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.