Sunday, January 27, 2013
Heart of Darkness 1:
Although the majority of Heart of Darkness seems to be narrated by the character of Marlow, a seaman with a long past, the beginning of the book is told by an unnamed narrator. Both narrators recount the events of navigating the seas with rich detail that can be difficult to understand. While the unknown narrator describes the scenery through a detailed, observational lens, Marlow’s insights and story of his voyage to Africa explore a more emotional path. His ability to recognize the immorality of the colonization, which he is a factor of, contrasts with the illustrative descriptions of the unnamed narrator. “They were conquerors, and for that you want only brute force -- nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others. They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got. “ (8) As Marlow goes in and out of analyzing the complex morality of colonialism through his horrific experiences, the unknown narrator usually only comments on the setting using great imagery. What does this contrast provide to you as a reader?
The three other men on the boat are introduced by the title of their professions. “The Director of Companies was our captain and our host...", "The Lawyer -- the best of old fellows-- had, because of his many years and many virtues, the only cushion on deck, and was lying on the only rug. The Accountant had brought out already a box of dominoes, and was toying architecturally with the bones." (2) What do you think Conrad's intention was by labeling these characters by occupation? Furthermore, do you think they represent different parts of society at that time? What is the effect of not knowing their reactions?
Lastly, Marlow eloquently describes the African slaves with a sympathetic tone, and seems to acknowledge the evil acts of his fellow british acquaintances. 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." (25) Then he expressed a feeling of guilt and skepticism; "I've seen the devil of violence, and the devil of greed, and the devil of hot desire; but, by all the stars! these were strong, lusty, red-eyed devils, that swayed and drove men--men, I tell you. But as I stood on this hillside, I foresaw that in the blinding sunshine of that land I would become acquainted with a flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of rapacious and pitiless folly. How insidious he could be... For a moment I stood appalled, as though by a warning." (26) Do you think Marlow considers this subjugation to be an example of "man's inhumanity to man" or does he believe in British imperialism and colonization?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To give my opinion on the third and final question, one pertaining to Marlow's moral sense of what is just or unjust with British imperialism, I think that Marlow tends to think that it is pointless. For example, on page 22, when he is talking about the man-of-war that he saw stationed off the shore, he says:
ReplyDelete"...there she was, incomprehensible, firing into a continent. Pop, would go one of the eight-inch guns; a small flame would dart and vanish, a little white smoke would disappear, a tiny projectile would give a feeble screech -- and nothing happened. Nothing could happen. There was a touch of insanity in the proceeding...and it was not dissipated by somebody on board assuring me earnestly there was a camp of natives -- he called them enemies! -- hidden out of sight somewhere."
Here he describes a small event, seemingly common, or at least not unheard of, where a British ship would fire on the native population on the shore. He does seem to have a certain amount of disgust in this event's undertaking, when he calls it "incomprehensible", and seems to be alarmed that the native inhabitants were called "enemies". I think Marlow's moral sense of what the British colonists are doing is definitely evident, but he doesn't seem to do anything about it, or want to do anything about it. I think he is more interested in the exploring of the world, and seeing what there is to see, rather than engaging in a moral argument with British colonists.
After reading Part I of the book, I cannot determine whether or not Marlow is a anti-colonist. However, Marlow clearly shows some sympathy for the enslaved Africans and great contempt towards the colonizers, especially the ones at the station for their inefficiency and uselessness. For example, the first-class agent (first appearing on P41) was a brick maker. He, however, was not able to make even one brick because he did not have materials available for brick making. Instead of trying to get his work done, the brick maker actually worked hard to fawn powerful or influential people for a better position. The brick maker was one of most colonizers who switched from an imperialist, who thought they could promote African welfare, to a greedy person losing their morality and humanity. He regarded them as "beguiling the time by backbiting and intriguing against each other in a foolish kind of way" (42). All they wanted was ivory, which could be seem in the quote "the word 'ivory' rang in the air, was whispered, was sighed. You would think they were praying to it."(29). Marlow was gave me that he was morally different from the colonizers.
ReplyDeleteTo go back to your question about naming the characters by their occupation, I think that Conrad’s intention was to establish the existence of these characters, but only as much as necessary. What’s unique about this book is the narrative within a narrative idea and for that structure to be effective, Marlow must have an audience to tell the story to. To answer the question about Marlow’s opinion of imperialism, I agree with what Austin said. I think Marlow thinks the behavior of the colonists is somewhat excessive, but he is not necessarily opposed to what they are doing. When he first arrives at the station, he says “a heavy and dull detonation shook the ground, a puff of smoke came out of the cliff, and that was all. No change appeared on the face of the rock. They were building a railway. The cliff was no in the way or anything; but this objectless blasting was all the work going on” (24). Marlow often alludes to what the colonists are doing, but he never outright states his opinion. “Another report from the cliff made me think suddenly of that ship of war I had seen firing into a continent...stared stonily uphill” (25). Like Austin said, while Marlow notices the imperialism, he is more interested in exploring.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this book has strong elements of anti-colonialism, but the opinion was not yet widespread enough to be a generally accepted opinion. Heart of Darkness has clear anti-colonist statements, such as the passage on p. 8 when Marlow calls colonialism "robbery" and "aggravated murder." He uses the theme of darkness to speak out against the idea of it, often referring to particularly crazy or outrageous characters as "dark." Marlow does his best to expose the inherent hypocrisy of the colonists, who claim to be improving the native society but really only destroy it, and claim to be creating better lives for the natives but only end up ruining them with impossible labor and thievery of resources.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the narrator's reactions are never documented, he provides the reader with perspective concerning Marlow's story, a distance never allowed to the reader by Burgess. The narrators breaks back into reality let the reader see that it is "only a story," and that we are taking everything Marlow says with a grain of salt, as we are not directly witnessing it.
It seems clear so far that Marlow is not a supporter of British imperialism. There is a sense of immorality when Marlow describes desire of the Eldorado Exploring Expedition, which is to "tear treasure out of the bowels of the land...with no more moral purpose at the back of it than there is in burglars breaking into a safe" (54). I agree with Austin that there is a sense of futility in imperialism. Marlow describes the colonists he sees as being inefficient, from the brickmaker who makes no bricks to the man who tries to put out a fire with a leaking bucket. However, Marlow participates in the act of colonialism, which means that he does not disagree with it outright. Also, as Austin said, Marlow does nothing to stop the process, including to help the people who suffer because of the British greed. Maybe the explanation for Marlow's unclear opinion is that he hates both the Africans and imperialism.
ReplyDeleteTo comment on your first question, I actually like the contrast that the narrator gives us while reading the book. I think that since this is a narration within a narration, it would be to confusing and too much for me to listen to the narrators opinions and thoughts as well as Marlows at the same time. If it was Marlow telling his story, and then the narrator constantly interrupting I would not like that because it would interrupt the flow of the story and provide to many opinions, making the novel choppy. I like the fact that every now and then the narrator does comment on the imagery and scenery, because then we know that he is still present and with us, but we don't hear from him an overwhelming amount so that we get confused whether this is Marlows story being told, or the narrators.
ReplyDeleteAfter continuing on with Heart of Darkness, I found that Marlow has many different opinions on the contrast between British Imperialism and the dominance it had around the world. Marlow not only hates the "city that always makes me think of a whited sepulchre" (13) but he also has a judgmental tone against the blacks, as they destroyed the cliff with "objectless blasting" (25). Marlow also makes reference to making the road better by killing the black man on page 34. I found that Marlow's constant tone of superiority and judgement caused a change in his perspective when he found the man under the trees who, was dying, and had the white cloth around his neck. This representing the enslavement of criminals seemed to strike him differently than most other instances did.
ReplyDeleteI found that the change of pace from Marlow to the unknown Narrator, although a bit confusing at times usually gave a nice catch of breath for the reader, and to be able to step back from the details of Marlow's stories and find the little things like scenery and nature to comment on, like the narrator does. It also provides another resource for analysis. Although he does not analyze what Marlow is talking about, at times he uses his words to find the significance of Marlow's story, and how it truly gave meaning to him.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Conrad provides an interesting contrast between the importance of occupation among the bluejackets of the Nellie, and the ivory enthusiasts in the Congo. On the ship, Conrad presents four unlikely companions – a lawyer, an accountant, a ship captain Marlow, and an unnamed narrator of unknown profession. All of these men have different positions in life, yet through the sea they are somehow made equal and connected by affection: “between us there was . . . the bond of the sea. Besides holding our hearts together through long periods of separation, it had the effect of making us tolerant of each other’s yarns – and even convictions (2).” This connection is not exclusive to these four men. It is a universal comradeship among men of the sea, which is seen in Marlow’s encounter with an unknown Swedish captain on route to the company port: “I had my passage on a little sea-going steamer. Her captain was a Swede, and knowing me for a seaman, invited me on the bridge (23).’” This theme of the sea transcending the importance of rank is not seen among the ivory merchants and managers of the Company. To these men position is everything, and they believe it defines them as individuals. This is seen by both the Brickmaker “pumping” Marlow for information about the European offices, and the General Manager who is eager to let Kurtz die, rather than let Kurtz live to take over his post as General Manager.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to tell if Marlow is against the colonization of the Congo. Conrad seems to describe the natural jungle and the invasion as both good and evil: “Outside, the silent wilderness surrounding this cleared speck on the earth stuck me as something great and invincible, like evil or truth, waiting patiently for the passing away of this fantastic invasion (40).” Such quotes make it difficult to determine Marlow’s feelings -- it is an invasion and yet it is fantastic; the jungle is invincible but like truth or evil. Whatever Marlow may believe about colonization he certainly holds distain toward the men overseeing the colonization of the Congo. Marlow came to the Congo with pure intentions, to fulfill a boyish dream of exploring the “delightful mystery (10)” of the outside world. Marlow detests the men who are attempting to strip the continent bare in order to gain a “precious trickle of ivory (30).” Perhaps that is what draws Marlow to Kurtz. The Company considers Kurtz a prodigy; however, Kurtz does not share their goals. Kurtz wants more than mere profits; to Kurtz, “each station should be like a beacon on the road towards better things, a center for trade, of course, but also for humanizing, improving, instructing. (58) ’” The fact that a man with such admirable ideals can exist in a Company so concerned with profit makes Kurtz an object of obsession, almost an idol, for Marlow.
In the beginning Marlow does not seem to have a lot of knowledge about imperialism, and therefore not entirely against it, as well as the effect that it has on people who witness it. When Marlow is in the doctor’s office, the doctor warns him of the mental transformation where “the changes take place on the inside” (17) of the colonists. It does not take Marlow long to experience a mental change once he discovers the truth of imperialism. Ellen’s quotation is a perfect example of the shift in mindset Marlow encounters when he is within the operation and has "seen the devil of violence, and the devil of greed, and the devil of hot desire; but, by all the stars! these were strong, lusty, red-eyed devils, that swayed and drove men--men, I tell you” (26). Marlow believes that these “red-eyed devils” are worse than any evil being he has ever seen. But what makes the people here worse than those who commit violence? I think that a possible difference could be a sense of restraint. On page 76 Marlow is amazed at the restraint within the cannibals and feels more connection and respect for them than the white people destroying the land and working natives to death. This passage creates an interesting contrast for someone in Marlow’s position. On one side Marlow is supposed to think about profit in a business only about money while making the new land a “better” place for the "savages". On the other side, however, is Marlow’s actual reaction to "man's inhumanity to man” as a result of imperialism and the lack of restraint/morality.
ReplyDeleteI feel that as his story progresses Marlow begins to understand that, at least with the company he's with, imperialism is just about stripping the land of its resources instead of improving the native civilization. He sees the subjugated natives and the treatment and distrust that they are given. Marlow also sees the way those sent to better the civilization care nothing about the natives and care everything about money. He also discovers the lack of morals surrounding the whites involvement in Africa with the useless killings of natives and the stripping of resources as all the supposed missionaries care about. I think Marlow grows to consider the treatment of the natives is "man's inhumanity to man."
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ellen's first question, I feel as though the difference in tone, language, and content between Marlow's words and the narrator's illustrates the differences in experience, outlook, and literary purpose of the two in Heart of Darkness. Marlow is characterized as being a seasoned seaman and story teller with the numinous qualities of a Buddha (8). Although the reader learns about all the Nellie's passengers' shared nautical past (2), Marlow is the only one of the group who has retained his seafaring way of life. Widely known for their tales of danger, daring deeds, and doom, mariners often use metaphor and allegory to craft a tale which condenses meaning and amplifies themes. This often means that plot, setting, and imagery come second to analysis, descriptive metaphor and use of symbols to promote meaning. The narrator's descriptions are restricted to regurgitation of setting and plot, free for the most part from analysis or commentary. By contrast, Marlow looks at setting, events, and people for their symbolic value and uses metaphor to give the reader a feeling of a breathing moment. Marlow does not merely describe the jungle as dark or big; instead, he describes it as "a rolling wave of plants, piled up, crested, ready to topple over the creek, to sweep every little man of us out of his little existence" (53). From this description and metaphor the reader comes away with a good idea of the profound effect which the jungle has upon Marlow. He communicates the anticipation he feels, similar to that brought about by a huge cresting wave, the potential for doom which the jungle holds, and its humbling effect all without describing a concrete attribute of the jungle or saying any one of these reactions outright. The propensity for allusions and analysis rather than outright statement is representative of Conrad's beliefs in existentialism and his style. Marlow's story has autobiographical characteristics for Conrad, who embarked upon a similar trip to the Congo a decade before the novella was published. Marlow's voice represents Conrad's; both Conrad and Marlow feel that "words standing alone, are symbols of life, have the power in their sound or their aspect to present the very thing you wish to hold up before the mental vision of your reader...(Conrad) and that "my task which I am trying to achieve is, by the power of the written word, to make you hear, to make you feel--it is above all, to make you 'see' (Conrad). 'See' in this context holds less of a concrete, visual meaning and more of a connotation of understanding, of feeling all pieces of a scene rather than only seeing the setting. Marlow's style differs from that of the narrator primarily in order to show that Marlow is Conrad's voice while the narrator merely provides the structure for the tale.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI find the question that Ellen posed on Conrad's intention behind referring to many characters simply by their profession quite interesting. It is also important to note that individuals are also identified by their physical attributes, or their relationship to Marlow or Kurtz, such as the Aunt, or the Intended. In my opinion, this choice by Conrad serves to stress that all but Marlow and Kurtz are merely supporting players. In addition, once the novella has been read in full it becomes obvious that only Marlow and Kurtz are referred to by their last names, save for Marlow being referred to "Charlie Marlow"(p. 11). This also serves to shine the spotlight solely on the two men, as the subject of the story is truly their relationship. At the beginning, Marlow knows nothing of Kurtz, as soon as he hears of him, their lives become intertwined, however, Marlow never learns the Man's first name. It strikes me funny that an inquisitive man such as Marlow would never ask, though he was the one who had to pick up the pieces.
ReplyDeleteI think that not knowing the reaction of the men is to the benefit of the reader, as it allows their interpretation of the tale to be based entirely off of Marlow's words, and the narrators slight opinion. Had the opinions of the other men been included, it would have lessened the power of the story within the story, as well as preventing Conrad from leading the reader through the entirety of the novella.