"It was unearthly, and the men were—No, they were not inhuman. Well, you know, that was the worst of it—the suspicion of their not being inhuman. It would come slowly to one. They howled and leaped, and spun, and made horrid faces; but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity—like yours—the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar. Ugly. Yes, it was ugly enough; but if you were man enough you would admit to yourself that there was in you just the faintest trace of a response to the terrible frankness of that noise, a dim suspicion of there being a meaning in it which you—you so remote from the night of first ages—could comprehend." (Conrad 105).
Joseph Conrad wrote a book which categorizes Africa as a "otherworldly" place and even explicitly refers to the native Africans as "savages" and characterizes them as mostly inhuman and animal. Marlow does not feel connected to his fellow Europeans in the Congo, but he cannot see the Africans as his equals. This passage characterizes Marlow's attitude of disdain and separateness towards the natives.
As Marlow travels up the river, he catches brief glimpses of some native villages. He recognizes that the men have human qualities and sees that "they were not inhuman". The idea that they might not be inhuman is horrible to Marlow. First of all, he most likely recognizes the way they have been abused and mistreated, which doesn't seem so bad to him if they're not human, but if they were human, it would be horrific and cruel. Not only that, but if the natives are human like him, Marlow would have to acknowledge that he has some sort of kinship with them. While talking about the possibility of their humanity, he simultaneously dehumanizes them by describing how they "howled and leaped" painting a picture of them as animals. Then, he describes the idea of his "remote kinship" to them as "ugly". The language Conrad uses in this section clearly shows that the natives are categorized as "others" and cannot be compared to Marlow and the other Europeans.
The passage also discusses Marlow's idea that if you were to feel any sort of real connection to the people he has clearly described as animal-like savages, that would mean that you would revert back to being wild. Marlow says that you would revert back to the "night of first ages". This casts the Africans as primitive versions of Marlow and the Europeans who can never be equal to them. In his mind, the Europeans can revert back to this primitive state, but he never mentions any possibility of an African becoming "civilized". This passage is inherently racist because of the way if claims that the Africans will never be equal to the Europeans.
The language Conrad uses in Heart of Darkness dehumanizes the native Africans and claims that they are incapable of achieving equality with the Europeans.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Sunday, March 26, 2017
The Justifications of an Old Story
Many old works of fiction that have been taught for years are eventually questioned for their importance in curriculums and value as books in general; Heart of Darkness is a perfect example of this. Joseph Conrad's discussion of African and African people is highly controversial because some believe it is racist while others find it to be a simple discussion of these topics without issue. China Achebe, however, finds Conrad to be extremely racist in this literary work and defends his argument well.
Achebe starts off by stating that Conrad seems to "project the image of Africa as 'the other world'," or the "antithesis of Europe" (Achebe 1) which quickly illustrates for the reader how Conrad writes about Africa. Achebe makes a point to discuss Conrad's writing on the setting descriptions and how there is a great underlying focus on how Africa is of lower quality and importance because it has drifted away from European influence. He also alludes to Conrad's tendency to describe Africa in a way that makes it only "setting and backdrop" and this consequently "eliminates the African as human factor" (Achebe 5). Connecting back to the European influence, Achebe also states that Conrad's writing ends up "reducing Africa to the role of props for the real-up of one pretty European mind" (Achebe 5) rather than writing about Africa in a realistic and culturally acceptable manner. Achebe places a clear importance on the setting descriptions in Heart of Darkness and makes it very clear to his readers that Conrad does a poor job creating a realistic image of Africa for his readers and is racist throughout his writing.
The treatment and characterization of African people in Heart of Darkness is another great issue for Achebe. He feels that everything about how Conrad describes the African people is very absurd and inaccurate. He states that rather than speaking normally as humans do, Conrad replaces their speech with "violent babble of uncouth sounds" (Achebe 4), making the people sounds more like animals than human beings. These animal descriptions do not just stop at speech, either. Conrad uses negative adjectives with animal-like connotations to describe the people of African with nearly every chance he gets. Achebe states that "Conrad's picture of the people of the Congo seems grossly inadequate" (Achebe 4), and I would have to agree.
Achebe makes it very clear that he finds Conrad to have been a "thoroughgoing racist" (Achebe 5), however, he acknowledges that Conrad has created a fine piece of literature. The reality is, as Achebe points out, that Heart of Darkness is a piece of literature that achieved its purpose; it has made people think for many years. However, the quality of the work from a social perspective is relatively poor. It is a racist piece of literature that is supposed to be about Africa and its inhabitants but in reality, focuses more on the lack of European influence in African and how this negatively impacts the continent as a whole.
Achebe starts off by stating that Conrad seems to "project the image of Africa as 'the other world'," or the "antithesis of Europe" (Achebe 1) which quickly illustrates for the reader how Conrad writes about Africa. Achebe makes a point to discuss Conrad's writing on the setting descriptions and how there is a great underlying focus on how Africa is of lower quality and importance because it has drifted away from European influence. He also alludes to Conrad's tendency to describe Africa in a way that makes it only "setting and backdrop" and this consequently "eliminates the African as human factor" (Achebe 5). Connecting back to the European influence, Achebe also states that Conrad's writing ends up "reducing Africa to the role of props for the real-up of one pretty European mind" (Achebe 5) rather than writing about Africa in a realistic and culturally acceptable manner. Achebe places a clear importance on the setting descriptions in Heart of Darkness and makes it very clear to his readers that Conrad does a poor job creating a realistic image of Africa for his readers and is racist throughout his writing.
The treatment and characterization of African people in Heart of Darkness is another great issue for Achebe. He feels that everything about how Conrad describes the African people is very absurd and inaccurate. He states that rather than speaking normally as humans do, Conrad replaces their speech with "violent babble of uncouth sounds" (Achebe 4), making the people sounds more like animals than human beings. These animal descriptions do not just stop at speech, either. Conrad uses negative adjectives with animal-like connotations to describe the people of African with nearly every chance he gets. Achebe states that "Conrad's picture of the people of the Congo seems grossly inadequate" (Achebe 4), and I would have to agree.
Achebe makes it very clear that he finds Conrad to have been a "thoroughgoing racist" (Achebe 5), however, he acknowledges that Conrad has created a fine piece of literature. The reality is, as Achebe points out, that Heart of Darkness is a piece of literature that achieved its purpose; it has made people think for many years. However, the quality of the work from a social perspective is relatively poor. It is a racist piece of literature that is supposed to be about Africa and its inhabitants but in reality, focuses more on the lack of European influence in African and how this negatively impacts the continent as a whole.
Friday, March 24, 2017
Heart Of Darkness: Is Achebe right about you?
Heart of Darkness is a story of white imperialists traveling the Congo in Africa. It showcases Marlow, a progressive thinker for his time, struggling with the morality of witnessing African treatment. In a classroom talking about the story, one would think this novella gives clear insight into what Europeans were seeing in Africa and a better understanding of the situation happening in Africa from a conflicted narrator. However, according to Achebe, Heart of Darkness does no such thing. The novella might actually be a bit offensive. He writes about all of the words in the book that are offensive and wrong. So then, the question remains, is Achebe right in insinuating that this story is indeed racist?
Achebe makes many accusations in his essay. He states that Conrad's "obvious racism" needed to be addressed and that he has a "residue of antipathy to black people" (1790). The whole essay is based on the racism of the author in the novella. I think that if one analyzed the story word for word such as Achebe has, then that person would come to the conclusion that the story and author are racist. He analyzes passage by passage and picks up on certain words. But, I believe that one needs to look at the book as a whole. As a whole, Conrad let's the reader into the mind of someone who is viewing the horrible things around him. The reader is in the mind of a person who was raised to believe that Africans were not human and that the enslavement was normal. The reader is then introduced to this narrator struggling with the morality of his observations. As a whole, the novella serves a purpose to show the slow change of a white imperialist coming to terms with that blacks are not inhuman like he might have originally thought. Furthermore, one could analyze Achebe's essay the same way he analyzed Conrad and come to the conclusion that Achebe is racist as well. Achebe states without quotations, meaning they are his own words, that "Conrad had problem with ni**ers" (1790). Now from that sentence alone, it seems pretty inconsiderate to throw that word around, even racist. But as a whole essay, the reader knows that Achebe's writing is mostly sarcastic, cynical, and mocking of Conrad. Therefore, that makes it clear that Achebe is in fact not being racist.
Heart of Darkness was published in 1899, which means it was written years before that. To expect the novella to not reflect the time is unrealistic. The story serves a purpose to show students how people thought back then. If anything, Heart of Darkness solidifies to our generation how wrong everything imperialists did. It gives insight that the feelings of wrongness in correspondence with blacks happened long before the Civil War. Achebe's thoughts are justified, however, one needs to remember when the story was written and understand the novella's purpose.
Achebe makes many accusations in his essay. He states that Conrad's "obvious racism" needed to be addressed and that he has a "residue of antipathy to black people" (1790). The whole essay is based on the racism of the author in the novella. I think that if one analyzed the story word for word such as Achebe has, then that person would come to the conclusion that the story and author are racist. He analyzes passage by passage and picks up on certain words. But, I believe that one needs to look at the book as a whole. As a whole, Conrad let's the reader into the mind of someone who is viewing the horrible things around him. The reader is in the mind of a person who was raised to believe that Africans were not human and that the enslavement was normal. The reader is then introduced to this narrator struggling with the morality of his observations. As a whole, the novella serves a purpose to show the slow change of a white imperialist coming to terms with that blacks are not inhuman like he might have originally thought. Furthermore, one could analyze Achebe's essay the same way he analyzed Conrad and come to the conclusion that Achebe is racist as well. Achebe states without quotations, meaning they are his own words, that "Conrad had problem with ni**ers" (1790). Now from that sentence alone, it seems pretty inconsiderate to throw that word around, even racist. But as a whole essay, the reader knows that Achebe's writing is mostly sarcastic, cynical, and mocking of Conrad. Therefore, that makes it clear that Achebe is in fact not being racist.
Heart of Darkness was published in 1899, which means it was written years before that. To expect the novella to not reflect the time is unrealistic. The story serves a purpose to show students how people thought back then. If anything, Heart of Darkness solidifies to our generation how wrong everything imperialists did. It gives insight that the feelings of wrongness in correspondence with blacks happened long before the Civil War. Achebe's thoughts are justified, however, one needs to remember when the story was written and understand the novella's purpose.
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Classic Literature in a Modern Era
I must admit that after struggling through Heart of Darkness, it was satisfying to see someone completely tear it apart. Achebe’s essay exposes even the slightest moments when Conrad showed racial bias and discrimination. However, he isn’t just pointing out the novella’s downfalls, but the historical context for Conrad’s thinking, and how parts of it cannot be dismissed by the usual “but that was back then.” I think Achebe is correct in pointing out how the racist elements in Heart of Darkness can not be looked over and he proves the importance of providing correct information as the general public’s common knowledge.
Achebe finds multiple sections throughout the story where Conrad has portrayed Africans as less than people. Even the man he respects he likens to a dog in pants instead of acknowledging his humanity. By pointing this out, Achebe brings up an important discussion of if this blatant racism is excusable in classic literature. Most of the time, people tend to allow racism in works that were written in the past. Heart of Darkness is even considered to be a more progressive novella for its time because Marlow begins to accept that their are similarities between the Africans and the Europeans. However, this acceptance is not expressed in Conrad’s writing style, as expressed by Achebe.
Part of people allowing racism in literature is a lack of understanding how incorrect some of it can be. Many people are unaware of the diversity and development present in Africa, and are likely to group it into a wilderness in the way Conrad has. Even at the time Conrad wrote Heart of Darkness, Achebe points out that Europeans new of the cultures present in Africa and the multiple technological and artistic developments they had already made. Much of Africa had developed kingdoms and villages throughout the continent. However, Conrad continues to push this image of wildness and lack of civilization. Achebe also notes in the beginning of his essay how students taught today are still unaware of the full history of Africa and have been taught only from the side of imperialism.
Achebe makes many important statements about both the state of Conrad’s novella and how people can be ignorant of flaws within it. Heart of Darkness is still a good work in its analysis and criticism of imperialism, but it also holds flaws that continue to lead people to have false ideas on the history of an entire continent! The work itself expresses racism throughout. Because of this discriminatory image, people believe in its fictional description of life in Africa. I think Heart of Darkness should be read with some abrasion towards the racist aspects and is to be thought of critically, but still spread if not to gain a deeper insight on how those who study imperialism sometimes still forget the perspective of those who were colonized.
Writing Not Reflecting Content
There are clear problems in the way Conrad portrays the humanity in all of his characters in Heart of Darkness, refusing to call all but two characters by their names. All persons, excepting Marlow and Kurtz, are referred to as a single descriptor, which limits any possibility for a two-dimensional portrayal. This leads to a limited view of the whole people, causing the readers to trust the judgement of the narrator, written by the author, to tell us how they look, act, speak, or are as a person. More often than not Conrad gives us descriptors of one aspect of the person and fails to inform us readers of any additional aspects of their self and personality. The Russian is simply a Russian to Conrad, and one that personifies so many Russian stereotypes, so readers must fill in the image of the person on their own, often leading to depending on these negative qualities to fully form a mental scene of the events. These generalizations of characters is not dispelled by Conrad- rather, it seems to be encouraged to simply use a label to skip delving into who they may be as a person. Conrad "was a thoroughgoing racist" (Achebe 5) in the words of Chinua Achebe, and his mindset applied to almost all walks of life different from his own. However, the "savages" of the African continent are portrayed the worst, in that they are not written as human at all. Conrad's biggest problem was with black people, and it shows a lot in Heart of Darkness. However, despite Conrad's many, many moral flaws, he is the epitome of an eloquent writer.
Achebe's point of view, that of a person deeply involved with African literature, is not to be ignored. Coming from a person so invested in the literary works of the continent, teaching at a large American university, one may be inclined to believe what he has to say. For Achebe to say Heart of Darkness is "a story in which the very humanity of black people is called in question" (Achebe 6) is to condemn its use in an educational setting. I for one disagree over whether it should or should not be taught, as it is very well written. However, Achebe makes a strong argument in that the content of the book is far behind the equalized thinking of present day, where most people strive to see everyone's humanity. The time period in which this book was written should definitely be considered and giving its due merit. Although Achebe dismisses this point as too topical, relating a literary work to what was going on in the world is always a good measure for delving into the author's morals and conventions.
The writing style and caliber of Heart of Darkness is so much higher than that of its moral views. I believe all students, probably high school seniors or those in college, should read this book. The dense, descriptive text remains unparalleled by books with a more modern view of humanity. The grammar and mechanics used exemplifies what all writers, of fact and fiction, should emulate. Granted, the story and views presented in this book should be taken with a grain of salt- but, by the time a person is ready to tackle this book, they should already have a strong sense of right and wrong, ability to contextualize for the time period, a mostly-formed opinion of politics, and overall sense of societal norms. Heart of Darkness should be read in classes, but only to analyze the writing style, usage, and descriptive language. This book should never, ever be read as a message for imperialism or encouraging racism, as these are not the positive aspects of the book; to do so would be to destroy a century's worth of work equalizing races and finding the humanity in everyone. Instead, the focus should remain on the brilliance of Conrad's writing ability.
Achebe's point of view, that of a person deeply involved with African literature, is not to be ignored. Coming from a person so invested in the literary works of the continent, teaching at a large American university, one may be inclined to believe what he has to say. For Achebe to say Heart of Darkness is "a story in which the very humanity of black people is called in question" (Achebe 6) is to condemn its use in an educational setting. I for one disagree over whether it should or should not be taught, as it is very well written. However, Achebe makes a strong argument in that the content of the book is far behind the equalized thinking of present day, where most people strive to see everyone's humanity. The time period in which this book was written should definitely be considered and giving its due merit. Although Achebe dismisses this point as too topical, relating a literary work to what was going on in the world is always a good measure for delving into the author's morals and conventions.
The writing style and caliber of Heart of Darkness is so much higher than that of its moral views. I believe all students, probably high school seniors or those in college, should read this book. The dense, descriptive text remains unparalleled by books with a more modern view of humanity. The grammar and mechanics used exemplifies what all writers, of fact and fiction, should emulate. Granted, the story and views presented in this book should be taken with a grain of salt- but, by the time a person is ready to tackle this book, they should already have a strong sense of right and wrong, ability to contextualize for the time period, a mostly-formed opinion of politics, and overall sense of societal norms. Heart of Darkness should be read in classes, but only to analyze the writing style, usage, and descriptive language. This book should never, ever be read as a message for imperialism or encouraging racism, as these are not the positive aspects of the book; to do so would be to destroy a century's worth of work equalizing races and finding the humanity in everyone. Instead, the focus should remain on the brilliance of Conrad's writing ability.
Time to Move Along
Let me just start by saying YES Achebe. After enduring not only the density of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness but also the disgusting and disturbing content, Achebe's writing was a breath of fresh air. I could not agree more with the points he outlines in his piece. Achebe states that Heart of Darkness is "an offensive and deplorable book" and he is right. Although, as Achebe credited, Heart of Darkness contains moments of beautiful writing, overall it ignores the presence of racism and demonizes the entire continent of African and should, therefore, not be placed on a literary pedestal any longer.
One of Achebe's main points in his argument against the merit in teaching Heart of Darkness is that Conrad demonizes the physical country of Africa and its inhabitants. Conrad uses various aspects of African culture as foils for the evidently superior Western (white) culture. From pinning the UK's Thames river against the Congo's Congo river to placing the African woman, "a savage" to the "refined European woman", Conrad is degrading all aspects of African culture and labeling them as inferior to that of Westerners. As Achebe noted, Conrad characterizes the physical African continent as being horrible and dangerous. The sacred white man is noble and brave to enter the forbidden land of the black savages. This brings me to another one of Achebe's points and one of my reasons why the book should not be taught.
Heart of Darkness dehumanizes the African people. Although it is clear the Conrad, voiced through Marlow, knows that the Africans are people just like the white men, they refuse to admit that they are the same. As Achebe notes, the Africans are junior brothers. Achebe criticizes Conrad for inadvertently characterizing the African as lacking humanity. The fact of the matter is that Conrad was a racist. His book is racist. It is another example of white men thinking they are better than literally everyone else on the planet.
It is notable that Achebe addresses the issue of the role of fiction. Fiction is written to fascinate people and entertain them. When fiction is used to reduce "Africa to the role pf props for the break-up of one petty European mind" it is not just for entertainment. It is conveying a statement that is outdated and disgusting. '
By the time one reaches high school age, they are (or should be) aware of the existence of racism, the problems with imperialism, and how white people really suck sometimes. Heart of Darkness really feels like a broken record at this point in time. Its only real benefit is the richness and depth of its literal language. It forces one to think. However, it is time to retire Heart of Darkness.
Yesterday, Today, and Not Knowing the Difference
At the time it was written, Heart of Darkness was a cautionary tale about trying to make a living in Africa. Today, it is a time capsule of how Europeans treated Africans, how horrible this treatment was, and how this treatment became their downfall. This is all well and good, but some misinformed readers today still read it as a cautionary tale, not knowing that the history and culture of Africa is much more rich and varied than is depicted in the book. This is where the problems that Achebe writes about are created.
When Heart of Darkness was written, many white readers still held imperialist opinions. Many did not, but they didn’t do anything to change the opinions of those that did. Heart of Darkness, of course, portrayed both of these people, and this likely caused major change in many social circles and many ways of thinking.
The book still does this today, but in a different way. Readers today are often uninformed about the imperialist time period, with many history teachers skipping over it in favor of more important events in American history. Therefore, the book gives them much-needed information on how their ancestors treated African natives, the damage it caused, and how to ensure that it never happens again.
Obviously, this is all very important, but there are some readers today who read it as a reader from yesterday would. They think that Africa then is the same as Africa now, and they think that “savages” is still (and has ever been) an apt term to use. If this is the mindset they have, the book doesn’t do a lot to make any positive change. This is the situation in which the book is harmful, and this is the situation that Achebe is writing about.
When Heart of Darkness was written, many white readers still held imperialist opinions. Many did not, but they didn’t do anything to change the opinions of those that did. Heart of Darkness, of course, portrayed both of these people, and this likely caused major change in many social circles and many ways of thinking.
The book still does this today, but in a different way. Readers today are often uninformed about the imperialist time period, with many history teachers skipping over it in favor of more important events in American history. Therefore, the book gives them much-needed information on how their ancestors treated African natives, the damage it caused, and how to ensure that it never happens again.
Obviously, this is all very important, but there are some readers today who read it as a reader from yesterday would. They think that Africa then is the same as Africa now, and they think that “savages” is still (and has ever been) an apt term to use. If this is the mindset they have, the book doesn’t do a lot to make any positive change. This is the situation in which the book is harmful, and this is the situation that Achebe is writing about.
Heart of Whiteness
Chinua Achebe's "An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'" certainly altered my view of the novel. Achebe experienced Africa in an entirely different way than Conrad, and in a more intimate and personal way at that. Where Conrad came to Africa through an imperialist trading company and experienced it for only three years. If Heart of Darkness holds any clues, he likely didn't have any intimate interpersonal experiences with any African people. The value I find in teaching this novel is exactly that contrast. When there novels out there like Heart of Darkness (and there definitely isn't a shortage), it allows for the analysis of white perceptions of imperialism, and how being anti-imperialist does not at all mean thoughts of or a desire for the equality of the victims of imperialism. In a classroom setting though, especially one comprised entirely of white people, it is important to be careful how we go about this analysis.
There has been a growing desire in academia for the analysis of whiteness as an identity. Toni Morrison offers some analysis of the role of whiteness in the 2016 U.S. presidential election in her article "Mourning for Whiteness" that was published by The New Yorker. Here, Morrison examines how a white identity influenced both the outcome of the elections, as well as the actions of white people in positions of authority and why they acted the way they did. A similar approach can be taken in regards to Conrad's work. When we pose questions such as, "How might Conrad's identity as a white European have influenced his language in regards to Africans in Heart of Darkness?" one can take away valuable insight. Achebe points out Conrad's apparent obsession with blackness, shown through his overuse of the word as an adjective. If we pose that question while thinking of that obsession with blackness, one can surmise that it may have been used as a way to distance and dehumanize. In a Western world that values whiteness, what better way for Conrad to dehumanize African people than by highlighting their lack of white skin? In questioning this way, we can gain valuable insight from the novel on topics still applicable today while not overlooking its explicitly racist content as many critics have chosen to in the past.
What I struggled with in Achebe's essay is that Heart of Darkness "is today the most commonly prescribed novel in twentieth-century literature courses in English Departments of American universities." At first I thought, there must be many unique aspects of this novella that make it so widely taught in the United States. Then, I thought about how academia in the United States is still overwhelmingly white. Is this fact partially due to the United States is mostly white? Heart of Darkness has much value as a piece of literature, as Conrad is a skilled writer and linguist, something Achebe mentions in his essay. Part of me, however, wonders if there are not other great twentieth-century novelists that could not fill his space in classrooms, and without the aggressive racism. If racial demographics in this country were different, would this novella still survive (and thrive) in the American classroom? It's impossible to tell, but important nonetheless.
To be frank, I don't think Heart of Darkness should or should not be taught in schools. I think value can be found throughout it, especially if one is attentive to the complexities of the novel. I'm not, however, convinced that it is irreplaceable. To me, it doesn't appear as an essential novel in and of itself, despite being studied so broadly. It, like every other literary work, has its benefits and downfalls, and for many nonwhite people, the downfalls outweigh its benefits. I find that a valid reason for an educator to choose another novel over it, and it is, ultimately, up to the educator.
There has been a growing desire in academia for the analysis of whiteness as an identity. Toni Morrison offers some analysis of the role of whiteness in the 2016 U.S. presidential election in her article "Mourning for Whiteness" that was published by The New Yorker. Here, Morrison examines how a white identity influenced both the outcome of the elections, as well as the actions of white people in positions of authority and why they acted the way they did. A similar approach can be taken in regards to Conrad's work. When we pose questions such as, "How might Conrad's identity as a white European have influenced his language in regards to Africans in Heart of Darkness?" one can take away valuable insight. Achebe points out Conrad's apparent obsession with blackness, shown through his overuse of the word as an adjective. If we pose that question while thinking of that obsession with blackness, one can surmise that it may have been used as a way to distance and dehumanize. In a Western world that values whiteness, what better way for Conrad to dehumanize African people than by highlighting their lack of white skin? In questioning this way, we can gain valuable insight from the novel on topics still applicable today while not overlooking its explicitly racist content as many critics have chosen to in the past.
What I struggled with in Achebe's essay is that Heart of Darkness "is today the most commonly prescribed novel in twentieth-century literature courses in English Departments of American universities." At first I thought, there must be many unique aspects of this novella that make it so widely taught in the United States. Then, I thought about how academia in the United States is still overwhelmingly white. Is this fact partially due to the United States is mostly white? Heart of Darkness has much value as a piece of literature, as Conrad is a skilled writer and linguist, something Achebe mentions in his essay. Part of me, however, wonders if there are not other great twentieth-century novelists that could not fill his space in classrooms, and without the aggressive racism. If racial demographics in this country were different, would this novella still survive (and thrive) in the American classroom? It's impossible to tell, but important nonetheless.
To be frank, I don't think Heart of Darkness should or should not be taught in schools. I think value can be found throughout it, especially if one is attentive to the complexities of the novel. I'm not, however, convinced that it is irreplaceable. To me, it doesn't appear as an essential novel in and of itself, despite being studied so broadly. It, like every other literary work, has its benefits and downfalls, and for many nonwhite people, the downfalls outweigh its benefits. I find that a valid reason for an educator to choose another novel over it, and it is, ultimately, up to the educator.
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
The Power in Nature
“‘Going up that river was like traveling back to the earliest beginnings of the world, when vegetation rioted on the earth and the big trees were kings. An empty stream, a great silence, an impenetrable forest. The air was warm, thick, heavy, sluggish. There was no joy in the brilliance of sunshine. The long stretches of the waterway ran on, deserted, into the gloom of overshadowed distances. On silvery sand-banks hippos and alligators sunned themselves side by side. The broadening waters flowed through a mob of wooded islands; you lost your way on that river as you would in a desert, and butted all day long against shoals, trying to find the channel, till you thought yourself bewitched and cut off for ever from everything you had known once—somewhere—far away—in another existence perhaps. There were moments when one’s past came back to one, as it will sometimes when you have not a moment to spare for yourself; but it came in the shape of an unrestful and noisy dream, remembered with wonder amongst the overwhelming realities of this strange world of plants, and water, and silence. And this stillness of life did not in the least resemble a peace. It was the stillness of an implacable force brooding over an inscrutable intention. It looked at you with a vengeful aspect.’” (Page 102-103)
Much of the impact of Heart of Darkness is based on its full description of events and surroundings. Because of the intense surroundings, many of the characters have been driven to varying degrees of madness or insanity. In this passage, Marlow first describes the jungle by just commenting on the nature, but then he goes further into the impact of being within the wilderness. This description is written in the way that causes the reader to almost experience the same thoughts as Marlow was having and allows for more of an understanding of why people were driven mad in the jungle.
Conrad begins this passage with a very powerful description of the forest that shows why it seems to contain a hidden power. He uses strong words such as “rioted,” “kings,” or “impenetrable” to describe Marlow’s surroundings. All of these words connote immense power and fortitude. He also makes the jungle feel oppressive, describing the air as “warm, thick, heavy, sluggish”, all of which create the image of an inescapable pressure. After introducing the audience to this force, Marlow describes how it changed his thought process. While recalling the way he thought in chains of questioning and recalling, the writing is a run-on sentence that mimics the described thinking style.
Characters such as Kurtz or the Russian have been living in the jungle for a while and dealing with what Marlow was only exposed to for a short while. This passage gives insight into how the jungle would begin to alter your mind. Marlow characterizes nature as a brooding and vicious force that is waiting to attack you. For the characters who have been living in the jungle for a while, perhaps they too felt as though they were in danger or became lost in their worries and observations as Marlow did. Having to experience the insecurity demonstrated in this passage over extended periods of time somewhat explains why Kurtz changed so much and the Russian was such an odd character, and that it wasn’t just faults in themselves. However, it also gives more power to Marlow who was able to combat the negative powers of the jungle.
Part of the power given to Marlow’s character is that he returned from his trip to the wilderness a more observant and moral person, while others succumbed to the darkness and lost themselves. This passage shows the reader how one place could impact people so profoundly. It also shows how characters who were impacted by the jungle and what parts of its presence would cause insanity or immense character changes. In its explanation of nature's power, it also uses Marlow’s personal experience, showing that he too was tempted by it. However, since Marlow was strong enough not to give in, Conrad can also use his explanation of other’s faults to improve Marlow.
The Devil Inside Him
p. 121-122
"'[Kurtz] had taken a seat amongst the devils of the land-
I mean literally. You can't understand. How could you?
- with solid pavement under your feet, surrounded by
kind neighbours ready to cheer you or to fall on you,
stepping delicately between the butcher and the police-
man, in the holy terror of scandal and gallows and luna-
tic asylums- how can you imagine what particular region
of the first ages a man's untrammelled feet may take
him into by the way of solitude- utter solitude without
a policeman- by the way of silence- utter silence, where
no warning voice of a kind neighbour can be heard
whispering of public opinion? These little things make all
back upon your own innate strength, upon your own
capacity for faithfulness. Of course you may be too much
of a fool to go wrong- too dull even to know you are
being assaulted by the powers of darkness. I take it, no
fool ever made a bargain for his soul with the devil; the
fool is too much of a fool, or the devil too much of a
devil- I don't know which. Or you may be such a thun-
deringly exalted creature as to be altogether deaf and
blind to anything but heavenly sights and sounds. Then
the earth for you is only a standing place- and whether
to be like this is you loss or your gain I won't pretend
to say. But most of us are neither one nor the other.
The earth for us is a place to live in, where we must put
up with sights, with sounds, with smells, too, by Jove!-
breathe dead hippo, so to speak, and not be contami-
nated. And there, don't you see? Your strength comes
in, the faith in your ability for the digging of unostenta-
tious holes to bury the stuff in- you power of devotion,
not to yourself, but to an obscure, back-breaking business.
And that's difficult enough. Mind, I am not trying to
excuse or even explain- I am trying to account to my-
self for- for- Mr. Kurtz- for the shade of Mr. Kurtz."
Joseph Conrad explores many themes throughout Heart of Darkness, one of which being the influence of environment on a person's mental well-being. If a person's surroundings are too hostile, unfamiliar, and isolating, the person may develop a mindset outside of who they were in civilization. The trick is to not allow one's surroundings to affect one's emotional core, but Kurtz falls prey to the dangers of the deep interior. This passage brings us through Marlow's thought process explaining how Kurtz became so far from what people thought of him.
In this passage, Marlow explains certain factors contributing to Kurtz's apparent insanity. He concludes that Kurtz was not once mad, but living in the African jungle for so long made him the way he is when Marlow met him. While most people, Marlow himself included, can derive strength from "the faith in your ability for the diffing of unostentatious holes to bury the stuff in" (line 29), or be able to internalize the negative stimuli's affects, Kurtz is wholly persuaded by the influence of devilish aspects. Since he was so vulnerable, Kurtz "had taken a seat amongst the devils of the land" (line 1), in the sense of becoming inhuman in body and spirit. He no longer felt compassion or positive human emotions; instead, he felt only greed and lust. These two motivators consumed all that he became, greedy for more ivory and lusting for power. Without the support of "kind neighbours" (line 4), Kurtz devolved into an uncivilized person in the view of those still in touch with the Western world. Without people nearby to help, only "utter solitude" (line 9) and "silence" (line 10), Kurtz had only his "innate strength" (line 13). While it first appeared Kurtz was this great innovator and leader, he was only as good as the help afforded to him. Once the other people went away, Kurtz became unable to support a healthy mindset on his own. He was not enough of a "fool" to make "a bargain for his soul with the devil" (line17), as he was bright enough "to know [he was] being assaulted by the powers of darkness" (line 15). Even though this sounds like a good thing, being smart enough to know what's happening, it actually portrays an unhealthy relationship between mind and body.
Conrad uses descriptive and repetitive language to contrast Kurtz's environments. The repeated mention of a "policeman" (line 5) contrasts the lack of restraint shown in the jungle of Africa. Policemen are in place to enforce the law, and in a land without law enforcement or even laws, some people may become overwhelmed by the lack of authority, as Kurtz exemplifies. Also, including "lunatic asylums" (line 6) in the list of common places foreshadows Kurtz's apparent need for one. While a convention of Western culture, one does not usually first think of these institutions as cornerstones of our society. However, in light of the subjects of this story, the choice of descriptors makes a lot of sense. Conrad uses these descriptors of urban life to show just how starkly the environment in which Kurtz went crazy in differs from that of his home.
While Heart of Darkness was written over a century ago, there are many parallels between what's written and what's seen today. However, Conrad thought that the audience would be limited to upper class straight white males, so he directed the contrast between Kurtz's lifestyle and what he thought the audience's looked like. This limits the ability for everyone to connect to this book, as a wider audience may not have the same experiences as Conrad thought. Even though these limitations impede the universality of Heart of Darkness, the point is still made that the two environments are drastically different, and the nurture of Kurtz in Africa made him become such a horrible, twisted person. Everyone may be able to become one with the devils, but solely Kurtz fully embraces becoming one himself.
"'[Kurtz] had taken a seat amongst the devils of the land-
I mean literally. You can't understand. How could you?
- with solid pavement under your feet, surrounded by
kind neighbours ready to cheer you or to fall on you,
stepping delicately between the butcher and the police-
man, in the holy terror of scandal and gallows and luna-
tic asylums- how can you imagine what particular region
of the first ages a man's untrammelled feet may take
him into by the way of solitude- utter solitude without
a policeman- by the way of silence- utter silence, where
no warning voice of a kind neighbour can be heard
whispering of public opinion? These little things make all
back upon your own innate strength, upon your own
capacity for faithfulness. Of course you may be too much
of a fool to go wrong- too dull even to know you are
being assaulted by the powers of darkness. I take it, no
fool ever made a bargain for his soul with the devil; the
fool is too much of a fool, or the devil too much of a
devil- I don't know which. Or you may be such a thun-
deringly exalted creature as to be altogether deaf and
blind to anything but heavenly sights and sounds. Then
the earth for you is only a standing place- and whether
to be like this is you loss or your gain I won't pretend
to say. But most of us are neither one nor the other.
The earth for us is a place to live in, where we must put
up with sights, with sounds, with smells, too, by Jove!-
breathe dead hippo, so to speak, and not be contami-
nated. And there, don't you see? Your strength comes
in, the faith in your ability for the digging of unostenta-
tious holes to bury the stuff in- you power of devotion,
not to yourself, but to an obscure, back-breaking business.
And that's difficult enough. Mind, I am not trying to
excuse or even explain- I am trying to account to my-
self for- for- Mr. Kurtz- for the shade of Mr. Kurtz."
Joseph Conrad explores many themes throughout Heart of Darkness, one of which being the influence of environment on a person's mental well-being. If a person's surroundings are too hostile, unfamiliar, and isolating, the person may develop a mindset outside of who they were in civilization. The trick is to not allow one's surroundings to affect one's emotional core, but Kurtz falls prey to the dangers of the deep interior. This passage brings us through Marlow's thought process explaining how Kurtz became so far from what people thought of him.
In this passage, Marlow explains certain factors contributing to Kurtz's apparent insanity. He concludes that Kurtz was not once mad, but living in the African jungle for so long made him the way he is when Marlow met him. While most people, Marlow himself included, can derive strength from "the faith in your ability for the diffing of unostentatious holes to bury the stuff in" (line 29), or be able to internalize the negative stimuli's affects, Kurtz is wholly persuaded by the influence of devilish aspects. Since he was so vulnerable, Kurtz "had taken a seat amongst the devils of the land" (line 1), in the sense of becoming inhuman in body and spirit. He no longer felt compassion or positive human emotions; instead, he felt only greed and lust. These two motivators consumed all that he became, greedy for more ivory and lusting for power. Without the support of "kind neighbours" (line 4), Kurtz devolved into an uncivilized person in the view of those still in touch with the Western world. Without people nearby to help, only "utter solitude" (line 9) and "silence" (line 10), Kurtz had only his "innate strength" (line 13). While it first appeared Kurtz was this great innovator and leader, he was only as good as the help afforded to him. Once the other people went away, Kurtz became unable to support a healthy mindset on his own. He was not enough of a "fool" to make "a bargain for his soul with the devil" (line17), as he was bright enough "to know [he was] being assaulted by the powers of darkness" (line 15). Even though this sounds like a good thing, being smart enough to know what's happening, it actually portrays an unhealthy relationship between mind and body.
Conrad uses descriptive and repetitive language to contrast Kurtz's environments. The repeated mention of a "policeman" (line 5) contrasts the lack of restraint shown in the jungle of Africa. Policemen are in place to enforce the law, and in a land without law enforcement or even laws, some people may become overwhelmed by the lack of authority, as Kurtz exemplifies. Also, including "lunatic asylums" (line 6) in the list of common places foreshadows Kurtz's apparent need for one. While a convention of Western culture, one does not usually first think of these institutions as cornerstones of our society. However, in light of the subjects of this story, the choice of descriptors makes a lot of sense. Conrad uses these descriptors of urban life to show just how starkly the environment in which Kurtz went crazy in differs from that of his home.
While Heart of Darkness was written over a century ago, there are many parallels between what's written and what's seen today. However, Conrad thought that the audience would be limited to upper class straight white males, so he directed the contrast between Kurtz's lifestyle and what he thought the audience's looked like. This limits the ability for everyone to connect to this book, as a wider audience may not have the same experiences as Conrad thought. Even though these limitations impede the universality of Heart of Darkness, the point is still made that the two environments are drastically different, and the nurture of Kurtz in Africa made him become such a horrible, twisted person. Everyone may be able to become one with the devils, but solely Kurtz fully embraces becoming one himself.
Idiocy and White Privilege
“I didn’t want any more loitering in the shade, and I made haste towards the station. When near the buildings I met a white man, in such an unexpected elegance of get-up that in the first moment I took him for a sort of vision. I saw a high starched collar, white cuffs, a light alpaca jacket, snowy trousers, a clean necktie, and varnished boots. No hat. Hair parted, brushed, oiled, under a green parasol held in a big white hand. He was amazing, and had a penholder behind his ear.” -page 83
When Marlow meets the Company’s chief accountant, it is the most description we have received of a character thus far. Furthermore, it is the most description we have received of any character in Africa, and the character is white. This says a lot about the environment in which Heart of Darkness takes place, but it also says a lot about the accountant’s outer prejudices, Marlow’s inner prejudices, and the ignorance of Europeans in Africa.
By dressing in the manner depicted, the accountant has no subtlety about where he stands compared to the natives of Africa. His clothing is clean, fine, and likely expensive. In addition, the penholder behind his ear shows a sort of educated, pretentious individual. The fact that he wears no hat also says a lot: there is a great deal of etiquette rules around hats, and being outside without even wearing one may show a complete disrespect and unwillingness to be polite around the natives. Therefore, without even speaking, the accountant has already proven to be one of the most prejudiced characters in the book.
If the accountant is a physical manifestation of a macroaggression, then Marlow would be that of a microaggression: not harmful, but still problematic. He worships this man before he had even heard him speak. By contrast, he has looked the natives in the eye and seen into their inner suffering, and he has even seen some die right then and there, but the well-dressed white man is who he is fixated on. In a well-dressed white man, he sees a saint and a miracle. With all his respect directed towards the accountant, he has none left for the natives. No matter how much he may disagree with how they are treated, he has no respect for them.
While one may be more harmful than the other, they are both completely ignorant about their surroundings. By dressing to the nines in the middle of the jungle, the accountant shows that he has no common sense. By being surrounded by hardworking individuals and choosing to find respect in the clean man doing nothing, Marlow also shows a lack of common sense. Together, they make a good pair: idiocy and white privilege.
When Marlow meets the Company’s chief accountant, it is the most description we have received of a character thus far. Furthermore, it is the most description we have received of any character in Africa, and the character is white. This says a lot about the environment in which Heart of Darkness takes place, but it also says a lot about the accountant’s outer prejudices, Marlow’s inner prejudices, and the ignorance of Europeans in Africa.
By dressing in the manner depicted, the accountant has no subtlety about where he stands compared to the natives of Africa. His clothing is clean, fine, and likely expensive. In addition, the penholder behind his ear shows a sort of educated, pretentious individual. The fact that he wears no hat also says a lot: there is a great deal of etiquette rules around hats, and being outside without even wearing one may show a complete disrespect and unwillingness to be polite around the natives. Therefore, without even speaking, the accountant has already proven to be one of the most prejudiced characters in the book.
If the accountant is a physical manifestation of a macroaggression, then Marlow would be that of a microaggression: not harmful, but still problematic. He worships this man before he had even heard him speak. By contrast, he has looked the natives in the eye and seen into their inner suffering, and he has even seen some die right then and there, but the well-dressed white man is who he is fixated on. In a well-dressed white man, he sees a saint and a miracle. With all his respect directed towards the accountant, he has none left for the natives. No matter how much he may disagree with how they are treated, he has no respect for them.
While one may be more harmful than the other, they are both completely ignorant about their surroundings. By dressing to the nines in the middle of the jungle, the accountant shows that he has no common sense. By being surrounded by hardworking individuals and choosing to find respect in the clean man doing nothing, Marlow also shows a lack of common sense. Together, they make a good pair: idiocy and white privilege.
Reality and Ignorance
"And this stillness of life did not in the least resemble a peace. It was the stillness of an implacable force brooding over an inscrutable intention. It looked at you with a vengeful aspect. I got used to it afterwards; I did not see it any more; I had no time. I had to keep guessing at the channel; I had to discern, mostly by inspiration, the signs of hidden banks; I watched for sunken stones; I was learning to clap my teeth smartly before my heart flew out, when I shaved by a fluke some infernal sly old snag that would have ripped the life out of the tin-pot steamboat and drowned all the pilgrims; I had to keep a lookout for the signs of dead wood we could cut up in the night for next day’s steaming. When you have to attend to things of that sort, to the mere incidents of the surface, the reality—the reality, I tell you—fades. The inner truth is hidden—luckily, luckily. But I felt it all the same; I felt often its mysterious stillness watching me at my monkey tricks, just as it watches you fellows performing on your respective tight-ropes for—what is it? half-a-crown a tumble—" (103)
Marlow is constantly searching for answers, for a greater understanding of life, and this is partly what motivates him so much to find Kurtz. However, Marlow isn't in Africa to self-analyze. Because he has a job, his desires must take a backseat in certain situations: one of which being his duty to steer the steamboat. Here, looking back on the event, Marlow offers some insight. He claims that "luckily" the "inner truth" is hidden. Marlow can't even understand this truth, yet he calls it lucky that it is hidden, and this offers insight into Marlow's philosophy.
The forest, according to Marlow, contains an "implacable force" with an "inscrutable intention." Marlow believed, and still does at the time of the narration, that the landscape held ill-intentions. His use of implacable shows that this malevolence can't be stopped or appeased either, existing beyond the desires of man. Marlow calls its intention "inscrutable," yet his language suggests otherwise.
Because it does not resemble peace, because it's implacable, and because it has vengeful aspect, one can assume Marlow believes this force is out to get him. Furthermore, as he goes on to describe his experience steering the steamboat, his language is just as dismal. An "infernal snag" could "rip the life out of" his ship. The use of infernal and of a ripping (or reaping) life away conjure a specific image to the Western mind.
Throughout the novella, Marlow is painted as a Buddha figure while narrating. This is mostly based on his posture and demeanor, yet this passage offers more support to his comparison with the Buddha. This passage focuses largely on a disparity between what Marlow sees and the reality of his situation. He is surrounded by the distractions. This idea of reality happening behind the scenes of the average human life is prominent in Buddhism. Breaking out of samsara, the cycle of dying and rebirth, and avidya, ignorance, to achieve the Right view (samma ditthi) is a key process in ridding oneself of suffering in Buddhist philosophy. Though it is not explicit, Marlow's language suggests his views are quite similar. The unknown force is always watching Marlow's "monkey tricks." His relating his behavior to pointless "monkey tricks" suggests that here he was in that ignorance, that he had not bridged the gap between avidya and dharma. He could feel the reality happening, yet he could not focus on it, he was too distracted.
Though this passage may seem mundane enough it first, it offers a lot of insight to Marlow's character. There seems to be a lack of support as to Marlow's likeness to the Buddha throughout the text, as it seems to only appear when he is being observed by others as the narrator. This passage offers some of that support, though it is somewhat obscured. Furthermore, because this reality is negative, is it really dharma? Dharma is usually considered positive, as it is all that makes the universe possible. Maybe in this specific instance, Marlow or Conrad is suggesting that the reality of this situation is negative, that what is happening is wrong, yet one must question whether that fits with Buddhist ideology. Marlow's understanding of the world around him is difficult to pin down, and it may not fit one specific branch of thought at all. Here, though, one can collect bits and pieces and attempt to form a fuller picture of Marlow as a narrator.
Marlow is constantly searching for answers, for a greater understanding of life, and this is partly what motivates him so much to find Kurtz. However, Marlow isn't in Africa to self-analyze. Because he has a job, his desires must take a backseat in certain situations: one of which being his duty to steer the steamboat. Here, looking back on the event, Marlow offers some insight. He claims that "luckily" the "inner truth" is hidden. Marlow can't even understand this truth, yet he calls it lucky that it is hidden, and this offers insight into Marlow's philosophy.
The forest, according to Marlow, contains an "implacable force" with an "inscrutable intention." Marlow believed, and still does at the time of the narration, that the landscape held ill-intentions. His use of implacable shows that this malevolence can't be stopped or appeased either, existing beyond the desires of man. Marlow calls its intention "inscrutable," yet his language suggests otherwise.
Because it does not resemble peace, because it's implacable, and because it has vengeful aspect, one can assume Marlow believes this force is out to get him. Furthermore, as he goes on to describe his experience steering the steamboat, his language is just as dismal. An "infernal snag" could "rip the life out of" his ship. The use of infernal and of a ripping (or reaping) life away conjure a specific image to the Western mind.
Throughout the novella, Marlow is painted as a Buddha figure while narrating. This is mostly based on his posture and demeanor, yet this passage offers more support to his comparison with the Buddha. This passage focuses largely on a disparity between what Marlow sees and the reality of his situation. He is surrounded by the distractions. This idea of reality happening behind the scenes of the average human life is prominent in Buddhism. Breaking out of samsara, the cycle of dying and rebirth, and avidya, ignorance, to achieve the Right view (samma ditthi) is a key process in ridding oneself of suffering in Buddhist philosophy. Though it is not explicit, Marlow's language suggests his views are quite similar. The unknown force is always watching Marlow's "monkey tricks." His relating his behavior to pointless "monkey tricks" suggests that here he was in that ignorance, that he had not bridged the gap between avidya and dharma. He could feel the reality happening, yet he could not focus on it, he was too distracted.
Though this passage may seem mundane enough it first, it offers a lot of insight to Marlow's character. There seems to be a lack of support as to Marlow's likeness to the Buddha throughout the text, as it seems to only appear when he is being observed by others as the narrator. This passage offers some of that support, though it is somewhat obscured. Furthermore, because this reality is negative, is it really dharma? Dharma is usually considered positive, as it is all that makes the universe possible. Maybe in this specific instance, Marlow or Conrad is suggesting that the reality of this situation is negative, that what is happening is wrong, yet one must question whether that fits with Buddhist ideology. Marlow's understanding of the world around him is difficult to pin down, and it may not fit one specific branch of thought at all. Here, though, one can collect bits and pieces and attempt to form a fuller picture of Marlow as a narrator.
Man or Beast
"Six black men advanced in a file, toiling up the path. They walked erect and slow, balancing small baskets full of earth on their heads, and the clink kept time with their footsteps. Black rags wound round their loins, and the short ends waggled to and fro like tails. I could see every rid, the joints of their limbs were like knots on a rope; each had an iron collar on his neck, and all were connected together with a chain whose bights swung between them, rhythmically clinking. Another report from the cliff made me think suddenly of that ship of war I had seem firing into a continent. It was the same kind of ominous voice; but these men could by no imagination be called enemies. They were called criminals, and the outraged law, like the bursting shells, had come to them, an insoluble mystery from the sea. All their meagre breasts panted together, the violently dilated nostrils quivered, the eyes stared stonily uphill. They passed me within six inches, without a glance, with that complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages." (80)
Racism is ingrained in society. Since the beginning of civilization, ranks in society have been at least partially based on the pigment of one's skin. People thought, and many still do think, that the whiter one's skin is, the more civilized they must be. In Heart of Darkness, this perception that dark skin means less humane is evident. Marlow's description of the Africans in this particular passage characterizes how he and, many other white Europeans, viewed those who had darker skin than them: more animal than human.
There are actions and behavior that humans instinctively relate to animals. Work animals, such as cows and horses, behave in a similar manner. In the passage above, Marlow describes the walking patterns of the African men as being "erect and slow". Initially what comes to mind is a cow lumbering through a grassy field or a horse walking into a barn. Then Marlow describes their clothing, "black rags wound round their loins, and the short end waggled to and fro like tails". Humans do not have tails. The men are collared and "connected together with a chain whose bights swung between them, rhythmically clinking". This again brings to mind an image of animals. For example, when draft horse plough a field or pull a hay wagon, they are chained together, their collars clink, and they walk rhythmically. When a horse is angry it is evident. Marlow's description of the Africans' noses parallel that of an angry horse, "the violently dilated nostrils quivered". In addition to this statement comparing the men to an angry horse, the word 'violently' implies that these men are dangerous and savage, not human. Not only do Marlow's descriptions of the Africans' physical attributes and actions characterize them as less then human, but the ideas he implies about their human instincts, or lack there of, dehumanize them as well.
There are certain instincts and expectations in regards to the way humans are to act and respond to their environment. In the final sentences of the passage, Marlow implies that these Africans do not have these instincts. He says that "the eyes stared stonily uphill". This is not normal human behavior. It is common for people to say that the eyes are the windows to the soul. The eyes are active and indicative of the person's emotions. Eyes that stare stonily are not often associated with people who are highly educated and civilized. Additionally, Marlow says that the men passed him "without a glances, with that complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages". It is inherently human to respond to the presence of other humans. In saying that these men had no response at all to Marlow's presence, he is implying that they do not have those inherently human instincts.
Throughout the book it is evident that Marlow struggles with how he views the Africans. Although he seems to be more moral and progressive than some of his peers it is evident that he does not see them as being his equal. He looks at them with the same lens with which he would look at a horse or cow. He looks at them as uncultured savages.
Racism is ingrained in society. Since the beginning of civilization, ranks in society have been at least partially based on the pigment of one's skin. People thought, and many still do think, that the whiter one's skin is, the more civilized they must be. In Heart of Darkness, this perception that dark skin means less humane is evident. Marlow's description of the Africans in this particular passage characterizes how he and, many other white Europeans, viewed those who had darker skin than them: more animal than human.
There are actions and behavior that humans instinctively relate to animals. Work animals, such as cows and horses, behave in a similar manner. In the passage above, Marlow describes the walking patterns of the African men as being "erect and slow". Initially what comes to mind is a cow lumbering through a grassy field or a horse walking into a barn. Then Marlow describes their clothing, "black rags wound round their loins, and the short end waggled to and fro like tails". Humans do not have tails. The men are collared and "connected together with a chain whose bights swung between them, rhythmically clinking". This again brings to mind an image of animals. For example, when draft horse plough a field or pull a hay wagon, they are chained together, their collars clink, and they walk rhythmically. When a horse is angry it is evident. Marlow's description of the Africans' noses parallel that of an angry horse, "the violently dilated nostrils quivered". In addition to this statement comparing the men to an angry horse, the word 'violently' implies that these men are dangerous and savage, not human. Not only do Marlow's descriptions of the Africans' physical attributes and actions characterize them as less then human, but the ideas he implies about their human instincts, or lack there of, dehumanize them as well.
There are certain instincts and expectations in regards to the way humans are to act and respond to their environment. In the final sentences of the passage, Marlow implies that these Africans do not have these instincts. He says that "the eyes stared stonily uphill". This is not normal human behavior. It is common for people to say that the eyes are the windows to the soul. The eyes are active and indicative of the person's emotions. Eyes that stare stonily are not often associated with people who are highly educated and civilized. Additionally, Marlow says that the men passed him "without a glances, with that complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages". It is inherently human to respond to the presence of other humans. In saying that these men had no response at all to Marlow's presence, he is implying that they do not have those inherently human instincts.
Throughout the book it is evident that Marlow struggles with how he views the Africans. Although he seems to be more moral and progressive than some of his peers it is evident that he does not see them as being his equal. He looks at them with the same lens with which he would look at a horse or cow. He looks at them as uncultured savages.
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
The Doctor's Visit
“The old doctor felt my pulse, evidently thinking of something else the
while. ‘Good, good for there,’ he mumbled, and then with a certain eagerness
asked me whether I would let him measure my head. Rather surprised, I said
Yes, when he produced a thing like calipers and got the dimensions back and
front and every way, taking notes carefully. He was an unshaven little man
in a threadbare coat like a gaberdine, with his feet in slippers, and I
thought him a harmless fool. ‘I always ask leave, in the interests of
science, to measure the crania of those going out there,’ he said. ‘And when
they come back, too?’ I asked. ‘Oh, I never see them,’ he remarked; ‘and,
moreover, the changes take place inside, you know.’ He smiled, as if at some
quiet joke. ‘So you are going out there. Famous. Interesting, too.’ He gave
me a searching glance, and made another note. ‘Ever any madness in your
family?’ he asked, in a matter-of-fact tone. I felt very annoyed. ‘Is that
question in the interests of science, too?’ ‘It would be,’ he said, without
taking notice of my irritation, ‘interesting for science to watch the mental
changes of individuals, on the spot, but...’ ‘Are you an alienist?’ I
interrupted. ‘Every doctor should be—a little,’ answered that original,
imperturbably. ‘I have a little theory which you messieurs who go out there
must help me to prove. This is my share in the advantages my country shall
reap from the possession of such a magnificent dependency. The mere wealth I
leave to others. Pardon my questions, but you are the first Englishman
coming under my observation...’ I hastened to assure him I was not in the
least typical. ‘If I were,’ said I, ‘I wouldn’t be talking like this with
you.’" (Page 75)
This passage occurs when Marlow visits the doctor before leaving to go to Africa. He must visit the doctor to make sure he is healthy before leaving the country, however, this visit is somewhat unique. Through this passage, the reader learns a lot about Marlow and about how many people perceive African and its inhabitants.
This passage starts off by Marlow beginning to explain his appointment with the doctor. He immediately begins by mentioning that the doctor was "evidently thinking of something else" while completing completing the cursory and typical tasks within any doctors appointment. It is clear that the doctor was mentally distracted while caring for his patient. Marlow proceeds to mention how the doctor asked him if he could measure his head. This is not a typical question for a doctor to ask someone that is just leaving the country. The doctor then proceeded to state that "the changes take place inside," signifying that he believes those that leave the country and go to Africa return home with a changed mind. It seems like the doctor wants to measure Marlow's head to see if the growth and changes in the brain are actually measurable.
The doctor then proceeds on by asking Marlow if he had any history of madness in his family, for scientific purposes of course. When Marlow gets defensive and inquisitive in response, the doctor explains that every doctor is interested in this type of study and a psychological study of his brain would be fascinating. He also tells Marlow that the world would benefit from his findings if these studies worked out well. It became clear that the doctor viewed Marlow as an experimental specimen that he could study and follow for his benefit.
This passage shows that Marlow was viewed as an experimental person traveling to Africa rather than a normal person. It also demonstrates that Africa was an unknown and exotic land to most people during this time and life there was very mysterious to them. Overall, it demonstrates the great social divide between people from different countries and cultures as well. This passage does a good job of foreshadowing what is to come in the story.
This passage occurs when Marlow visits the doctor before leaving to go to Africa. He must visit the doctor to make sure he is healthy before leaving the country, however, this visit is somewhat unique. Through this passage, the reader learns a lot about Marlow and about how many people perceive African and its inhabitants.
This passage starts off by Marlow beginning to explain his appointment with the doctor. He immediately begins by mentioning that the doctor was "evidently thinking of something else" while completing completing the cursory and typical tasks within any doctors appointment. It is clear that the doctor was mentally distracted while caring for his patient. Marlow proceeds to mention how the doctor asked him if he could measure his head. This is not a typical question for a doctor to ask someone that is just leaving the country. The doctor then proceeded to state that "the changes take place inside," signifying that he believes those that leave the country and go to Africa return home with a changed mind. It seems like the doctor wants to measure Marlow's head to see if the growth and changes in the brain are actually measurable.
The doctor then proceeds on by asking Marlow if he had any history of madness in his family, for scientific purposes of course. When Marlow gets defensive and inquisitive in response, the doctor explains that every doctor is interested in this type of study and a psychological study of his brain would be fascinating. He also tells Marlow that the world would benefit from his findings if these studies worked out well. It became clear that the doctor viewed Marlow as an experimental specimen that he could study and follow for his benefit.
This passage shows that Marlow was viewed as an experimental person traveling to Africa rather than a normal person. It also demonstrates that Africa was an unknown and exotic land to most people during this time and life there was very mysterious to them. Overall, it demonstrates the great social divide between people from different countries and cultures as well. This passage does a good job of foreshadowing what is to come in the story.
Teaching Heart of Darkness
After reading Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad and "An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'" by Chinua Achebe, I have a better understanding of the conflict between Conrad and Achebe. Conrad wrote a hero's journey into the darkness of his own soul, shown through the lens of European imperialism in the Congo. Achebe was a Nigerian professor and author who criticized the racism of Conrad's portrayal of Africa and African peoples. I feel very conflicted about my interpretation of Heart of Darkness; on the one hand, I think that it is beautifully written and I understand why it speaks to past and current generations about the nature of the human soul. On the other hand, the way that Conrad writes about the native African people and peoples in the book is ridiculously offensive.
Heart of Darkness is, in my opinion, a literary masterpiece. I think that the description of nature, both physical and human, is often quite beautiful. Putting all interpretations of the novella aside, the language that Conrad uses to describe the physical world around him is skilled and vivid. The depiction of Kurtz's darkness and Marlow's darkness is fascinating and it shows a certain insight into the human mind on Conrad's part. The dual-narration of the story invites the audience to confront their own souls. I think that all of this is beautifully done; Conrad fulfills his purpose and demonstrates an understanding of human shortcomings and of language that is really lovely.
However, Heart of Darkness is far from a cultural masterpiece. Achebe's criticism of it is enormously convincing: he attacks Conrad's depictions of individual African people, depictions of groups of African people, and depictions of Africa as a whole -- all of which are, indeed, "thoroughly racist." Conrad dehumanizes, demonizes, and demeans the African people about whom he writes. Even attempts at benevolence still paint the white man as the savior or the superior and the black man as a victimized animal. At best, the African people are a part of the backdrop, a part of the wild jungle that characterizes the novel. At worst, the African people are dogs in trousers, niggers, and cannibals. All of this is pointed out and criticized heavily by Achebe, justly and truthfully.
My conflict comes when Achebe maintains that Heart of Darkness should not and cannot be considered a piece of art. To be fair, I have nothing to lose by the acknowledgment of problematic works as art; minorities and oppressed peoples have everything to lose. Yet I can't help but feel that we should not and cannot quantify art on behalf of all audiences. I feel that Heart of Darkness should be taught; questioned and analyzed from multiple points of view, but taught nevertheless. If nothing else, it gives one an understanding of the perspective held by Europeans of native Africans. We can appreciate good literature and criticize racism and misrepresentation at the same time. Problematic literature may even give us the greatest insight into the ways in which we can improve modern-day literature. So we should read, enjoy, and appreciate Heart of Darkness, but we should listen closely to criticism, and we should make our own objections. We will learn the most this way.
Heart of Darkness is, in my opinion, a literary masterpiece. I think that the description of nature, both physical and human, is often quite beautiful. Putting all interpretations of the novella aside, the language that Conrad uses to describe the physical world around him is skilled and vivid. The depiction of Kurtz's darkness and Marlow's darkness is fascinating and it shows a certain insight into the human mind on Conrad's part. The dual-narration of the story invites the audience to confront their own souls. I think that all of this is beautifully done; Conrad fulfills his purpose and demonstrates an understanding of human shortcomings and of language that is really lovely.
However, Heart of Darkness is far from a cultural masterpiece. Achebe's criticism of it is enormously convincing: he attacks Conrad's depictions of individual African people, depictions of groups of African people, and depictions of Africa as a whole -- all of which are, indeed, "thoroughly racist." Conrad dehumanizes, demonizes, and demeans the African people about whom he writes. Even attempts at benevolence still paint the white man as the savior or the superior and the black man as a victimized animal. At best, the African people are a part of the backdrop, a part of the wild jungle that characterizes the novel. At worst, the African people are dogs in trousers, niggers, and cannibals. All of this is pointed out and criticized heavily by Achebe, justly and truthfully.
My conflict comes when Achebe maintains that Heart of Darkness should not and cannot be considered a piece of art. To be fair, I have nothing to lose by the acknowledgment of problematic works as art; minorities and oppressed peoples have everything to lose. Yet I can't help but feel that we should not and cannot quantify art on behalf of all audiences. I feel that Heart of Darkness should be taught; questioned and analyzed from multiple points of view, but taught nevertheless. If nothing else, it gives one an understanding of the perspective held by Europeans of native Africans. We can appreciate good literature and criticize racism and misrepresentation at the same time. Problematic literature may even give us the greatest insight into the ways in which we can improve modern-day literature. So we should read, enjoy, and appreciate Heart of Darkness, but we should listen closely to criticism, and we should make our own objections. We will learn the most this way.
The Darkness Within
"I am not disclosing any trade secrets. In fact, the manager said afterwards that Mr. Kurtz's methods had ruined the district. I have no opinion on that point, but I want you to clearly understand that there was nothing exactly profitable in these heads being there. They only showed that Mr. Kurtz lacked restraint in the gratification of his various lusts, that there was something wanting in him -- some small matter which, when the pressing need arose, could not be found under his magnificent eloquence. Whether he knew of this deficiency himself I can't say. I think the knowledge came to him at last -- only at the very last. But the wilderness had found him out early, and had taken on him a terrible vengeance for the fantastic invasion. I think it had whispered to him things about himself which he did not know, things of which he had no conception till he took counsel with this great solitude -- and the whisper had proved irresistibly fascinating. It echoed loudly within him because he was hollow at the core." (133)
This passage reveals the inner darkness of Kurtz. It shows his weaknesses, and it shows the means by which he covered these shortcomings. Marlow is looking back on Kurtz from the future, so the depiction that we get of Kurtz here is one that has been considered and that is influenced by all of Marlow's experiences with him. In this passage, we see the reason for Kurtz's madness, and we see the nature of his soul, as experienced by Marlow.
Marlow suggests that Kurtz' nature is one of layered personality and goals. On the surface, Kurtz is a persuasive and charismatic man of "magnificent eloquence." He has an idea, which is something that characterizes him as greater than other Europeans, by Marlow's standards. He has a goal and a purpose, and he is able to use him natural charm to influence other people. Beneath this surface personality, Kurtz is a man of greed and "lust." He craves power and wealth, as shown by his construction of a miniature empire in the Congo and Marlow's observation that "it was his impatience with comparative poverty that drove him" to go to Africa for wealth (155). He "lacked restraint in the gratification" of his desires, and this is what pushes him to behead native people and use them as warnings. These actions give him the power that he needs, without which he would be unable to attain the wealth that he also craves.
The power and wealth that Kurtz seeks are simply ways to fill a void inside of him. Marlow says that "there was something wanting in him," that he sought the things that he did in order to replace an emptiness that could not be covered up by his charisma. This emptiness is exploited by the "solitude" and terrifying mystery of the jungle. By possessing a "deficiency," Kurtz is vulnerable to be filled by the darkness. Not only does the darkness inhabit him; it makes him confront "secrets about himself that he did not know till he took counsel with this great solitude." Kurtz is fascinated by this "whisper," however, rather than feeling repelled by it as Marlow is. Kurtz allows the darkness to fill him, especially because it continues to make his power and wealth grow.
Marlow establishes that the jungle of the Congo forces one to come face-to-face with one's own darknesses. For Kurtz, he found himself to be "hollow at the core" and he allowed his emptiness to be filled by his greed and covered by his power. Marlow suggests that this is the jungle's way of taking revenge on Kurtz for all that Kurtz has stolen from it ("the wilderness had found him out early, and had taken on him a terrible vengeance for the fantastic invasion"). Marlow himself confronts his own darkness, but finds himself able to pull away from it. I believe that this is the purpose of the novel; the reader is asked to examine another person's demons and, in the process, realize her own.
This passage reveals the inner darkness of Kurtz. It shows his weaknesses, and it shows the means by which he covered these shortcomings. Marlow is looking back on Kurtz from the future, so the depiction that we get of Kurtz here is one that has been considered and that is influenced by all of Marlow's experiences with him. In this passage, we see the reason for Kurtz's madness, and we see the nature of his soul, as experienced by Marlow.
Marlow suggests that Kurtz' nature is one of layered personality and goals. On the surface, Kurtz is a persuasive and charismatic man of "magnificent eloquence." He has an idea, which is something that characterizes him as greater than other Europeans, by Marlow's standards. He has a goal and a purpose, and he is able to use him natural charm to influence other people. Beneath this surface personality, Kurtz is a man of greed and "lust." He craves power and wealth, as shown by his construction of a miniature empire in the Congo and Marlow's observation that "it was his impatience with comparative poverty that drove him" to go to Africa for wealth (155). He "lacked restraint in the gratification" of his desires, and this is what pushes him to behead native people and use them as warnings. These actions give him the power that he needs, without which he would be unable to attain the wealth that he also craves.
The power and wealth that Kurtz seeks are simply ways to fill a void inside of him. Marlow says that "there was something wanting in him," that he sought the things that he did in order to replace an emptiness that could not be covered up by his charisma. This emptiness is exploited by the "solitude" and terrifying mystery of the jungle. By possessing a "deficiency," Kurtz is vulnerable to be filled by the darkness. Not only does the darkness inhabit him; it makes him confront "secrets about himself that he did not know till he took counsel with this great solitude." Kurtz is fascinated by this "whisper," however, rather than feeling repelled by it as Marlow is. Kurtz allows the darkness to fill him, especially because it continues to make his power and wealth grow.
Marlow establishes that the jungle of the Congo forces one to come face-to-face with one's own darknesses. For Kurtz, he found himself to be "hollow at the core" and he allowed his emptiness to be filled by his greed and covered by his power. Marlow suggests that this is the jungle's way of taking revenge on Kurtz for all that Kurtz has stolen from it ("the wilderness had found him out early, and had taken on him a terrible vengeance for the fantastic invasion"). Marlow himself confronts his own darkness, but finds himself able to pull away from it. I believe that this is the purpose of the novel; the reader is asked to examine another person's demons and, in the process, realize her own.
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
A Look Into Another Culture
"'A slight clinking behind me made me turn my head. Six black men advanced in a file, toiling up the path. They walked erect and slow, balancing small baskets full of earth on their heads, and the clink kept time with their footsteps. Black rags were wound round their loins, and the short ends behind waggled to and fro like tails. I could see every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots in a rope; each had an iron collar on his neck, and all were connected together with a chain whose bights swung between them, rhythmically clinking.'" (page 80)
This passage is extremely eye opening and important. Marlow is in Africa, on their homeland and this is what he sees. He is the one who traveled to another culture. It tugs at heart strings, but more than that, it gives context to what Marlow and the others see on their travels. This highlights the cruelty that the whites put the Africans through. By using vivid imagery, diction, and similes, this passage gives the story a whole different meaning.
The vivid imagery with specific diction illustrates the hardship. By using the word "toiling", it provides an image of extreme difficulty walking. It's backed up by the words describing their walking, "erect and slow". The word "waggled" is a specific and it's plausible to picture the rag moving like a dogs tail. This means Marlow is observing them as inhumane, which show his true feelings. "Small baskets full of earth on their heads" emit a picture of a small woven basket of dirt or water, which is what many people picture when they imagine the African culture. That observation is very unemotional, not looking down on them for doing that, or revering them for being able to balance. That impassiveness is a good clue to how this passage is just the environment Marlow is in when he sees a village. "Rhythmically clinking" provides an auditory image, somewhat disturbing, as it's the chains around humans causing the sound. The chains are concrete, and show physical enslavement, but are also metaphorical. The clinking is just another reminder to the Africans that they are not free.
The similes used add to the depth of this passage. "Waggled to and fro like tails" strips the people of their humanity and shows how the sailors view the people of other cultures. By giving these people inhumane qualities, it seems to strip them of their dignity. The joints on these people are described "like knots in a rope". It shows the emaciation, but also metaphorically shows enslavement again. Knots on a rope are bound together, just as the Africans are. The similes further accentuate how badly this other culture was being treated.
The passage shows a postcolonial view of a culture that they pass by. It is is simply observation, not opinion, and that means it's accurate. It also means that the imperialist perspective sees and recognizes what was happening to another race. Finally, it highlights the divide. The Africans are home, but they are enslaved. The imperialists are 'guests', as that is what people are called who visit others homes, but they are in charge. Marlow clearly seest the divide and thus this passage becomes important to the novel because it shows what he sees and what is happening.
This passage is extremely eye opening and important. Marlow is in Africa, on their homeland and this is what he sees. He is the one who traveled to another culture. It tugs at heart strings, but more than that, it gives context to what Marlow and the others see on their travels. This highlights the cruelty that the whites put the Africans through. By using vivid imagery, diction, and similes, this passage gives the story a whole different meaning.
The vivid imagery with specific diction illustrates the hardship. By using the word "toiling", it provides an image of extreme difficulty walking. It's backed up by the words describing their walking, "erect and slow". The word "waggled" is a specific and it's plausible to picture the rag moving like a dogs tail. This means Marlow is observing them as inhumane, which show his true feelings. "Small baskets full of earth on their heads" emit a picture of a small woven basket of dirt or water, which is what many people picture when they imagine the African culture. That observation is very unemotional, not looking down on them for doing that, or revering them for being able to balance. That impassiveness is a good clue to how this passage is just the environment Marlow is in when he sees a village. "Rhythmically clinking" provides an auditory image, somewhat disturbing, as it's the chains around humans causing the sound. The chains are concrete, and show physical enslavement, but are also metaphorical. The clinking is just another reminder to the Africans that they are not free.
The similes used add to the depth of this passage. "Waggled to and fro like tails" strips the people of their humanity and shows how the sailors view the people of other cultures. By giving these people inhumane qualities, it seems to strip them of their dignity. The joints on these people are described "like knots in a rope". It shows the emaciation, but also metaphorically shows enslavement again. Knots on a rope are bound together, just as the Africans are. The similes further accentuate how badly this other culture was being treated.
The passage shows a postcolonial view of a culture that they pass by. It is is simply observation, not opinion, and that means it's accurate. It also means that the imperialist perspective sees and recognizes what was happening to another race. Finally, it highlights the divide. The Africans are home, but they are enslaved. The imperialists are 'guests', as that is what people are called who visit others homes, but they are in charge. Marlow clearly seest the divide and thus this passage becomes important to the novel because it shows what he sees and what is happening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)