zBlogging the Literary Life - Period 6/7 - AP College English - 2005/2006 - Oak Park River Forest High School

Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now

I have read Heart of Darkness, but I have not seen Apocalypse Now.

However, I have seen part of it.  And from what I have seen, it depicts almost exactly what I thought was taking place in the novel, except more modern of course.  The imagery that is depicted in the novel almost exactly matches that in the movie with the smoke and the displaced natives and soldiers.  Also, when I was reading the novel, I got the impression that Kurtz was crazy in the beginning.  However, after he was finished with talking to Marlow, Marlow begins to see his point-of-view regarding the natives.  As a result (of Marlow's bias, I believe), so do I, but I don't agree with it.  It does make me percieve Kurtz as less crazy, though, but more ignorant.  I have a feeling that later scenes in the movie show this biased attitude towards Kurtz, too.

Question 7: Restraint Within the Darkness

Marlow makes several different observations concerning restraint (or lack thereof) of characters within the Heart of Darkness.

Marlow's first encounter with restraint comes when he has a run in with the cannibals. They are quite hungry and Marlow states that:

"It's really easier to face bereavement, dishonour, and the perdition of one's soul - than this kind of prolonged hunger. ...And these chaps, too, had no earthly reason for any kind of scruple. Restraint! I would just as soon have expected restraint from a hyena prowling amongst the corpses of a battlefield."
Pg. 62.

Marlow's second mention of restraint - in this cause the lack of- is in his Helmsman. The two had formed a bond, but because of the Helmsman's lack of restraint, he had ended up getting himself killed by a spear through the chest, which saddened Marlow, as the two had formed a bond.

Kurtz himself is the greatest example of a lack of restraint within the book. As Marlow reflects back on his visit to Kurtz's camp, he speaks of "...those heads on stakes..." Pg. 86, that seem to populate the campground. Marlow states that the heads "...only showed that Mr. Kurtz lacked restraint in the gratification of his various lusts, that there was something wanting in him - some small matter which, when the pressing need arose, could not be found under his magnificent eloquence." Pg. 87.

Other examples of the lack of restraint are 1) The firing of the main guns of the ship into the coast and 2) Kurtz's relentless pursuit for Ivory, a quest that drove him to ultimate madness.

After todays discussion, I have a few other ideas to add. Firstly, I believe that restraint is what separates the civilized world from the uncivilized. People created restraint as a way of preventing chaos amongst large numbers of people, especially in highly concentrated areas such as cities. Restraint must be practiced to live amongst each other. And thus, society is the wall between the restraint practicing civilized world, and the unrestraint of the uncivilized world. Men are, in the state of nature, probably quite inpulsive and have the tendency to act without restraint. So, when Kurtz entered the Heart of Darkness, it eventually got to him, and he learned that he could act without restraint and probably never pay for any of the consequences. So, Kurtz ultimately represents the return to a state of nature.

Savage and Superb vs Sorrowful: The Dual Women of Kurtz

Question 12

Kurtz was not a simple man.  He was a man that knew what he wanted, and oh boy, two women he did want.  They were quite different as one was a savage and the other was a civilized woman.  However, there is more to the women than just their culture.  The two women are portrayed in two completely different lights; one strong, the other weak.

Before Kurtz's Intended even appears in the novel, the reader is given a thorough description of his mistress as Kurtz sails off up the river.  Marlow takes a great deal of time to describe every piece of ornamentation on her body and it becomes evident to the reader that Marlow thinks highly of her.  He states, "She must have had the value of several elephant tusks upon her.  She was savage and superb, wild-eyed and magnificent; there was something ominous and stately in her deliberate progress. (91)"  Marlow was awed by her eloquence as she moved gracefully and continues to describe her this way when the savages run from the boat's whistle.  He says "Only the barbarous and superb woman did not so much as flinch...(102)"  It's interesting because he repeatedly quotes her as being savage but superb, which is oxymoronic, but it applies perfectly to her.  Although he sees her as a savage because her culture makes her so, her strength and proudness makes her superb.

On the other hand, Kurtz's Intended is not so strong and eloquent.  Marlow meets her at the end of the novel when he goes to deliver some of Kurtz's things.  She is still in mourning after an entire year!  Marlow states, "She carried her sorrowful head as though she was proud of that sorrow, as though she would say, 'I -- I alone know how to mourn for him as he deserves.' (112)"  This is interesting because she seems to be still in mourning because she is proud to say, "Yeah, that's right, my fiance died, and he loved me.  I'm heart broken."  It's like she's bragging about her sorrow and she has created a rigid identity of a widow.  She goes on to ask Marlow if they were good friends, but in reality she was suggesting it.  She keeps saying, "you were his friend...his friend," almost desperately assuming it so (113).  She also says, "I am proud to know I understood him better than any one on earth -- he told me so himself. (113)"  This is quite a pathetic statement because she is holding on to this one brief moment in her life when he lied to her.  The crybaby session continues and at the end she asks Marlow for Kurtz's last words, but he lies to her and says his last word was her name.  Marlow felt obligated to tell her what she wanted to hear.  He feared that her weak and naive self would not be able to handle the fact that she was not in Kurtz's final thoughts, or in any of his thoughts for that matter.  She desperately holds on to the thought that his love for her greatly exceeded any love in the world, and this blind faith seems to be the only thing that keeps her alive.  In comparison, I don't believe that Marlow would have felt the need to lie to the mistress.  She was strong and I would assume that she would understand if Marlow told her the truth about Kurtz.

Q#8: his Mistress vs. his Intended

To me, these two women, Kutrz's Mistress and his Intended, seem to be quite the opposite of each other. At one point ( around pade 90) Kurtz's Intended is described to be wearing all black (a color of mourning), while only her head appears to pale. Additionally, it is apparent that she has been mourning Kurtz for quite a while, a year perhaps, and will forever continue to do so. So she is emotionally unstable, and for this reason she seems somewhat weak.

Kurtz's mistress, however, is characterized to be colorful and full of life and energy. She is "savage and superb, wild-eyed and magnificent". Her hair was shaped like a helmet and she had brass leggings and wire gunlets. This sounds like a discription of a some sort of fighter or warrior. Further, she is aware of Kurtz's condition and she does not mourn and weep over him as his Intended does.

Perhaps the striking differences of Kurtz's two women are meant to emphasize the changes that Kurtz, himself, has undergone since his stay in tne junggle. He is oddly compatible with both women, as different as they appear to be. Or maybe we are meant to idolize his Mistress, who represents all the "savages", for her stregnth and vibancy. While at the same time his Intended, who represents civilized society, is pale and weak and, in a sense, lives life as if she were wasting away along with her Kurtz. Overall, I'm not entirely sure of the signifigance of the women's contrasting characterisatics- any suggestions?

Jumping to Conlclusions Mat

Question Six for Group E

On the whole, it seems that Marlow is standing on some kind of conclusions mat, and jumps to them rapidly as he meets a person. He could also be on a judge mat, where he would jump to judge a person as soon as he meets them. Choose your pick. (does "choose your pick" make any sense?)

For this question my understanding is to look at each scene and compare Marlow's opinion of the person before he thinks about it, and his opinion of the person after he thinks about the use of that person.

First scene: The unflattering and insulting description of the "savage who was fireman."
As Marlow looks onto his fireman, he describes him as a savage, seemingly as a reaction. He states that he glances down at his fireman occasionally, but describes him as a savage. He then goes on to say that "...to look at him was as edifying as seeing a dog in a parody of breeches and a feather hat, walking on his hind-legs." But later in the passage, Marlow credits him as being a useful and worthwhile member of the crew. Marlow notes that he still goes about his duty with savagery, thinking that there is an evil spirit in the boiler, and wearing a makeshift charm on his arm to ward away the spirit. But once Marlow thought about this man, he realizes his use and importance to the ship.

Second scene: The helmsman, who was the "most unstable kind of fool I have ever seen."
Once again, Marlow shows his prejudice right off the bat. He is prejudiced against the natives, and his first instict is to describe them as savages. However, Marlow cannot deny that the man is piloting the ship quite well, albeit strangely. When the helmsman is struck by the spear, Marlow is shocked and pauses to watch the pitiful sight of the man dying. Marlow must have felt guilty for thinking this man a savage, and then see him die in his efforts to protect the ship.

Third scene: Marlow's reflection about the helmsman's death.
I see this scene as a continuation of Marlow's new feelings towards this man. Before he was killed, Marlow thought nothing of the helmsman, but once he had died, Marlow gives him a impromptu funeral service. "I missed my late helmsman awfully--I missed him even while his body was still lying in the pilot-house." Marlow pitys this "poor fool," and talks of how he took his helmsman for granted. He states that he and his helmsman shared a "special bond...of which I only became aware when it was suddenly broken." Marlow also shows respect to his late helmsman by not allowing the cannibals to consume the dead body, instead letting Nature deal with it accordingly (Pagan-ish?).

I can't tell but I hope this is longer than Kitty's.
Pat-er-rack Burton

Mertz rhymes with Kurtz

Firstly, as stated in my above title: Mertz rhymes with Kurtz. Unlike some lucky students in our class, I did not get the pleasure of having Mr. Mertz as a teacher, esspecially with him taking sebatical our senior year. However, as we began reading this and Kurtz came into play, I began to picture Mr. Mertz as I read. Now, that we have seen what the Hollywood version of Kurtz looks like (thanks to Robin H) my image is damaged.

Questions for Section II and III: number 2

Secondly, I'd like to apologize to my group, D--I'm not sure whether or not someone took number two to write about... so I've decided to snatch it up myself. As the Russian and Marlow ride on the steamer and talk (about 79-88), the Russian begins to discuss Kurtz to Marlow. He begins preparing Marlow for his meeting with Kurtz. "Do you talk with Mr. Kurtz?" Marlow asks. "You don't talk with that man-- you listen to him," the Russian explains (80). The Russian continues to idolize and praise Kurtz, simultaneously telling Marlow to do the same.

As the conversation continues, it looks as though Marlow and the Russian have different views on Kurtz. The Russian places him on a pedestal, as if Kurtz was a god. "You can't judge Mr. Kurtz as you would an ordinary man..." (84). He continues to explain how Kurtz was going to actually shoot the Russian if he didn't give him a small amount of ivory, which the Russian had been given as a gift from a chief. Later, Marlow expresses, "Why! He's mad" (85). As they book goes on, however, Marlow, like the native savages and the Russian, accept Kurtz as being a "remarkabale man" (106). Because Kurtz gives Marlow his pamphlets to pass on to the rest of the world-- Marlow thinks he has "to care of his memory" (75). He rightfully believes that Kurtz stays true to himself and his beliefs. By the end of the book, the Russian and Marlow have very similar views on Kurtz.

Earlier in the book, Marlow talks about fools (74). He contrasts two types of "fools;" one saved from darkness and one assaulted by darkness. When applied to the Russian, he is not a fool saved from the darkness, rather assaulted by it. "Of course you may be too much of a fool to go wrong-- too dull even to know you are being assaulted by the powers of darkness. I take it, no fool ever made a bargain for his soul with the devil; the fool is too much a fool, or the devil too much of a devil--I don't know which" (74). As Marlow explains, the Russian is clearly the latter. He follows Mr. Kurtz blindly without being able to see the Truth in front of him. This parallels to the painting Kurtz made. The woman, blindfolded, leads the light, also representing Truth. Maybe when Kurtz painted this, he was showing a message about the people who were following him blindly? It might be a stretch...

Man v. Nature

Questions for Section II & III - No. 4

Looking closely at the imagery of the passages on pg. 52 and the surrounding area, several conclusions can be drawn about technology, the force of nature, and civilized man. 

Conrad writes, "Trees, trees, millions of trees, massive, immense...and at their foot...crept the little begrimed steamboat, like a sluggish beetle crawling on the floor..."  Here we can see that in the darkness, technology is insignificant.  It provides little help as the steamboat breaks down, and may be easily crushed as a beetle would.

This ties into the power of "prehistoric earth".  The steamboat is "like a sluggish beetle" compared to "massive" trees, suggesting nature's reign over technology.  Nature also decides the fate of the men: "The reaches opened before us and closed behind, as if the forest had stepped...to bar the way for our return."

These points prove that civilized man has little power over the trees - the forest - the darkness.  Nature is more powerful than civilization: those men "were wanderers", "were cut off", and "could not understand...because we were traveling in the night of the first ages."  Civilization left them as fish out of water in the darkness.

This imagery used by Conrad instills the idea in the reader that technology matters little in proportion to nature, and the men on board are relatively helpless as they ride deeper into the darkness.

The Heart of Darkness v. Apocolypse Now

First of all, who new that Apocolypse Now was pretty much EXACTLY the same as the book. Same characters, same plot, same quotes! I wonder if the whole entire movie is that close, because I remember watching it in 6th grade but only thinking it was that sort of scary that was really just weird.

Seeing the film now after reading the book (well most of it anyways) is enlightening if I do say so. The theme works so well because it is a universal one. A clash of cultures, so to speak. I think it's really interesting how the name Kurtz is used in both the novel and the adaptation. Could this be because it has some strange symbolism? If you rearrange the letters you get Trukz or Rutzk, but niether ot those really ring a bell. Maybe the screen-writers just weren't very creative. Anyways, my favorite character is the journalist, who is the Russian dude in the book. I think he's hilarious, but at the same time it's freaky how brainwashed he seems to be in both cases. Having to witness all the absurd stuff that goes on in Kurtz's little sanctuary doesn't seem to have the best effect.

I'm thinking about the movie and I see the big picture when comparing it to the book, but i'm wondering about the little things. Anyone see a parallel in the book to the dog in the movie? Or what is the movie's version of the Pilgrims and the Cannibals?

this is kurtz. crazy dude huh?

~robin

Make Up Your Mind, Marlow!

During the first half of the novel, Marlow comes to the conclusion that Kurtz is “hollow at the core” and definitely not someone to be admired. He scoffs at the characters who are awed by him, especially that Russian man. Although Marlow admits that he is intrigued by the Russian man’s sense of adventure, he is appalled by his devotion to Kurtz.  “I suppose it did not occur to him that Mr. Kurtz was no idol of mine,” Marlow said (88).

Halfway through Part III, however, Marlow develops a new perspective.  After hunting down Kurtz in the forest and then observing him on his deathbed, he realizes that it is his destiny to protect Kurtz’s reputation. “This is the reason why I affirm that Kurtz was a respectable man” concluded Marlow. “He had something to say. He said it” (106).  Marlow regrets the fact that he has lived his life too cautiously, and therefore, he has not accomplished as much as Kurtz. He learns that Kurtz was not only a painter, but a poet, musician, and journalist as well.  Eventually, Marlow sympathizes with Kurtz’s desire for the ivory to be recognized as his own, and he comes to believe that the truth can only be uncovered by those who take risks. After changing his view of Kurtz so dramatically, can Marlow be considered a stable character?

The Romans

So I just kind of wanted to expound on what touched on in class, partly because it's all I really know about this book so far.

The parallel between the Romans as Marlow explains in the beginning and the Company is a rather important one I believe. Marlow uses the history of what we consider a great empire that conquered ungodly amounts of land to sort of justify the later European conquest of the riches to be had in "darkest" Africa. Colonization is the new conquer. Historically, we see it now as atrocious, the control that countries like Britain and France exerted over the so-called savages that inhabited the continent. But back then it was seen as the correct, moral thing to do, and plus, there was money to be made. And we all know how folks get when there is money involved.