zaaaAP Lit SuperBlog

Conrads Exaushting Story

To be blunt about it, I really just do not enjoy reading this story. Its almost painful for me how frustrated and stressed out I become while reading this book. I find it bothersome when authors drag out a sentence when it could just plainly be stated in a few short and simple words. However, sometimes his dragged-out sentences are purposeful when describing something. "A continuous noise of the rapids above hovered over this scene o inhabited devastation. A lot of people, mostly black and naked, moved about like ants" (21). In a sentence like this, it clearly demonstrates the reality of the situation he presents. The comparisons of the slaves moving like ants portrays to the reader the significance of this scene. Usually when you see ants crawling around, it is often in a herd, and this paints the same picture in my mind from the comparison. However, these sentences are hard to pick out for me, because it all gets mixed together in my mind as something I fail to understand.

HOD Rules, Imperialism Drools

Achebe is right when he says that HOD is a great example of the racism and degrading view or Africa in society. He talked about how many times we use Africa as our foil. It's almost there to make us feel better about our faults, since we perceive it as so underdeveloped. However, I believe that Achebe takes it too far when he says that HOD can't be considered a great work of literature because of this racism. He said it was inaccurate because of prejudice. I strongly disagree with this. It's important to read the novel because it lets society see how racism is still a major problem. Even if we disagree with people's opinions, it's important that we hear them. That way we are aware of the issues that need to be solved. The truth can be dark, but it still needs to be said.

Put Your Hands Up

While Heart of Darkness isn't the longest book I've ever read, it still has an intense plot that can make your head spin. The story is quite fascinating but I've been thinking, if you were sitting on that boat, listening to Marlow, wouldn't you have been dying to say something during the course of the story. There are soooooo many places were the racist undertones become blatant and especially at the end when Marlow admits to his own corruption by lying that I feel at least one person should have stood and shouted something at him! Response to the controversial novel is a given but why is all the debate outside the book? It's unrealistic to think that the story ended in silence. Don't you think that someone should have at least raised their hand to ask a question or two when it was over? If you had been there, what would you have said to Marlow?

Racism Still Exists... Obviously

I personally felt that Achebe had a valid point. I believe that cultural attitudes toward Africa have changed very little and we still treat Africa as our foil. We constantly have to reassure ourselves of our moral superiority. It's true that, at the time, Conrad might not have been a racist. But now, it is time for our attitudes to change. Reading works of literature like this could help to start the conversation, but they could also just reflect our prejudices back at us. How do you respond to this? I'm interested in asking the question of how we view Africa. Achebe brings up an important point that needs to be addressed: do we accept Africans as our cultural and moral equals?

I do not believe we do.

Hmm...What to write about

So, I am sitting here contemplating what to write about on my Heart of Darkness essay and I thought of a great idea. I am going to run this idea by you guys and I want to know what you think.
I think that Heart of Darkness is a love story. Kurtz is the love of Marlow's life and Marlow sees Kurtz as the love of his life. He cannot obtain Kurtz but thats what makes Kurtz so much more entrancing. I think I could write an essay like this by using examples, like when Marlow saw Kurtz's mistress he was a little jealous. There was a tone in that part of the story that gave the reader the idea that Marlow was jealous that Kurtz was with someone else. He was bitter that Kurtz was not in love with wanting to see Marlow. This embodies a human aspect so therefore would answer question one in section A.
Good idea or not?

More Of Rant Than An Argument

Chinua Achebe started off his argument very well. He had interesting points, and supported them with many quotes from the book. But suddenly his argument changed from talking about how "Western psychology sets Africa up as a foil to Europe" to how "Conrad was a thoroughgoing racist". I felt like this ruined his whole argument.
It was obvious that the writing had racist remarks like calling the natives "savages" or describing them like animals, but I thought this was done intentionally. He wanted to make Marlow a realistic character, and that was the mind set he Conrad created for him. Just because a character is acts racist does not mean the author is. I figured it was like how Mark Twain made many of his characters racist to criticize racism.
If Achebe had stuck with his original idea, the essay would have been very good. But that second statement turned the whole thing into more of a rant than anything else.

Was Achebe Fair?

So I can't really get past the Chinua Achebe essay that we read this week and his explicit mention of Conrad as a racist.  I thought it was a really good essay with a lot of good points, and it was supported well, but I'm stuck on the idea of if it was fair to be so critical of Conrad's racist views.  He was born in the 1850s wasn't he? It's kind of a given that he would be racist, considering most people who weren't were known for it.  Also, Achebe retorts to several arguments like mine and says that Conrad could have done something different in Heart of Darkness, but he never really goes into detail of what that could be....I agree with Achebe that Conrad definitely has a negative view of the Africans, don't get me wrong, but I don't really think it was as on purpose as Achebe believes it was.

What Exactly is a Motif?

Alright, I know that literature can be very abstract, and I know that I am a very literal person, but by no stretch of the imagination do I see a motif of a whited sepulcher in Heart of Darkness. It shows up twice according to Brady's article, both times referring to Brussels. The other examples are references to the same pattern, but that is after careful analysis and they don't even refer to a tomb! So can someone tell me exactly what a motif is? Obviously I've got it all wrong. Can it be a pattern of hidden meanings?

I think that it was not logical to name the motif or pattern or whatever it is a "whited sepulchre." No, to me it should have been given the title of "death masked by deception." It's catchy and consice enough, and it doesn't mislead readers like me to think that this tomb is repeated over and over again in the book.

Obiously, I need enlightenment. (Like Marlow the Buddha!) Someone please explain for me!

Marlow's Interaction with Kurtz's Intended

So I have been bothered by a certain part in the book that seemed to contradict what was said in pervious passages, and that is why Marlow lied to Kurtz's intended when speaking of Kurtz's last words.  In an earlier part of the book, Marlow talks about truth, saying, "...but truth- truth stripped of its cloak of time.  Let the fool gape and shudder- the man knows, and can look on without a wink...He must meet that truth- with his own inborn strength"(54).  Marlow seems to feel very strongly about the importance of being truthful, especially to oneself.  And in the end of the book, Marlow is confronted with Kurtz's Intended, and when asked to repeat the last words Kurtz says, he thinks to himself, "'I was on the point of crying at her, 'Don't you hear them?'...The horror, The horror!"'(116). Yet Marlow lies to Kurtz's intended by saying, “‘The last word he pronounced was- you name'"(116). 

Thinking about this why Marlow contradicted himself in 2 important passages, I came up 2 reasons.

First, I think that Marlow may have been very heavily attached to Kurtz, thus he did not want to share the one thing he had left that could be only between him and Kurtz.  He was jealous of hearing about how close Kurtz and his intended were, and decided that he wanted to keep the one thing that kept their relationship special.  Marlow realizes this when he says, "I saw her and him in the same instant of time... Do you understand? I saw them together- I heard them together"(112). Marlow realizes in this moment that Kurtz shared an even more special bond with someone else- and he felt he needed to hang on to the only bit of important information only he know- only he shared with Kurtz.

Second, I believe that when Marlow was talking about being truthful, he did not mean that in a general sense, but more specifically pertaining to being truthful to ones self.  Marlow exclaims that men,”must meet that truth with his own true stuff"(54), meaning men should "that truth" with the fact that he is truthful to himself.  Thus, Marlow does not have to lie about anything to others, but as long as he is truthful to himself, as he feels his is being because he is saving the only reminisce of his and Kurtz's relationship, then it is ok to lie.  So that is what I think, any feedback?

True Meaning of the Darkness, Was it Obvious?

In Conrad's Heart of Darkness, I found it very hard to fully grasp the point the author was trying to make with the book purely by reading it on my own. The past two articles we have read in class, by Brady and Achebe have greatly enhanced my understanding of the novel. Achebe's argument was not as demonstrative in my opinion because he pointed out things that I felt were fairly inherent; additionally I did not agree with all of his points. I don't think that just because Marlow describes Africa and Africans in a racist way, that that means that Conrad too is racist. Personally I agree much more with the point in Brady's article about the "whited sepulcher" I agree with him in that the darkness does not represent the savagery of Africa, but the blindness of the Europeans, but I did not realize this until I read his article. I guess I am wondering if the meaning of the darkness was obvious and I missed it, or if Conrad disguised it well?

The Light to Futility

My group's motif for the presentation of HOD is futility. Mr. Heidkamp assigned it to us because our group was just a tad to slow in deciding what to look for, just a tad. At first, my impression on futility was, "where the heck am I going to be able to find significant examples of futility in Marlow's confusion of thoughts. Looking into the novel with an attuned sense to find these examples of futility actually helped me see what Mr. Heidkamp meant in "I think futility is a good one". As I finished the book I came to a conclusion. Now, my group may not agree with me at this point, but this is what I percieve. One of the best, if not the best, example of futility is the torch the blindfolded woman held in the portrait we all know oh so very well. I believe that this significant torch is a great example because it has no potential and it is utterly useless because the woman, whom I portray as the ingorance of the European society, is blindfolded and therefore will not be able to see the path that the torch is supposedly lighting up for her. Although I said that the torch is suppose to light her way I really didn't mean it because the torch is sourounded by blackness, the background was black. This further proves that the torch is entirely useless to this picture of a blindfolded woman and to the greedy Company that is constantly blinded by some form of darkness or fog...

Conrad a racist...nah

I would have to disagree with achebes assumption that conrad is a racist. In HOD there are many passages that may lead one to believe that Conrad is a racist but his overall goal was to show people how Europe was the main cause for the "darkness" of the Congo. At one point in HOD Marlow is talking about how Europeans humanity is just as ugly as the people of the Congo. Conrad also uses the company as a symbol of Europe's evil, covered up by their false appearances. I would agree that there are some points in HOD that lead toward the idea of conrad being a racist but I believe that he showed enough evidence to prove he is not a racist.

Conrad a racist...nah

I would have to disagree with achebes assumption that conrad is a racist. In HOD there are many passages that may lead one to believe that Conrad is a racist but his overall goal was to show people how Europe was the main cause for the "darkness" of the Congo. At one point in HOD Marlow is talking about how Europeans humanity is just as ugly as the people of the Congo. Conrad also uses the company as a symbol of Europe's evil, covered up by their false appearances. I would agree that there are some points in HOD that lead toward the idea of conrad being a racist but I believe that he showed enough evidence to prove he is not a racist.

Breath of Fresh Air

I found that both the articles we read were engaging and convinced me to prescribe to both of their points.  Achebe's article on the racism of Heart of Darkness, while sometimes a little over belligerent, was eloquently written and provided significant textual support for its argument that Conrad was a racist in writing HOD. While Achebe argued beautifully, I had a hard time associating his biased and overtly racist Conrad to the same man who we read about, who commented on the Belgian Congo being one of the worst stain's on the history of Western Civilization.

Brady's whited sepulcher essay again uses extensive textual support to cast Conrad's "whited sepulcher" as the symbol of European cruelty and the Company's rapacious greed.

While both authors argued excellent points, I found Brady's article more engaging and believable. Achabe seemed out for Conrad's blood to me, and that weakened his argument, no matter how eloquently his article was written.

Is Achebe Just Jaded?

When reading Heart of Darkness, one cannot help but notice some of the racist remarks and events that take place. And in his article, Achebe does a great job of pointing them all out and explaining how they relate back to Conrad being a racist, and Heart of Darkness in general being a raciest novel. But is Conrad really some “thoroughgoing racist” or is Achebe maybe just reading into it a little too much.

In my opinion, it is clear that there are some events in the novel that are racist toward the Congolese people, but I don’t think it is far or true to say that Heart of Darkness is a racist novel or that Conrad is a racist. For instance, when Marlow enters the grove of death, he is absolutely appalled by what he sees, and he seems to realize that those people are acting so animalistic because that is what the Europeans have turned them into and not because that’s how they naturally are.

To say the least, I disagree with Achebe’s article. I think instead of looking at the novel as a whole an interpreting what its saying (like the Europeans are the ones acting animalist for treating other humans this way) he instead looks at individual racist events and therefore characterizes the novel and the author as being racist.

Achebe is Spot On

Prior to reading Chinua Achebe's critical essay, "An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's Heart of Darkness", I never would have accused Conrad of being a racist. Even though I picked up on little details which hinted towards racism, I never actually made a thorough connection. I thought that Achebe did a great job - better than Marion Brady - of constructing his argument. Lines I simply read through in H.O.D., such as "A black figure stood up, strode on long black legs, waving long black arms" now made me stop and think of how unnecessary it what was for Conrad to keep repeating the color of the figure.

Are Blinders Bad?

Although the essay by Achebe was enlightening with regards to HOD, but i found a particularly broad application to Achebe's insight. 

I don’t want to say that everyone is inherently blind or close minded, but it seems that everyone is born with a pair of blinders (like those things horses wear on their eyes).  I know usually the expression "having your blinders on" has a negative connotation I would argue that if we didn't have blinders we would all just be like scared horses running around.

Conrad/Marlow definitely has his blinders on.  In the end Marlow finally begins to see the deception and darkness that has not only befallen Africa, but Brussels as well.  And we might applaud him for recognizing such a humane cause, but he can’t see his racism in his peripheral. But is that so bad, at least he's recognizing one problem...?

I know it seems that I’m advocating for close-mindedness and sheltering yourself from reality, but I’m not trying to. With all the atrocities in our world, how can we be expected to see all of them without getting "spooked"? And not to sound totally ignorant but does anyone else see anything positive in blinders?

Also this Super Blog is very intimidating.

An Appropriate Ending: "The Horror! The Horror!"

Finally, the first reading of "Heart of Darkness" is over. How appropriate is it that Kurtz, without whom this fun-to-read novel would have been impossible, uttered "The horror! The horror!" as his last words. Even to the antagonist's end, Conrad refuses to simply reveal his intentions. It takes Marlow's own revelation for us to see what horror Kurtz means, and he does so in the most judgement filled excerpt of the novel, page 106.

"This is the reason why I affirm that Kurtz was a remarkable man. He had something to say. He said it...He had summed up--he had judged. 'The horror!'...It was an affirmation, a moral victory paid for by innumerable defeats, by abominal terrors, by abominable satisfactions. But it was a victory!"

Much like Meursault, Kurtz finds victory even in his death, from an unusual source. For Kurtz the realization and proclamation of life's abundance of horrors some how claims a victory over death.

This is surprisingly applicable to my life presently. I found this week that by accepting that I cannot do all of my homework and that my grades will probably suffer because of my dedication to laying out the school newspaper, I can focus less on my failures and more on my accomplishments. Perhaps this is what Marlow means when he calls Kurtz's final words a victory.

Is HoD a Great Work of Art?

After reading Brady's essay on "Conrad's Whited Sepulcher" I was suprised to find how much the essay clarified the book for me.  However, I found Achebe's essay even more intriguing.  While reading Heart of Darkness the degradation of the Africans was apparent, yet, I did not notice Conrad's racism until reading Achebe's essay.

The essay illustrated seemingly "harmless" passages in the book as racist.  It did not take long for Achebe to convince me that Conrad was racist.  He even goes as far as to question whether "a novel which celebrates this dehumanization, which depersonalizes a portion of the human race, can be called a great work of art" (20).  Not only does Achebe demonstrate Conrad's racism through his writing in the book, but also through Conrad's early experiences with Africans.  One of my favorite parts of the essay is when Achebe compares the relationship of Africa and Europe to that of a picture and Dorian Gray: "Africa is to Europe as the picture is to Dorian Gray - a carrier onto whom the master unloads his physical and moral deformities so that he may go forward, erect and immaculate" (22).

The fact that I overlooked many of these racist examples in the text makes me feel ignorant.  Is this feeling singular or widespread after reading Achebe's essay?

Crystal Clear

After reading the entry "Conrad's Whited Sepulcher" by Marion B. Brady, there are only two words that can sum up what effect it had on my understanding of the Heart of Darkness: crystal clear.  Not only did this reading explain the millions of questions I had about the meaning of certain passages, but furthermore links them to the themes, motifs, and sybolism presented throughout the novel.  One example of Brady's clearification on the Heart of Darkness is when she explains the purpose of a scene by stating that the attempt to maintain appearences, thus creating a disallusion of truth, is apparent through Marlow's picture of the Company's accountant.  Marlow description is as follows:

"I saw a high starched collar, white cuffs, a light alpaca jacket, snowy trousers, a clean-necktie, and varnished boots....I shook hands with this miracle, and I learnedhe was the Company's chief accountant, and that all the bookkeeping was done at this station....Moreover, I respected the fellow.  Yes; I respected his collars, his vast cuffs, his brushed hair.  His appearance was certainly that of a hardresser's dummy; but in the demoralization of the land he kept up his appearance.  That's backbone.  His starched collars and got-up shirt-fronts were achievements of character....And he was devoted to his books, which were in appli-pie order."

When first reading the this qoute it had no value of importance in the novel, at least in my mind.  After Brady explains the significance of it, I began to make connections to other descriptions in the novel and came to understand it better.  So my question is, did "Conrad's Whited Sepulcher" have the effect of making the novel more clear to you?

What is a 3rd world country?

Reading Brady's article made me contemplate our definition of civilization. What makes us think that as a leading Western world we are civilized? Our culture, though lead by technology and material ambitions driven by the global economy, still seeks to focus on the same subjects as "uncivilized" societies. Nations are now labeled as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world countries based on thier wealth and scientific acheivements.

I don't think that countries should be judged solely on these criteria, because although some countries have greater means of resources, each nation is inhabited by humans. I think a more telling factor that distinguishes nations is the treatment of thier people and the way in which they utilize thier resources, regardless of the technology and wealth they contain.   

The Women

After reading the last few pages of Heart of Darkness over and over again, trying to figure out what the heck was going on, I thought of a connection that I thought would be worth mentioning.  To me, the Intended is very similar to the painting of the blind woman that is shown to us earlier in the book.

In the painting, the woman wearing the blindfold represented the mission into the Darkness.  The fact that it was a woman combined with blindfold shows us the willing ignorance of the British imperialists into the now literal darkness.  The torch that she carries, which highlights her fearful face, shows us that this mission to the Congo was something that scared the explorers. (On a side note-why is the woman holding a torch that has no significance for her considering that she is blindfolded? Am I missing something?)

The Intended is similar to this painting in many ways.  The first is the most obvious-they are both women.  Conrad repeatedly portrays women in this role of ignorance, which is parallel to the ignorance that I believe the painting implys that the imperialists have.  This time her blindfold is removed, because she has experienced through Kurtz, her "other half", what happens in the darkness (the Congo).  Instead of carrying a torch, the Intended has all the light in the room concentrated on her forehead, again showing her knowledge through Kurtz of the darkness.

Do you see a similarity?  What is Conrad trying to say about women and the darkness with his portrayal of both the woman in the painting and the Intended?

The Perfect Title

I think that "Heart of Darkness" is the perfect title for this book. It represents not only that the characters are immersed in the heart of darkness, and do not understand their surroundings, but also that their hearts are filled with darkness, or evil. I think Conrad is commenting on human nature: that when humans sense that no one is looking or no one can see what they are doing, the id takes over and desire trumps morals. "Right" and "wrong" are no longer important because there is no one around to judge your actions. When out of darkness, humans are kept in check by society, and preoccupation over their reputation. But when humans are in an instinctual state of mind, such as fear, their true character is unveiled. While in the Congo, the English are surrounded in "darkness" or ignorance of their environment. Because humans are naturally afraid of the unknown, the English act instinctually and the morality society taught them ceases to be of importance. This is why they perform such evil actions, because it is the only thing they can do.

Is this too pessimistic, or impossible to understand? or both?

Marlow's Dishonesty

At the beginning of his story, Marlow makes a deliberate point that he hates lying, not because he is on a moral high horse but because there is something morbid about it.

However, Marlow is deceptive throughout the novel. First, his aunt exaggerates greatly to enable him to become the skipper on the steamboat. Then, he does not correct people in the Congo as they assume that his aunt's statements are true. He even goes so far as to use these inaccurate perceptions to his advantage. And though he discovers all the delusion in the Congo, and seems to be disgusted by it, he lies to Kurtz's Intended.

What is his motivation to lie to her? He says that the truth was too dark. But I think there is more meaning in these last few pages than I am getting out of it. What does his lie say about the greater meaning in the novel? Is he just as ignorant and deceptive as the rest of the world?

Intentional Ignorance of Intended?

During the final pages of "Heart of Darkness," we find Marlow and the Intended at what we assume is the house of the Intended. When Marlow talks to her, he can not bring himself to tell her the truth about Kurtz's last words. He ends up lying to her and stating his last words were her name, and not "The horror! The horror!" Marlow says, "But I couldn't. I could not tell her. It would have been too dark too dark--too dark altogether... (117)"

Marlow's doesnt think he can tell her the truth. But my question is:  does the Intended know that Marlow is lying to her? If her and Kurtz were as close as she says they were, she would know him better than that. She would know that his last words would be more meaningful than simply about her. If they are so alike, shouldn't she be able to tell the difference between this lie and his real words? Or is she just another ignorant woman in the book, staying consistent with their roles in "Heart of Darkness?" I think that if they were so close, she would not be the Intended, but the Spouse. It's possible that they had a special relationship similar to Marlow and Kurtz's relationship. What do you think? Were her tears truthful, or did she know more than she was showing with intentional ignorance?

Keeping the Women in the Dark

I know that women are not mentioned much in the book. But I feel that it is important to talk about.

The first women we meet is Marlow's aunt and she helps him get the job. It is not that she has a powerful position, she just happens to know somebody.

The next "women" is in the painting. She is blindfolded, holding a light, presenting bringing civilization. Does the blindfold meet that they are entering the unknown or that she simply wants to keep her innocence? Maybe she cannot understand, or she chooses to ignore it?

On page 72, Marlow says, "Girl? What Did I mention a girl? Oh, she is out of it completely. They-the women I mean-should be out of it." This comment really irritated me. We read in "Whited Sepulcher" that the message in this book is to seek evil, understand it, and do something positive about it. But, in this passage Conrad is encouraging the self deception.

At the end of the book, Kurtz's wife is introduced. She continues to lie to herself about what a wonderful person that Kurtz was. So she has not reached the same enlightenment like Marlow has, yet they both knew Kurtz.

Overall, women in this book are stuck in the self-deception and do not follow Conrad's theme. So my question is, do you think that Conrad is a sexist? Do you think he writes his women this way because he wants then to stay protected and pure? Or do you think that he believes that women can never understand his message?

Should We Forgive SS Nazi Officers?

I know that some of you are also taking philosophy, and I wonder if the Whited Sepulcher article reminded you of the moral question we addressed as to whether or not to forgive the SS Nazi officer on his deathbed as he genuinely repents. Marion Brady’s argument is essentially that allowing evil to continue when one knows it is happening is the greatest sin against life any man can commit. To know that a “deceitful flow of darkness” is coming out from the world, or from a specific place or person, and not to try to shed light on this darkness once you have seen it, is a paramount hypocrisy. Brady argues that Marlow has realized at the end that “a man must deliberately seek the evil, try to understand it, and then try in the light of his self-knowledge to create the standards that will make life worth living” (5). Ultimately Brady is arguing against forgiveness of the evil-doers. She states that each human must see the truth about the evil in their lives and in the world, and then do all they can to stop that evil from continuing. To live in ignorance is to live in sin.

This philosophy of justice in the world is a virtuous one. To sit by and watch evil act for its own motives- and even worse, to participate in it- is morally unacceptable. It is our duty to seek out the evil in the world. It is not heroism to act against the system, it is our duty. Hans Habe makes a similar argument when he writes about the question of forgiveness of SS Nazi officials. Personal knowledge is indispensable, and once a person has achieved this knowledge, it is that person’s duty to exclude evil from his or her life and to be proactive about stopping evil’s spread.

What do you think? Should we forgive those who have committed greatly evil deeds if they genuinely repent?

Marlows Racism

I have been rereading Heart of Darkness, because even after the first time through I still am not exactly clear on what is going on. Although it has been tiresome to battle my way back through the book, I have found it to be tremendously helpful. Especially after reading Bradys The Whited Sepulcher I am noticing Marlows ignorance at the beginning of the book. The following passage was one that struck me the most.

" While I stood horror-struck one of these creatures rose to his hands and knees and went off on all-fours towards the river to drink. He lapped out of his hand, then sat up in the sunlight, crossing his shins in front of him and after a time let his woolly head fall on his breastbone"(25).

The use of animalistic adjectives is very striking in this passage. Words like "all-fours", "lapped" remind me of animals. This illustrates the association that Marlow has with the natives as sort of dirty animals. Marlow then goes on to describe his encounter with the "white man."

" He was amazing and had a penholder behind his ear. 'I shook hands with this miracle, and i learned he was the Company's chief accountant, and that all the bookkeeping was done at this station...The expression sounded wonderfully odd..."(25).

In this passage the use of words such as "amazing","miracle" and "wonderful" in describing the white man contrasts heavily with the words used in the passage about the natives. In contrast these two passages show Marlows feelings about the natives and how he sees them as akin to animals and how he views white men as miracles.

The Whited Sepulchre

I was very excited when I finally finished reading  The Whited Sepulcher because my brain was just flowing with different ideas that I was going to be able to use from that particular essay. Brady, the author, did a great job in supporting his thesis with the use of direct quotations from the book. Reading this essay helped me to finally understand the meaning behind the book. Many people in the book were either personally involved in deception, as the people with the company were, or there is a personal sense of self deception, as Kurtz's intended had. She never came to realize all of the bad things that Kurtz had done because she was in self-denial. This was a very exciting article to read but it left me wondering one question. In the end did Kurtz transform into one who had a sense of self-deception by not telling the intended the truth about Kurtz?

Did anyone else have trouble with the critical analysis? I was just not sure of what to put into it?

Marlow's Dark Ending Mood

The last scene in Heart of Darkness makes for a very toned-down ending.  The reader notices this particularly when Kurtz's Intended expresses how good of a person he was in her conversation with Marlow, and how Kurtz's good characteristics contrast sharply with the reality of what Marlow saw of Kurtz's behavior in Africa.  This great discrepancy is what leads to "the lie", when Marlow tells the Intended that Kurtz's last words were her name.  As the Intended wistfully reacts, Marlow feels uneasy about what he has just done.  He wondered about rendering Kurtz the justice due him, but that "would have been too dark too dark--too dark altogether" (117)--in other words, Marlow probably would have felt just as uneasy in asserting the truth to the Intended as in telling the lie.  He thus releases himself from all traces of the interactions he experienced with Kurtz, though because of the nature of who Kurtz was, he has no easy way out.  (In fact, the Intended's response to Marlow's lie suggests some uneasiness, too.)

With all these details in mind, from both the conversation with the Intended and the dismal journey through Africa, it's no wonder why Marlow suddenly says at the book's beginning, "And this also has been one of the dark places of the earth" (6).  He has been exposed to and is now enveloped in the darkness that penetrates the (evil) soul of humanity.