Heart of Darkness
So what ideas about the book stuck in your head after today's discussion? What questions do you still have? What, in the end, is it really saying?
posted by Ms. Clapp @ 7:04 AM
44 comments
So what ideas about the book stuck in your head after today's discussion? What questions do you still have? What, in the end, is it really saying?
posted by Ms. Clapp @ 7:04 AM
44 comments
44 Comments:
Well we talked about many interesting things today in our class discussion. One of the topics that interested me the most was the meaning of the heart of darkness. What did it represent? There were many possibilities like Kurtz's past actions that made him doubt his life or the darkness of imperialism. I believe the meaning of the title is in the journey itself. Its the heart of Africa. The deeper Marlow and the crew traveled the more chaotic it got. I believe Conrad saw Africa as the darkness because it was still mysterious to the rest of the world from their ways of living. It was the source of uncivilized people at the time so Conrad could have seen it as a land of crazy people. So the darkness is the unfamiliar ways of Africans.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I like what you said about how "the darkness is the unfamiliar ways of Africans", Carlos. But how does that relate back to the heart?
I don't think it is as superficial as where Africa is, although that is certainly part of it. As taught in How to Read Literature Like a Professor, geography matters, but I'm not convinced that there isn't any more to it than that. It could in addition be how Europeans felt about Africans, how in their hearts they didn't see them as real people, and that's what made their hearts dark.
Or perhaps, considering that Carlos said the darkness is the "unfamiliar", Conrad could be showing us that by fearing what we do not understand/know, we keep our hearts -- not just our minds -- in darkness. Without exploration and communication and, eventually, understanding, we remain isolated and our prospects of enlightening that darkness are excruciatingly slim. And that ties in with how Conrad/Marlow is against imperialism: they don't want anyone to expand their property, but they want people to expand themselves. Knowledge is everything, is worth more even than gold. I wonder now if Conrad was against imperialism so much also because he felt that the planet could not be tamed/owned by us. We inhabit it, but we do not own it and can never hope to. Like a bird that builds its nest in a tree -- the bird doesn't own the tree; rather it knows what it needs (the nest) and knows that the tree can help it in achieving what it needs, what it quests for. Perhaps Conrad/Marlow knew that the Africans understood this, that they had not lost their respect for the earth in thinking that it was their right to own it. Maybe Conrad was jealous of that knowledge, of that understanding, and that's why he wrote the book -- to make us understand that kind of enlightenment. Reverting back to priordial ways, not days, might not be such a terrible thing. And that's why Kurtz was so enlightened -- he understood this, or learned to understand it.
Now that I think of it, that ties in with what we were saying in the class discussion about kinship. Understanding/knowledge will help with cultural collisions and will aid us in unifying with the rest of the world, which is imperative because we are all kin, we are all one. We share this planet, we share its resources, we share its wealth, and we must recognize this and begin to share ourselves. And, just as Marlow was frightended, this is a sometimes scary thing to do -- few people are comfortable sharing themselves with strangers. But nevertheless it must be done. Otherwise, if we keep going on without achieving this, we will only lead ourselves to the "horror" that Kurtz probably saw in his dying vision.
Also, maybe Kurtz was saying "the horror" as he died because he knew that he hadn't been able to get the rest of the world to understand this kinship/enlightenment in time/before his death. There could have been a sadness to his horror.
This is getting longer than I anticipated (again). So I'll stop before I babble on for days. (haha)
I agree with the previous statements but I want to comment on the racism used in Conrad's novel. Although Conrad uses racist language, such as, "nigger," and "savage," to address the Africans, I doubt that Conrad was prejudiced. Considering the times and society in which the book was written, if Conrad wanted to criticize or humiliate Blacks, he could've written a more sinister novel (which would be praised in his time). Thus, Conrad's novel is not written to degrade Africans - it is written to promote humanity and "kinship." I believe Conrad's racist tone is a device he uses to communicate his message subliminally, and to give it more longevity. Considering the context of the novel, if he were to write a novel praising Africans, or calling them "brothers," his novel would have probably been less popular and even criticized. Therefore, Conrad's strategy is brilliant and creative.
In our student-run discussion on "Heart of Darkness", I felt that quite a few interesting points and topics were brought up when we were trying to figure out this book's meaning. One of the topics that was brought and grabbed my interest was about Kurtz's "enlightenment" and his cry of "The horror! The horror!"
As I stated in class, I believe that Kurtz cried "The horror, the horror!" as a reaction to his thoughts about his past actions and how brutal they probably were (full quote on p.69). I also think that this represents one of the main themes of this book, which is the horrors of imperialism.
Do you all think that this is the overall message from the book? That imperialism is bad? I mean, we already know from Hunt Hawkins response to Achebe that Conrad was strongly against imperialism, so do you think that it was the overall message in "Heart of Darkness"?
This comment has been removed by the author.
I forgot who brought this up during the discussion, but his/her idea was that when we are alone, we are forced to think of what we do not understand, and we question our ability to survive. This is very interesting, because I remember one of the first few mentions of Kurtz, the Manager talks about Kurtz’s first few days in Africa. In the station, he drew a woman, blindfolded, but carrying a torch. Now, how ironic is that? Why would she need a torch, something that would guide her on her way, when she is blinded, a deterrent her from her journey.
Kurtz is alone in a continent where he knows a few people. He’s probably seen the “brutes”. The station where he paints the picture is only a stop on his journey. He is all alone, what might he be thinking when he is in such a foreign country? Why did he paint that picture? Conrad did not give a definite answer on what race the woman was, but I am leaning more towards an African woman, just by the description of how “dark” it was. Aha! He depicted the blind leading the blind. Well, a blind person, trying to guide herself through the darkness.
He did not understand how the Africans were living. Like most Europeans, he was surprised by how barbaric or uncivilized they were. Did he question his ability to survive in this continent? Absolutely, that is a primary thought of most people when they encounter a foreign land. Was he alone? Yes, he was, “waiting for a means to go to his trading post” (25). What does Conrad insinuate with the means of going to his trading post? Was Kurtz stuck in the station? Why would he be there? He must have been at the station long enough to paint such a dark picture. He must have also experienced some or enough of the country to depict the darkness of the land.
Maybe when Kurtz says, “The horror, the horror,” he is thinking of his entire journey in Africa. Every trip is a quest, and he might have acquired self knowledge in his last few minutes of living. The painting was only the first indication of the darkness Kurt witnessed.
I want to touch on what Debbie brought up about the loss of familiarity and survival...I think she has a great point in how both Marlow and Kurtz are connected in someways because they both become enlightened through the foreign land of Africa. It contrasts so deeply with their own land that Marlow is unsure of how to respond to it. I think Conrad/Marlow's opinion on imperialism has a lot to do with the characters' reactions to Africa. In the story, we have the manager on the ship, a rather snooty white man, who we can assume by his nature and his treatment of the Africans, is a racist and imperialist. Somebody who strongly identifies themselves with a certain philosophy, such as imperialism, has a better chance of keeping true to their identity in a foreign land. They have something to hold on to, to remind themselves of who they are and what they stand for. Marlow, on the other hand, has never declared himself as particularly racist or imperialist, hence why he may feel some sort of doubt in himself, a need for reassurance of how he really feels about the world once he enters the Congo jungles.
As for the meaning of the phrase "Heart of Darkness", I feel like it's a bit more simple than people make it out to be. The literal "heart" is the Congo--it is close to the center of Africa. The "darkness" signifies the shadowy parts of the jungle, and also metaphorically can mean the parts of the Congo and the Congolese people that Marlow doesn't fully understand. Also metaphorically, the "heart" can mean the center, but not geographically. The "heart" can be somebody's core, meaning who they are and what they stand for. I think the "darkness" of this core is tied into how Marlow is not sure how to think once he encounters that unfamiliar feeling of kinship with the other Africans when they are beating their drums as he first approaches. These feelings of kinship have been shrouded in "darkness" inside of his "heart" (or core ways of thinking) during times of ignorance (aka, before he ventured into Africa for the first-hand experience).
All of this ties into quests! The journey taken on Marlow's ship is just a quest for self-knowledge, and here it is: Marlow can discover that there is some deeper bond between Europeans and Africans, beyond imperialism and racism. He begins to truly see the similarities, suggesting that we are indeed all human, insinuating that we should forget the ideas of "superiority".
This comment has been removed by the author.
In regards to Samantha’s take on Debbie’s idea about Marlow’s time in the Congo jungles, I would like to bring back another point mentioned—another of Sam’s, actually—surrounding Marlow’s sanity and its relationship with his surroundings. I strongly agree that the racist views of Mr. Kurtz and the other imperialists Marlow comes across act in the way that the do—at least subconsciously—so to preserve their identities, their own cultures. Really, as morally wrong as these people’s ways are, with every swings of imperialism’s great axe of influence falls another tree for the bounty of those that have come to reap this foreign land’s rewards, thus establishing sides in the race for superiority that forever exists in the game of survival. I believe imperialism is represented by Marlow’s struggle for survival, and while some, like Achebe, argue that Marlow is nothing but a racist, he is more like the native African people than one might notice. Just as these natives are thrust in the face of imperialist takeover, surrounded by unfamiliar culture in a place they rightfully belong, Marlow faces the “heart of darkness,” an incredible evil that he could not possibly stop, and ends up in a place where, as captain, he should know, but is surrounded by aliens and mystery. Imperialism then was much like a survival precaution—measures taken to secure superiority, and so while Kaela mentioned she believes the darkness is meant to encourage us to explore, to take the risks to make the progress, I believe that is Marlow’s role, his journey’s role, while darkness’s role is to illustrate just how far people have gone to get it—and how said efforts affected them. In response to Ravi’s question, I believe imperialism’s role in the book’s purpose is to illustrate the potential darkness of man, to reveal what we do not know, what we do not wish to see.
What is this heart of darkness? I believe the general meeting of the title could go either way; dark hearts or the heart of a dark place or idea. On the one hand, we take the “heart” part literally; we have this entire people of imperialists, storming in, taking all that is not theirs to take. They care not for tradition, for honor, for respect, for the very lives they are disrupting, ending. And so, their hearts are, inarguably, dark. On the other hand, we have another enemy, another conflict; the very core of that which poses the greatest threat. Marlow attempts to get to the heart of the darkness that is this case of imperialism, hoping to penetrate and end, when he goes off looking for Mr. Kurtz. The location which Marlow must travel to also fits the title, acting as the heart of near literal darkness—an incredibly native part of Africa, more unreal, unfamiliar, dangerous than any other Marlow has ever seen. With that considered, these “heart[s] of darkness” are in fact the objects of his quest.
This comment has been removed by the author.
One idea that we really skirted around but never fully jumped on was the novel’s overall purpose. The Hawkins essay seemed to easily identify it as an anti-imperialist text, something we all seemed to easily agree with. But really, to say that the book’s purpose is to denounce imperialism definitely oversimplifies it. Heart of Darkness is clearly much more complicated than that.
I think what Conrad really wants is for the reader to question himself—to question his own morality, and what it means to be human. He does this particular from three “darker” parts of humanity. Connection to primitiveness, sanity, and morality all really stood out to me yet simultaneously related.
The first I think comes from the connection to the natives and the wilderness. Marlow sees the wilderness as “monstrous and free,” and the “wild and passionate uproar” of the natives “thrilled” him at the thought of their “remote kinship.” (36) The occurrence of this kinship happens through Kurtz, who’s “alone” had drawn him towards “the gleam of fires, the throb of drums, the drone of weird incantations.” (65) Or rather, had drawn him into traveling with the tribes while pretending to be their king.
Taking the last action into consideration, the question of sanity is pretty obvious. It’s clear that at the end of the novel, Marlow had some kind of post-trauma thing going on—“it was my imagination that wanted soothing.” (71) The same way the images of the wilderness stuck with Marlow, they also haunted Kurtz. (Think, “the horror! The horror!”) A lot of the novella hints on the mental instability of the characters.
The issue of morality is easily shown by the imperialism. In the beginning, what Marlow witnesses clearly horrifies him: pure exploitation. The hypocrisy of the imperialism mission is clear through Kurtz’s post-script of “Exterminate the brutes!” While imperialism advertises conversion, civilization, and pacification, this clearly doesn’t happen. Even in the beginning of the novel, Marlow is annoyed at his aunt’s ignorance. She turns a blind eye to the true, money-making motives of the imperialists.
This symbolizes a break from the religious, Christian values that are probably naturally implied about the characters due to the context of the novella. The church preached to spread Christianity, but instead of honoring God, they honored Ivory. One quote, “The word ‘ivory’ rang in the air, was whispered, was sighed. You would think they were praying to it,” (23) suggests that it was somewhat idol worship, which is definitely a thing considered blasphemy by the church. Conrad uses the character’s motives to show that the morality of humans was degenerating in the time period.
So yeah, all these three aspects are part of our humanity that Conrad touches upon. It’s done so in a way that directly attacks imperialism, but also lets us indirectly question ourselves, and our morality.
In class on friday we discussed many different topics. The most interesting topic that we discussed to me had to do with rather Joseph Conrad was rascist or not. I highly doubt that he was rasicist. His characters in his book did use rather vulgur language to discribe the Africans, but those are characters that doesnt me he necasarrily felt the way Marlow, Kurtz, or any other character felt.
In one of the readings we read, it was mentioned that racism during Conrads time was not taboo, and there wasnt even a word for racism. So even though the word "nigger" was used in the book during that time it was socially acceptable to be racist.
Another thing i wanted to mention, was personally if i was to go to Africa and when i got there i saw people being cannibals and lived the way they did, i think i would have my personal opinions about them being "savages" because thats not something i see everyday. Would i look at them like they werent human beings? no, of course not. But it would deffinately make me realize there is a difference between me and Africans socially.
The title is so ambiguous because of so many double meanings. Many people are connecting it to the center of the Congo and things like that but I connected it to the heart of a man. I agree with Samantha that “darkness” can definitely mean ignorance, I think it symbolizes ignorance, greed, savagery, ect but I think that this is the heart of an imperialistic man. So many times in the book it is used to reference/describe the setting but I think that it can easily be applied to any of the Europeans that come down to Africa for the ivory. Its ironic, they come down with dark greedy hearts to take the white ivory of Africa, I think Conrad used the term darkness to oppose and contrast with the pure white of the ivory and saw that side of the imperialists. Conrad acknowledges this idea through Kurtz’s sudden insight or enlightenment. “The horror!” is Kurtz’s enlightenment to the white man’s darkness, the Europeans are so quick to judge the “savages” that they do not look at themselves or their actions to realize that they are the ones that are filled with the darkness, they are the true savages. Its funny because the African people may be cannibals but it’s the Europeans that are ready to kill the Africans or harm them to get their way.
Also I want to note on the racism subject. I think Aiden made the argument that Conrad was just making a character and I completely agree. By not allowing the author to take a different persona the reader is taking away the author’s ability to tell a story and to speak their purpose, without the ability to take the voice of someone else than the character would not be able to enter/complete their quest. A quest requires someone to change/learn something through their journey, the author is not taking the journey so If the author cannot change than through this reasoning neither can the character...thus no quest. Before Conrad can be called a racist there are a lot of things that have to be taken into account like context, past experience, ect. In Hawkins’ essay he claims that Conrad was a Polish Jew and knew racism firsthand, this could mean that he added this racist undertone for a number of different reasons (373). He could just be making the writing authentic because at that time many people used these terms on a regular basis, he could be noting on the immorality of racism (as a victim himself) by showing its ugly side or he could just be racist but because he is long since dead we will never know. I hope this argument made sense.
In our student run discussion there were many different topics that interested me. Yet, one stood out to me the most; which was the idea of the meaning of the title, “Heart of Darkness”. When I first read the title I supposed it meant the two men, Kurtz and Marlow were going to reach the center of the most horrifying darkness. However, after our discussion in class I have a new perspective of the title. Before Kurtz dies he yells out “the horror, the horror!” At first I thought he yelled this since he seen his life flash before him. Or even perhaps the fact he knew he was going to die and o longer going to be on the face of the Earth. Someone had mention that perhaps he yelled since he noticed all the wrong he did. He realized Africans are people and prejudice is wrong. I strongly agree with this comment that was made during our discussion. I now consider the title revolves around Kurtz’s enlightenment and guilt he contains in his heart. This is why I believe student run discussions are significant; since you are able to walk away with a whole new enlightenment and perspective of the novel after seeing the novel through someone else’s eyes.
What I would like to bring up from Friday's discussion is the idea of minorities in the novel. We discussed the idea that the Europeans in "Heart Of Darkness" saw the Africans as the minorities, however they clearly out numbered the Europeans making them in fact the minorities. I believe this goes to the idea of superiority which drove imperialism. It was the idea that for some reason a certain race or country was better and greater than another country and therefore they had some type of inconceivable right to take over and destroy the others culture. This also tie into what we discusses as Kurtz said "the horror, the horror" because this was what he was realizing he had done to the Africans. He felt the guilt of what he has done to them.
Heart of Darkness has many aspects to it that its easy to miss the small, but important parts. So far many of you have commented on the meaning of the heart of darkness and the how Marlow's trip to Africa effected him. During class we talked about Kurtz "indarknment", but never explored that idea any further which is fatal because its immportant to the message Conrad it trying to sent. It's true that the book shows the dark side of immperialism and that Conrad is opposed to the idea, but what we should really focus on the ideology that fuels that idea because it's what gave Kurtz his "indarkenment". Marlow says "The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complection or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing" What justified this was the idea that they were civilizing the people. That it was " The White Man's Burden" to do so. This alone alowed them to foolishly belive that the atrocities they committed could be justified by this idea. I think that this is very important because it was this lie that allowed the rest of Europe to allow such things to accure and to relieve the people who commited the atrocities of resposibility. This was an idea that I think people truly believed like Kurtz. Kurtz represents the humanity's tendency to justify immoral acts with hypocritic logic. This not any more true than with the Nazi. They belived it was the Aryans's burden to rid the world of people like the jewish people. This idea manifested in a sense of superiority that led them to think that they were above everyone else. After this occurs thoughts like exterminate the brutes became a reality. The acts in Africa were warnings that was not learned. The atrocities in Germany show what Conrad was trying to warn people about,but never understood. Although there many aspects
of the book that are offensive we its display of gross abuse of human life in nothing to be injnored. Conrad wanted to show the immoral acts people can cause when they have an idea that can justify their actions. Kurtz shows us that this idea only lasts for so long until the truth is realized, but only at the cost of so many lives. From this we should learn that just because we can justify our immoral acts does not make them right. Treating someone's life as lesser than yours only makes yours more worthless and your cause that of distruction. We had to learn this again with the Nazi only time will tell if we truly understood what Conrad was trying to tell us.
I had a whole lot of discouragements with this book. First off when I read the first two chapters of this book, I had thought for a minute this was going to be a repeat of sophomore year's reading of "Tale of Two Cities" seeing that I did not stick to the text quickly as I thought I would and the Old English vocabulary set me off a bit too, I was ready to put the book down until I went online to Sparknotes... YES, Sparknotes. Not to cheat so on and so on but to look up a plot summary of the novel to understand it easier.
I realized this wasn't a tale of ones journey to a new land but about the cruelty towards the villagers in the Congo witnessed by the main character Marlow from the men on the journey with him(http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/heart/summary.html). This actually made me want to read more seeing this text connected with one of my favorite subjects I had learned in history, imperialism and how the enforcement of a larger more industrialized power of a nation could have destroyed the original cultures and progress of a smaller, less stronger one. This text showed me the raw imagery of how the people of one small village in Africa was put into such submission under unfamiliar government while knowing they cannot do much to fight back for themselves (silent characters)
Later on this book became more insulting than educational when realizing how much the characters in the text were so racist...It also bothered me a lot that the author would go so far to use the demeaning terms towards the villagers such as the N word and more. I liked how is was the main argue of the class, "do we look at the book still as a classic text for showing the darker side of imperialism, or "classic trash" for shunning the black characters?" I would like to prefer we look at it as both because in any time and era, I do not believe it should be common to insult frequently a race of social and cultural differences, besides how could it have been common if the word itself was intended to violate and demean the person being called it. There were many things that I would like to converse of about this book, but I think I will just give my better statement of what stuck out to me during my reading and the discussion.
From what Aiden was talking about, it seems that he was touching at the way man tends to create some kind of excuse for a great immoral act. It seems to me that that idea has something deeper to do with what’s going on in a man’s heart. He brought up how imperialism was “justified” in that the white man was “helping” the Africans, when they were actually doing more bad to them. Every act that the Europeans did was underlined in selfishness to greater expand and increase in wealth for themselves. I think that this is something that Conrad was trying to touch upon while he was writing this book. In one sense I sort of viewed this book as Lord of the Flies, in that it has to do with looking into a person’s natural ways of his heart. Are they naturally good, or evil?
On the topic of Marlow's "enlightenment", I think that the woman Kurtz was meant to marry represented everyone else who was blissfully ignorant to the reality that Marlow faced in Africa. Someone in class made a comparison to the war in Iraq, explaining that everyone here at home only think they know what it's like over there, but only the soldiers know the harsh reality. By not telling Kurtz's wife to be his last words, Marlow protected her from the truth, which may have been too much for her to handle. Though Marlow thought this may have been for the best, it made me wonder if it would be better to know the truth and struggle with it or to remain blissfully ignorant. Honestly, I think I would rather believe a lie that would keep me at peace.
It seems to me everything is dark.
If ones heart is dark than, as a ripple effect everything gradually gets "endarkenened" and the light is very hard to be seen.
it is even hard to seek enlightentment. Even when he had a source of enlighenment (tenrenzi), he lost it. NOt only from a book but he lost enlightenment when Kurtz died. Things just go more confusing and the level of dificulty in this dark world escalalted.
Vision becomes impared literally and figuratively. THey cant see when they were beign attacked,on the boat the only could see right in fron tof them. So if nothing works out, the overall vision of expanding their colonies is cutt off also. It only makes sense to get reinforcements or just to leave theses natives alone,and they still can not resist.
Instead of having an effect on their colonies, the land had an even everlasting effect on them. They came for ivory and left with sorrow. One can not escape these events
When we talked about Kurtz enlightenment, when i was reading, i literally thought enlightment and not "en-darkenment". I was thinking, maybe Kurtz lead the enlightment to inter-racial couples;something that was definitely not socially excepted at that time. But clearly, i was wrong when thinking this.
Something that i am still confused over is what Kurtz meant by the horror. Something that Marlow clearly understood because he said it would have been too much to tell his "intended". I really really like Kaela's point about the Kurtz's last words. She said that maybe it was because he was not able to fulfill his enlightenment or kinship. This kind goes back to what i was saying in the beginning with the the blackmen and whitemen interacting. Another great point, made by Ravi, is sort of the whole "your whole life flashes before your eyes" before you die. This could also work with Kaela's point. He realized that his life just stopped at one point and was not able to fulfill his destiny that he had imagined, so this could be the "horror".
I like Andrew's point about Conrad wanting the reader to question who they are and what a human is. But unlike Andrew, i think that it simply is an anti-imperialist text, i mean of course with the whole journey of someone questioning himself just like Conrad wants the reader to do.
I also like how Andrew included the "darkness" divided into three points, which are the stages in which the reader should question themselves. I think Conrad is using Marlow as the character that he wants the readers to be. He wants the readers to question themselves like Marlow is.
Finally, i completely agree with Jenna's point about Kurtz's intended represents the ignorance. Marlow lied about Kurtz's last words, which shows that the woman really does not know the truth, hence the ignorance.
I want to comment on out discussion about the enlightenment that Kurtz had was also a "darkness" in a sense. Also, how this relates to the "heart" in the title Heart of Darkness. There are so many meanings that "Heart of Darkness" could take on in the book. I feel like the author purposely did it this way so it would keep us, the readers thinking until we we had no idea what to think. Throughtout the book switched back and forth between my thoughts on what the "heart" and the "darkness" actually meant. In the end I finally saw the darkness as the regret and the sympathy that Kurtz had in his heart. Thats where I felt that the heart of darkness really came from. Even thought I also thought of his enlightenmeant as being a darkness too it just seemed to fit what the whole theme of the book was in my eyes.
I agree with Matt. I believe Conrad was in a way attempting to protest against imperialism and its darkness. Selfishly has nations invaded countries for profit. Conrad had realized this and its darkness that stained human hearts with selfish desires. The heart of darkness is the idea of imperialism and the destruction it brings with it.
Upon reading these comments, I find Midori's comments interesting, as she explores the views of imperialists.
As I was first reading Terenzi’s post regarding the book’s purpose, I disagreed with him completely. However, as soon as he mentioned the three branches of humanity Heart of Darkness focuses on, I believe I began to see the point he was getting at. In my opinion, the purpose had more to do with purpose itself; that is, Conrad meant to illustrate the risk involved in going after what we want, warning us of man’s true potential “darkness.”
Additionally, I found Jeri’s point about ignorance in Heart of Darkness rather interesting. I had never considered the cannibals more controlled and civil than the men running the entire imperialist operation, likely because of Conrad’s incessant use of the word “cannibal.” The term heavily distracts from the realities of these two groups of men, making the natives seem far worse than the imperialists, when, in actuality, they are not.
I agree with Midori, Conrad was not racist, he just lived in a time where racism was acceptable. To me, it really doesn't matter if he's racist or not, the book has a specific purpose either way. The contents of Heart of Darkness exist because he wanted to reveal the bigger picture of the darkness within these men. Whether he did so with or without racist characters, the book's message remains most important. I like Monika's point about Conrad using Marlow as a reference point for readers. He wants them to experience the books contents through that type of lens.
Sorry Had to re-post but any way:Contrary to what Tasha said,I think Heart of Darkness though containing words and descriptions that are racist cannot be labeled fully against the Africans not a complete attack on them. I think however what was racist was the subject of insanity. As we touched on in class Mr. Kurtz was labeled as insane but why? Was is because of what seemingly was an unnatural fascination and like for the natives? It when the narrator finds that Kurtz spends days with these men and women that he diagnoses Kurtz with madness. I think Kurtz represents the better thinking and learn when it comes to learning about a new culture. As oppose the the Britain who made all who were not them second class.
My first thought after reading all the posts...Where is the textual evidence? I want to agree/disagree with you all, but a claim without a evidence is hard to feel strong about. Especially since Heart of Darkness is so dense! There are so many ideas to account for that it's hard to remember some moments specifically.
Monika expressed the feeling that at first felt Kurtz had an "enlightenment", not an "*endarkenment*", which is the view I still hold. I think since "endarkenment" isn't really a word, we're all kind of twisted it to fit the meaning that fits us. But if you re-read Kurtz death, on pg 70 Marlow refers to Kurtz's outcry as a "glimpsed truth"--"a moral victory paid for by innumerable defeats, by abominable terors, by abominable satisfactions. But it was a victory." This leads me to think that Kurtz's outcry of "The horror! The horror!" is a positive enlightenment, rather than a negative one.
Ok I went back a little further and well read Debbie post and Kaela's posts and just got really excited. I think the blind leading the blind is an amazing statement that ties in with both Heart of Darkness and All Things Fall Apart. In both we have two groups of people coming from two very different places each claiming wisdom in one way or another. For the natives it may have been the tradition, culture, and history. For the white settlers it would be wealth, profit, and education. However, each side has their own kind of ignorance or "blindness". Within my global issues class we study how even modern America in trying to modernize and see in to the future becomes blind themselves to the issues at hand cause often by what is thought as "innovation" or betterment. Kaela mentions the idea of "enlightening" but one has to take that idea and thoughts are not concrete there is rarely a right answer when it comes to how one should live their life. One should share information and not just hurl it at people and expect people to abide by it. In this particular case it is the white who must do the forbidden: think that maybe they are not completely right about everything.
I agree with Olivia about the whole minority and majority idea. The idea of superiority drove the imperialist regime.
Take, for example, slavery. There would be a small white family, with more than enough slaves. The slaves outnumbered the white people, however, they did not fight back. In this story, the Europeans fear the Africans and vis versa. However,in Africa, like Mrs. Clapp said,the Europeans had guns, germs, and ( I am blanking out on the last word) steel?
I also like the idea of ignorance through out the book. The Europeans are ignorant to the wants and needs of the Africans. The Afrians can not speak up for themselves, because they have be handicapped. The Europeans are also blinded by their want of ivory and material goods. Eventually, slavery will not be prominent in the European settled Africa as Africans become items (more so than they already are). The idea of humanity is ignored. There is ignorance on both sides.
I like that Jenna brought up Kurtz's significant other and her ignorance to Kurtz's true last words (her name). I think this woman has a big symbolic importance that we failed to acknowledge in class. Her ignorance to Kurtz's true suffering in the Congo, in a way, shows how shadowed her tunneled mind is from the true effects of imperialism. She doesn't know what Kurtz or Marlow experienced in the Congo, the confusion they felt once they realized how similar Europeans and Africans are...with Kurtz dead, there is one less enlightened person in the world. This is a more pessimistic message of the book that I didn't recognize before Jenna mentioned the woman, but now that I think about it, I think another of Conrad's points could be that even though Marlow and Kurtz fought through the Congo, saw what other cultures were like, even began to accept them and in someways identify themselves with them, there are millions of ignorant Europeans left with absolutely no idea of what goes on there.
Well, I can't seem to find the post I posted last night...I hope it's just missing and I did get credit for it BUT I would like to add that I disagree with Terenzi's final thoughts about Kurtz's final words "The horror! The horror!" was a positive one. Sure, it is described as "a moral victory," but when we're dealing with European imperialists here is a victory over innocent Africans really so sweet? If Monika is right and his whole life flashed before his eyes, was that life really a positive life to reflect on?
After reading the comments posted, I agree with what Cynthia posted about literal and figurative darkness in the book, I thought that it was good point that is brought up.
I agree with Jeri when she says that if an author can not get into character, there is no "quest". Which reminded me of "How to Read Literature Like a Professor", In the beginning it mentioned it was highly significant to encounter one. So therefore, Conrad is an expert and highly skilled at sculpturing a character.
I really like Olivia's idea about the minority versus the majority. Its so interesting that they really did think they were better than all those people but "the horror! the horror!" is not only guilt I think it also has to do with an ephinay of how injust the world really is. I think thats where his last words came from: that relization that the world is pretty messed up.
I liked what Nicole mentioned and how she thought that "heart of darkness" was purposely put in kind of vaguely so that the reader can interpret it and discover their own meaning for what they think it means. It really shows the power the reader has with the text, how we can develop our own ideas about it, and talk back to it in our minds.
Everyone still seems stuck on the topic of whether or not Conrad was racist. I don't think it really matters if he was or not, especially because we may never know his personal views unless there is currently documentation of it. He gives us a character who is in a time period were racism was the norm, but otherwise I think that there is other content in HoD that is worth talking about more.
After re-reading everyone's post I found that we are all stuck on the same big ideas, especially the overall meaning of the title of the book "The Heart Of Darkness." All and all, i liked how Cythia brought up how this idea of a double meaning to the "darkness" within the book, how it can be either literal or figurative. Also, like Terenzi had said, I think in order to further convince people of our ideas, we need to start incooperating textual evidence more along side our ideas and explanations. P.S. I posted yesterday on here, & I dont know whether or not you guy saw it !? I think there is something wrong with my home computer!
After re-reading everyone's post I found that we are all stuck on the same big ideas, especially the overall meaning of the title of the book "The Heart Of Darkness." All and all, i liked how Cythia brought up how this idea of a double meaning to the "darkness" within the book, how it can be either literal or figurative. Also, like Terenzi had said, I think in order to further convince people of our ideas, we need to start incooperating textual evidence more along side our ideas and explanations. P.S. I posted yesterday on here, & I dont know whether or not you guy saw it !? I think there is something wrong with my home computer!
This comment has been removed by the author.
After reading most comments I realized that most students created a lot of thoughful responses that show a great degree of understanding of the book. What I also noticed was that most ideas that were taken from class were not expanded on that well. Furthermore I agree with Andrew T about the lack of textual evidence because very few people including me did not use textual evidence prove their claims. Also their was a shortage of points brought up that did not move the discussion which is probably why most ideas were repeated, but other than that it was an insightful discussion
I really like Cynthia's point about everything in the book being "dark". Even when there was that source of life, such as on the steamboat, on the way to Kurtz, there was plenty of sunlight, but Marlow was not able to graspe that. His life is always "endarkened".
Also, Midori's comment about Conrad not being racist, but living in a time where racism was acceptable, i really agree with this. also, i think that the characters in the story are racism, especially in the beginning, so in order for the correct character development to happen, Conrad has to add the racism in the story.
Everybody is stuck where I am, the true meaning of "Heart of Darkness" not just the book but the whole meaning of the title too. Also, Terenzi's comment on the comment "The Horror, the Horror" I'm still torn between if its positive or if its negative... Any feedback.
Post a Comment
<< Home