtz was described as “hollow at the core” stating that within his heart there was nothing, emptiness, only a heart of darkness (58). From that point on the reader can understand the transformation a person undergoes during their experiences in an unknown land. Kurtz has distanced himself from civilization completely as he knows there is no point for him to come back. Had Kurtz survived is illness and returned to the European society he would have felt isolated and irritated at the world around him, just like Marlow. The survival mentality took over in Kurtz’s mind as he displayed “no self control” with an always burning desire for more (57). His job was to collect the ivory at any cost no matter the destruction involved. This is comparable to the manager, both of which had to get the ivory, yet the difference is that Kurtz spoke the truth while the manger spoke only to promote his place in the world. Everyone involved thought and acted like a man with no morals. Unlike the others, Kurtz understood his savage behavior when he said, “the horror, the horror” because he accepted the horrific crimes he partook in to get the ivory (69). This signifies his realization that morals will become pointless in a situation of life or death. Kurtz was conquered by greed and he only realized this seconds before his death.
Conrad makes his point that anyone can and will be a savage, very clear by the end of the novella. Kurtz and the manager lose their morals after they are obsessed with greed. Marlow lose his morals to protect an uneducated world about the “truth” of the acts in foreign countries. There reasons may be different but, after venturing through an unknown land the savage nature of people start to appear. Conrad asks the reader if an uneducated population should be educated of the acts of the savage. What if Marlow had told the world what truly had happened in the heart of Africa, would there be change or would there be chaos? Marlow never told the world about what he saw because a society with knowledge is a society with fear.
 
Works Cited
Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. Ed. Paul B. Armstrong. W.W. Norton: New York, 2005.