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.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Blog #1
Heart of Darkness: Humans to Savages
Within the book Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad uses only two types of human characters, the cannibalistic Africans and the domesticated Europeans. While the adjectives in front of each race may provide insight into how they act and behave through the eyes of a European, their true characteristics are present to the reader as the Europeans travel through the dense African jungle. Although the Africans contrast significantly from their European counterparts in physical features, Conrad writes a story where Europeans become the savages and cowards in an unknown land where normal law does not apply.
The physical deformities given to the Africans fuel the differences between these two races. The cannibal’s faces were depicted as “grotesque masks” with only “black rags” around their body “waggling to and fro like tails” (Conrad 14-15). Contrasted to the normal white male of “ordinary build” with “eyes of the usual blue” these Africans are depicted as physically inferior (Conrad 21). Conrad deliberately adds tails to the savage humans to make them resemble animals such as monkeys. Thus, ultimately placing the white man on pedestal and forcing the Africans to be the workhorses or slaves of the white man. The story is written to display Europeans as normal human beings with no regard to the fact that the Africans are just as human as a white man. The statement where Conrad considers blue eyes to be usual, suggests that Europeans at this time were oblivious to the outside world. This accusation is reinforced when Marlow considered other Europeans “intruders whose knowledge of life was to me an irritating pretence” (Conrad 70-71). The dehumanization of the African cannibals just reinforces the statement that Europeans considered their physical features superior to all others.
Throughout the story it becomes increasingly obvious that the Europeans are weak compared to the cannibals. As the steamboat was trapped in fog the whites were “greatly discomposed” while the cannibals were “alert” and “essentially quiet” (Conrad 40). Even though the blacks were hundred miles away from their home they possessed great poise in stressful situations while the Europeans were erratic and trigger-happy. The Africans did not fear like a normal white man, the accepted their fate and were prepared to fight no matter the circumstances. The true European’s characteristics appeared late in the story when “the imbecile crowd” of pilgrims “started their little fun” of shooting all the blacks that were turning and running away (Conrad 67). While the Africans only attacked for trespassing, the whites killed for mere enjoyment. The cannibals fought to protect their land, something that should not be considered barbaric. Conrad wanted his audience to understand just because a culture’s lifestyle is different it should not be considered savage. The realization that a civilized European can be just as savage as a cannibalistic African is what Marlow discovers after his travels through the heart of Africa. The differences between cannibals and Europeans is vast yet, barbaric behavior is not created by the environment one lives but how that one acts in the environment he resides in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)