zBlogging the Literary Life - AP College English

Rivets

It seemed a little weird to me that the one thing Marlow needed was the one thing that did not come to the station....

I mean, rivets are practical and useful...but what appeared was frivolous and superficial...

could this be reflective of the European attitude as a whole?

Black and White: Is It That Clear?

Yesterday in class, we talked about the difference between white and black, good and evil. A few years back in World History, we talked about African culture and how black is considered good and beautiful, while white is evil. It is interesting to see this clash of cultures in the book. It is clear that the white imperialist were technologically superior to the black natives. Could it be possible that the black natives are morally superior to the white imperialists?

Self-Restraint

My group was discussing examples of self-restraint in class.  Until really thinking about it I had not notcied any significance to its use in the novel.  The natives in the novel are shown to have the most self restraint while the English have the least restarint, especially as they go farther into the heart of the jungle.  This is ironic because one would expect the opposite from these two groups.  I think that Conrad is showing the lack of forethought and respect by the imperialistic English in this native jungle.

Dark

My group today was responsible for figuring out examples of when Darkness/Black/gloom was displayed in the book. We found numerous examples in the text of course, but our significance to what it really signifies seemed blurry. I am not sure what the darkness does symbolize, but we concluded that it was evil/the unknown. I feel that the darkness in some ways could represent the unknown, but I don't know how to go about explaining it.

Also, and this is kind of in relation to Bryant's previous post, but I feel that Conrad's writing style very choosy. He has every right to write this way, and why shouldn't he. It does make the book seem more important in that it seems he really thought about which words to choose at which times. But this writing style isn't for me. I like to read a book 'smoothly' and not have to keep going back or let my mind wander and think about other things because I don't understand what's going on. Now, after I do go back and reevaluate a passage I didn't understand, I do figure it out. But to say it simply, I prefer Camus over Conrad.

Whiteness vs. Darkness

I think that there is a lot of sarcasm and irony in Marlow's style that I wasn't fully aware of until we have begun examining passages in more detail during class. For instance, the motifs of light and dark are ironically opposite to what the Europeans commonly believe them to be.

White is generally thought to represent purity, wealth and class all with a positive connotation. Once Marlow and his team arrive in the jungle, however, "whiteness," whether in the color of their skin or the brightness of their clothes seems to be their prime limitation.

Similarly, while darkness and blackness generally carry a negative connotation and are meant induce fear of the unknown, these attitudes are hardly present when darkness is mentioned in the novel. In fact (ironically, again) I think that the only true darkness present in the book is the DARKNESS in the hearts of the WHITE imperialists who are unable to see past their stubborn, European ways and realize the true impact their actions have on the world.

Marlow Racist? I dont think so.

There are plenty of times in Heart of Darkness where Marlow appears to be a racist, but I think that instead of being racist, Marlow merely tells the truth.  On page 24 he is describing a person that is dying

He seemed young, almost a boy, but you know with them it's hard to tell.

It was probably true that it is hard for him to determine the age of the native Africans.  He is telling the truth.  Also, Marlow uses the word "nigger" and "negro," which today,  would be deemed as derogatory and completely un pc. Back then all white people called dark people those names, it is not an act of racism on Marlow's part.

Devils

In the Heart Of Darkness, there are many devils for Marlow.  On page 23 he describes the devils he has seen.  He has already seen the devil of violence, the devil of greed, and the devil of hot desires.  But these devils are what drive men, these devils are inside everyone.  They only way to avoid these devils is with our strength of will.  But in Africa he was aquainted with the "flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly" (23).  This devil could be refering back to the black guard of the chained prisoners.  Marlow could be talking about a devil that takes you completely over to a point were you give up your friends and morals and become completely pitiful.  Or it could be talking about how he believes imperialism is wrong.  Marlow sees that the evil of imperialsim in not motivated by violence, desire, or greed.  The flabby, weak-eyed devil seems to be distinguished above all by being shortsighted and foolish, unaware of what it is doing and ineffective.

Rhodes the Ridiculous, or "Man, you look dead, have a biscuit."

"I contend that we (the British) are the finest race in the world; and that the more of the world we inhabit, the better it is for the human race." -Cecil Rhodes

Imperialism is ridiculous. There is no argument against that. Especially British Imperialism. You've got men like Cecil Rhodes, who made countries using their companies as tools, saying things like the previously quoted statement; how can anyone defend that?

There was never any need to defend that, people didn't step forward and take inititiative against imperialism, not even when they saw its affects first-hand. They would just brush it off like it was nothing, maybe perform some gesture of "kindness" that they thought might do the vicitims of imperialism a bit of good. For example, in Heart of Darkness, the slave workers were made to blast through rock that didn't need to be blasted through, build train tracks that led nowhere because the management though it would be good for them, giving them something to do. Even when people saw this, they took no action. They just went back to their lives, forgetting all about it, because it wasn't their concern, it wasn't in their country. That's how imperialism flourishes.

Imperialism YARG!!

We’ve been tackling imperialism for a while now, it being Heart of Darkness’s PRIMARY and super ultimate theme. From the looks of things, Marlow and the book have painted a less than appealing picture for such a concept. To an open reader, this is great. Down with imperialism right? NO, to a skeptic, imperialism is more than just Marlow, or even Conrad’s perspective.

We start with our countries own history, brief colonization that escalated to independents from the British Empire. Sounds like revolution more that imperialism, and from a first impression, this is all but appealing to someone that would oppose imperialism. After all, how to you reject imperialists? You revolt.

But how did we GET here in the first place, and how did we move westward? Simply put, we took over somebody’s stomping ground without question. You might know them as Native Americans, American Indians, or whatever kind of label you can find.

BUT FIRST…

Britain took colonies along the east coast, broadly known today as New England. Indians weren’t killed in the numbers that occurred like those as Americans moved westward, but it was still imperialism. Even that part of America is responsible by Imperialism.

Why is this important? Because we were founded off of IMPERIALISM, that’s why. “Imperialism sucks dude.” No, imperialism is the reason America is here in the first place. It is the reason America has expanded to such great lengths and probably why you’re alive today. Who knows what would have happened, had America rejected the idea of imperialism, staying near the east coast and allowing the Native American’s to keep their land.

But, it’s not all America’s doing, its Britain’s doing as well. You don’t have to be imperialists and harm people; you can take over land or other acquisitions. It’s just about taking parts of one thing and claiming them.

Granted, I am not justifying imperialism through the one example of America. But, what I am requesting is that we look at the other side. Imperialism, and all things (whether we like them or not), have positive and negative effects. Everything a person creates, whether an idea or a product, can harm or help someone, relative to the side of reference we’re talking about.

My only remaining question to the blog is... is Conrad really bashing imperialism, or is he pointing at both sides of this idea. We talked about the previously stated idea above, is Conrad reinforcing that idea through imperialism, or just something else?

Back to Existentialism?

Maybe I still have a little of The Stranger on my mind, but the deeper I get into "Heart of Darkness," the more I see parallels to existential philosophy.  A belief in human progress is inherent in the ideals of imperialism; The only way to justify European presence in the Congo is to believe that it's possible to elevate "primitive" people to higher standards of civilization.  Therefore, when Marlow rejects imperialism he rejects the idea of human progress, and without this possibility for development/growth, life seems pretty bleak and meaningless.

Some specific passages really made this existential aspect apparent to me.  For example, fifty miles away from Kurtz's Inner Station, after Marlow and his ship stop at the hut with the firewood, the note of caution and the book.  Marlow says "I observed with assumed innocence that no man was safe from trouble in the world" (57).  I think that this goes back to the existential belief that the world is made up of pain and suffering, and it is impossible to escape this.

Immediately afterwards, Marlow is back on the river and he's thinking about whether or not he wants to talk to Kurtz.  He says " before I could come to any conclusion it occured to me that my speech or my silence, indeed any action of mine, would be a mere futility.  What did it matter what any one knew or ignored? What did it matter who was manager? One gets sometimes such a flash of insight" (57).  This statement kind of echos existential beliefs that nothing in life really matters.

I'm not sure if this existential attitude is really consistent with the rest of Marlow's character though.  Has anybody else notice existentialism in the novel?