"We knew we were fated, before the ebb began to run, to hear about one of Marlow's inconclusive experiences"(9). Here, the narrator assumes that Marlow did not accomplish any philosophical augmentation during his time in Africa; do you agree with him, having read through part two? How do you think seeing the negative side of imperialism affected him, and his opinions of Western civilization, if at all?
Somewhat connected to that, the main theme of "restraint" is echoed by Marlow in both positive and negative reflections of his fellow travelers and acquaintances. For him, how might this concept relate to the imperialistic efforts of Kurtz and the manager, and in what light would he view it?
Also related to that, do you think Marlow's moral conscience about imperialism seems to give him any assumptions or predetermined feelings about the people he hears about? Does this change throughout his journey with his experiences? How is his perception of Kurtz altered after he meets him?
"The I noticed a small sketch in oils, on a panel, representing a woman, draped and blind-folded, carrying a lighted torch. The background was sombre -- almost black. The movement of the woman was stately, and the effect of the torchlight on the face was sinister"(43). How does the frequent use of "darkness" in descriptions like this change throughout the book, given that "darkness" for this novel can be defined as physical darkness, moral darkness, or, alternatively, a dearth of perception, like with this painting of a blind-folded woman?
I think that as the narrator set up Marlow’s story, the narrator believed that Marlow couldn’t have had a journey that caused so much meaning in his life. The narrator’s tone is condescending in some ways, but as the story goes on, even though the narrator has no comments, the meaning of Marlow’s tales becomes evident. Some of his philosophical realizations are hidden among common descriptions. Such as the man that even “in the demoralization of the land he kept up his appearance. That’s backbone” (30). Marlow finds that his judgmental tone and judgements of others in this situation gave him meaning of his journey. I also think that Marlow’s personal feelings aside, Brussels, where he is from is far different from Africa, and so are the people. But as he journeys father down river, his ideology changes. Once prepared for the worst, Marlow finds himself devastated at the idea that he may not be able to meet Kurtz. Although he had never met him, Marlow believed that Kurtz was the answer to all the problems in the world and that Kurtz could solve anything. Even with just words. Marlow describes him as a “gifted creature” and that he “carried a sense of presence” (86), showing his true admiration for someone who didn’t even know of him. After Marlow meets Kurtz I think the tone of his admiration changed, although it was still there. Marlow never blamed Kurtz even after the trouble of searching through the forest for him Marlow’s tone was still “his intelligence was perfectly clear” and the only bit wrong was that “his soul was mad” (124). I think that Marlow found himself not only finding meaning, but also seeing new characteristics of himself while searching for the betterment of another person. The changes that Marlow experienced so far have made a journey once portrayed as meaningless now have much more meaning.
ReplyDeleteWhen Marlow begins his journey to Africa, he is full of the optimism that comes with exploration but also colored by the racial stereotypes entrenched in British culture. As the story unfolds, there is proof that Marlow has changed his mind about imperialism and Western civilization. Marlow's beliefs about restraint also change. He sees that Europeans can show a lack of restraint, and 'savages' can have restraint. Marlow comes to realize that Kurtz has let his lust for ivory and near-addiction to the jungle consume him. As a result, Kurtz is deemed a man with "no restraint, no faith, and no fear" (125). On the opposite end, Marlow notices that the cannibals are starving, yet don't try to eat the crew. Although Marlow "would have just as soon expected restraint from a hyena prowling amongst the corpses of a battlefield" (76), he does acknowledge that the cannibals do, in fact, have restraint. In this way, Marlow's beginning assumptions and philosophy were changed by his journey and by Kurtz.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe that Marlow’s opinion of western civilization and imperialism changes during his time in Africa. Even before he leaves Europe, Marlow is aware that imperialism is driven by profit. When his aunt wishes him luck in spreading western culture to the “those ignorant millions” in Africa, Marlow has no illusions about his work and says to his aunt that “the Company was run for profit (19).” On his arrival in Africa, Marlow discovers that his initial assumptions about imperialism are true. Just about every company representative he meets is motivated solely by profit. When Marlow asks his white companion why he came to Africa, he responds, “To make money, of course. What do you think (34)?”
ReplyDeleteMarlow does not change his belief in the necessity for civilized restraint for ordinary human beings. However, after meeting Kurtz, Marlow does believe that there are some that this rule does not apply to. I agree with Liv there is stark contrast between Marlow’s view of the accountant and Kurtz. Marlow respects the accountant’s restraint and control, and even describes his appearance as the “achievements of character (30).” Yet Marlow describes Kurtz as “remarkable,” even though he is dissipated, cruel, and has the reputation of being “very terrible (104).” Some would say that this indicates that Marlow has changed his view on the necessity of restraint. I believe this statement to be false. Marlow has not changed his view on what is expected of man, for, as the Russian says: “You cannot judge Kurtz as you would an ordinary man (104).” Marlow acknowledges that Kurtz has “taken a high seat amongst the devils of the land (90).” To Marlow, Kurtz has become more than just a man. He has become an idol, something beyond restraint. Marlow is a true admirer of Kurtz before and after he meets him. And yet, as Austin asks, I think it worth considering whether Marlow does change his opinion of Kurtz after he meets him. For Marlow never really meets Kurtz the prodigy that he had heard so much about: “Sometimes I ask myself whether I had ever really seen him—whether it was possible to meet such a phenomenon (119).”
Marlow’s experiences in Africa did shape his view of western civilization. He witnesses the freedoms of the wilderness and observes the lack of restraint in some of his acquaintances. In Europe, principles and morals suppressed these primitive urges but the lack of order and the vast, abundant land in Africa provide the perfect place to exercise these immoral urges. The fact that Marlow respects people who have restraint in an uncivilized place, shows his respect for the Modern World. But as Marlow keeps narrating his story, we see his own urges and his respect for the natives grow. ‘They had not the fierce character boding of intermediate hostile intention. Unexpected, wild, and violent as they had been. they had given me an irresistible impression of sorrow.” (78) Marlow’s judgement of the natives seem to connect to his introduction to Kurtz. Though Marlow has heard many positive and negative remarks about Kurtz throughout his travels, when Marlow witnesses Kurtz in such bad condition, he begins to feel sympathy for the man. Furthermore, his reaction to his voice was significant in his new understanding of Kurtz. When Marlow sees Kurtz crawling to the chanting natives, he realizes the true struggle that Kurtz is going through. Because of Kurtz’s degradation, Marlow can relate to him and judge him as a human instead of as an idol like the natives and the Russian. “But his soul was mad. Being alone in the wilderness, it had looked within itself, and, by heavens! I tell you, it had gone mad...He struggled with himself, too. I saw it,--I heard it. I saw the inconceivable mystery of a soul that knew no restraint, no faith, and no fear, yet struggling blindly with itself.” (125) This quotation reflects the images in the painting of the blindfolded woman, carrying the torch. It might represent Kurtz and his blind struggles with morality. The changing meaning of darkness throughout the book also intrigued me and I was wondering its significance in the story.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Marlow's opinion of imperialism changed after seeing its negative side in Africa. Even before his departure to Africa, he said, of Fresleven's death over two hens, "Oh, it didn't surprise me in the least to hear this, and at the same time to be told that Fresleven was the gentlest, quietest creature that ever walked on two legs" (12). Marlow seems to know what happens to the white man in Africa, what imperialism (and lack of civilization/ westernization) leads to: lack of restraint.
ReplyDeleteI think Marlow views Kurtz's imperialistic efforts as indulgent, and even cruel. While Kurtz is undoubtedly the best ivory hunter, his preoccupation with being the subject of worship (the "Idol") for local tribes is disturbing. For a man who composes and disciplines (RESTRAINS) himself so well while on the hunt for ivory, it's pathetic that he would be so desperate as to "crawl" his way through the jungle to be treated as a deity by a local tribe. And of course, we know why he crawls through the jungle to get to his worshippers - his insatiable lust for power and control. Is it just me, or does it seem ironic that Kurtz, a man with (in many ways) no restraint, feels such a great need to be worshipped?
In addition to the definitions of darkness the Austin said above, darkness could also mean ambiguity. It is unclear to Marlow, as well as most of Europe, what it would be like to experience Africa first hand. Marlow describes “civilized” places as having a “brooding gloom” (2) and certain aspects of darkness. There is uncertainty in both Europe and Africa about the future of imperialism and little light has been shown on the dark truth. The end of the book offers another image of darkness when Marlow is talking to Kurtz’s Intended. On page 141 he says, “But with every word spoken the room was growing darker, and only her forehead, smooth and white, remained illuminated by the inextinguishable light of belief and love”. To his Intended, everything about Kurtz is already so clear because she believes and loves him. The clarity that she is able to see in Kurtz is “light” to her but Marlow only sees darkness. What do you think is causing this darkness and even anger when he is talking with her? Why is only her forehead illuminated?
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the narrator's opinion that Marlow's stories are inconclusive. I also believe that it is important to note that there is no evident connection from the quotation; "We knew we were fated, before the ebb began to run, to hear about one of Marlow's inconclusive experiences"(9), to a supposed lack of philosophical change in Marlow. Instead I would postulate that the narrator is instead referring to Marlow's experiences lacking an end result. His stories, and therefore experiences lack the basic structure, of a beginning, middle, and end. Instead, once the general scaffolding of the tale is erected, he goes on until it reaches a logical conclusion. In my opinion, Marlow only letting the intended know of the “good side” of Mr. Kurtz, and her trust in him restores Marlow’s belief in the value of humanity. It simultaneously shows him that there was a human side to Mr. Kurtz, a man who seemed untouchable from the first mention of his name.
ReplyDelete