zaaaAP Lit Blog 2

Time Lapse

Acebe goes on the offensive in his article in attacking Conrad.  He has an abundance of reasons as to why Conrads book is all wrong.  But one of his reasons I found invalid.  He mentions how when Conrad took his venture down the Congo, Achebe's father was still a baby.  He goes on to say, he cannot believe anything in the book, unless he sees it with his own eyes. Yet there surely is a vast difference of the Africa then and the Africa when Achebe wrote the book.  I'm not saying the what Conrad wrote is the way it was, but it is a possibility. 

Blinded by the Light of the Whited Sepulcher

So I tried to read and understand this article.  I really did.  In fact, I even re-read it.  But for some reason the point Brady was trying to make never really made itself clear to me.  Sure, I got the whole denial, hypocrisy, deception part of it.  I could follow his individual passages on the symbolism of the whited sepulcher.  In the end, however, it just didn't seem to connect for me.  Even in class today, we discovered that the thesis may not even be until the end of the article.  So I guess I would appreciate knowing how others would summarize the article, just to help me understand it more.

Why a Frame Tale?

Conrad's writing is one of the most difficult writing anyone will have to understand. It is very hard to understand, just by reading it once. With long, complex sentences, the novel is hard to comprehend. Conrad uses the style of a frame tale to get his story across to the reader. This also makes the novel difficult because even though Marlow is speaking most of the type, the unnamed narrator jumps in the story a few times (in the beginning, a little in Part 2, and at the end). My question is: Why did Conrad use this style of writing in this story? He could have easily just have had Marlow talk the entire story, but instead he had the unnamed narrator talk as well. Why is that?

What is the Heart of Darkness

Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness is complex, there are many motifs and when Marlow tells the story he is never very clear on what is actually happening. I want to know what exactly is the heart of darkness? Marlow uses that phrase to describe many different settings and experiences. Is the heart of darkness the jungle, or is it Kurtz, is it the white people who go to the congo to "civilize" the natives, is it Marlow himself, or is it in every person? I'm confused because that phrase describes many vents in the book but it is never clear what exactly the heart of darkness is.

Why?

Now that we have reached the end of Marlow's tale, why did he even bother telling it?

At the very beginning, the ship is heading out of London. It is getting dark. The narrator says something very interesting, "Hunters for gold or pursuers of mame, the all had gone out gon that stream, bearing the sword, and often the torch, messengers of the might within the land, bearers of a spark from the sacred fire" (5). He's talking about imperialism, which just so happens to be one major issue in Marlow's story.

When Marlow finishes the story, even though there is only one paragraph from our narrator, we can tell that he is already changed. Instead of praising those who have gone out into the world to spread the British culture before them, he describes the scene in front of them, what they are heading towards, as, "leading to the uttermost ends of the earth flowed sombre under an overcast sky--it seemed to lead into the heart of immense darkness" (117). That sure didn't sound like his praising self before.

I think the point of Marlow's telling of his story is that it still haunts him. Also, he feels compelled to share the dark truth with the ones who are out to continue it. Perhaps that is Conrad's point of writing this book, too. Do you agree or do you have other ideas?

A Hazy Reading

When reading Heart of Darkness, I can't ever get past the reading that really stresses fogginess and light vs. dark.  I have yet to really figure it all out, but I think the darkness represents the unknown, covers up malicious acts yet also draws the Europeans nearer. So much is black and white, such as the girl on page 114-117, has a sharp contrast of pale skin with a black dress I remember in class when we discussed page 115, somebody (Nara I think) mentioned that the darkness of her head represented her ignorance and lack of knowledge and I have to agree.  I think the distinction of mentioning that her head was dark is important in the analysis of the description.

Throughout the novel, the Europeans constantly deal with darkness whether it means traveling through fog or dealing with dark vs light civilizations.  In the fog, the men hear screams but cannot determine where they are coming from, so the fear is there but cause is ultimately unknown.  Also, when the Manager says the scoundrel should be hanged, his uncle says that it would be definitely possible to do so because the Congo is so far away from any "light" civilization.  In this passage I think the light vs. dark comes from the savagery of the society, yet the men have not changed at all.  The Europeans are constantly fighting back darkness, yet they succumb to it and act similarly to it.

I still have a lot of figuring out to do but I think this is pretty good so far

Too Many Motifs

Once my group was assigned the motif of black and white, I began to only look for that particular motif as I read Heart of Darkness. When other groups showed examples of their motifs during class, I felt like I missed them while I read through the book. Since Heart of Darkness is an incredibly dense book, did anyone else feel like they missed out on some themes and motifs because they were stuck trying to find out the significance of their own motifs?

Lost in the Wilderness

I know that we sort of touched on this subject Tuesday in class, but I thought maybe the blog would be a good place to get some responses.  I was really wondering what the significance of the jungle and its personification in the Heart of Darkness is.  It may mean nothing, but it does seem to be one of the big motifs and seeing as this book is full of hidden meanings it may be helpful to figure out as much as is possible.

We Live, As We Dream-- Alone.....

On page 40, there is a passage that seems to scream, "Take Heart of Darkness with a grain of salt". Yet the incredible content of it, I think, made me pay attention to that book. It was that point where it stops being an assignment, and starts actually giving you satisfaction.

"It seems to me I am trying to tell you a dream- making a vain attempt, because no relation of a dream can convey the dream-sensation, that commingling of absurdity, surprise, and bewilderment in a tremor of struggling revolt, that notion of being captured by the incredible which is of the very essence of dreams...."

If we read Heart of Darkness as the retelling of this dream like adventure, it accounts for all of the inconsistencies while giving strength the the real hard details in the story. While Marlow's narrative has been affected by the passing of time, as well as the components of the story that were so surreal he has had to question their existence, many observations he makes have the air of having already been analyzed. This seems to happen a lot in the retelling of dreams. I think the passage is equally as powerful when we relate it to our own lives. It articulates the frustration we tend to have with sharing what is ultimately an irreplaceable personal experience.

Great Parallels

I thought that the movie Apocalypse Now was a great adaptation of the novel Heart Of Darkness. There were several noticeable parallels between the two, such as: Futility(when the soldiers explain how everyday they build a bridge and every night it gets destroyed), Ivory(Squashing enemy activity), and Smoke Grenades(the fog). Besides these I thought the film conveyed the feel of the book.

Several of the night scenes you only see part of a characters face, shrouding their identity to a degree. In the book the narration does the same thing only giving you bits and pieces of information at a time, and keeping you in suspense. This also happened at the end when he met Kurtz he was covered in the dark so you couldn't see his face. I think this was done for the same reason.

The scene where they got ambushed on the river I felt was conveyed perfectly. In the book there is a sense of chaos and panic. Nobody aboard the ship knows what to do or how to stop the attack. This chaos and panic is shown in the film, you can feel how scared the characters are. Are there more parallels or similarities between the book and the film?

The Ending...

Reading The Heart Of Darkness and The Secret Sharer was not an easy task for me. Sometimes I would  re-read pages over and over to make any sense out of them. It was not until the end that I finally felt some connection to the book. When Kurtz died and people finally started to show emotion rather than confusion. My question is did everyone understand it with no problem or was there one part when you finally had that "Ah-Ha" moment?

Skeletal Ivory

While reading section two in the Heart of Darkness one description of Kurtz really stuck in my mind.  Marlow describes Kurtz as "an animated image of death carved out of old ivory had been shaking its hand with menaces at a motionless crowd of men of dark and glittering bronze" (90).  This is when I felt I had finally, for the first time, connected a meaning to information given in this book.  I interpret the above description as meaning that Kurtz is already dead, that due to his lust of ivory and his need to obtain it, his obsession was his destruction and all that was left was an image, an image of death carved out of old ivory.  No longer does a soul live in this man, just a mere body.  Does anyone else see this? or I am stretching it a bit?

Condrad = Dense

I think my  biggest problem with Heart of Darkness is just the sheer density of the book. This is not to say that I'm not enjoying it. So far I've found the book very interesting and quite engaging. Conrad's writing style, while sometimes difficult to understand, is very unique and leads to a reading experience that I have not encountered before. The amount of detail, imagery, and complex metaphors makes the visualization of what is happening fairly easy. Some of this, however, is offset by the abundance of archaic vocabulary, a fact that requires me to read in front of a browser opened to the OED website.
Overall though, I like Heart of Darkness, and for the most part am looking forward to discussing it in class, mostly because there are probably literally hundreds of details, themes, motifs, etc that I've missed. I agree with Heidkamp, in order to get anywhere near the full meaning of the text you're going to have to re-read the book, something I can't wait to do...(sarcasm)

A Day Out of the Ordinary

Ok, so all week I had been looking forward to go seeing this show. I know, I know, some people might be thinking, " Why would you want to go see this?" I love theater, and everything to do with theater. Theater is what I want to do in college. So as I sat down in the theater, I thought to myself, " I really hope other people can appreciate this as much as I do." The show began and I was on the edge of my seat. I heard the people start to sing and I knew that I would hopefully be there one day. One aspect that I thought was really interesting was the staging they used on this production. I am not sure what point they were trying to convey, but if it was supposed to be dramatic, then it worked. Going along with Mr. Heidkamp's views, I also was more interested in Caroline's family. I was more drawn to her actions, and her beliefs than to Noah's families. I am still not sure why that was. Was that the intention to be drawn to them? What parts of the show didn't you get? Did you enjoy the fact that there wasn't much talking, or were you more annoyed by that?

There are two types of People in the World: Those who like Musicals, and Those who don't

I have come to the conclusion that after me not enjoying the play Caroline, or Change is based upon the fact that I simply don't like musicals. I was pretty bored watching the play and didn't find any of the scenes to be funny. I do however respect the actors and the writer for their hard work put in to make it. For some reason, I get this feeling that I only like musicals if they are very funny. That's why the only musical I've ever liked is the South Park movie. Does anybody else not enjoy musicals like me or agree with my point that you either love or hate musicals?

I Can't Stand Marlow

The man telling us the story still seems like a mystery man to me.  We are not told any real background on him, other than the fact that he just "follows the sea."  But from what I have read so far, the man bugs me.  "Every time I pick up the book to read, I always get that image in my head about the guy at homecoming example that mr. heidkamp gave us.  Certain things about him have made me dislike him.  First of all, the way he talks about Kurtz non-stop.  To me, you can't tell a story and keep referring to the man, if you have not even introduced him yet.  He even gives off the impression that he thinks Kurtz is overrated.  Hes not so great himself.  Right before they boat was attacked, he said that he did not think that anything was going to happen.  Nice going captain. Tedious details and the lack of good story telling to me, makes marlow a terrible narrator.   

Strength, Weakness and Taking Advantage of Others

I really like two lines on page 8. The first one says, "...your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others." The other one is, "The conquest of the earth, which mostly means this taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not pretty thing when you look into it too much."

I think Marlow is commenting on the British Empire when he says that strength is just an accident. The British Empire might have seem like a powerful force at the time, but really it just took advantage of the weaker people. For example, when Marlow is going down to Africa, the ship shoots at the shore, claiming to be attacking the "enemies." But, Marlow does not see anybody out there, and simply just thinks that they are shooting at Africa.

So Marlow does have a higher level of thinking, thus the narrator comments that he is like Buddha. He clearly sees that conquest is wrong.

But then I am left with this question, why is the Nellie ship meant for? Marlow does no seem to be the type of character that would go on another conquest ship, but then what else could it be for?

The Density of Darkness

I was relieved to hear Mr. Heidkamp acknowledge the density of Heart of Darkness today in class.  I felt better that it was not just me who was troubled and frustrated with the seemingly endless rambles of Conrad.  He soaks his pages with intense imagery, twisting metaphors, and endless new vocabulary.  The pages in my book are filled with circles, trying to catch every word I do not recognize.

But then I try to put away the acutal meaning of each word and look at them strung together.  And all I can ask is, "What the eff??"  From page six, "...and to him the meaning of an episode was not inside like a kernel but outside, enveloping the tale which brought it out only as a glow brings out a haze, in the likeness of one of these misty halos that sometimes are made visible by the spectral illumiation of moonshine."  Not only do these words not form comprehensible sentences, but I do not understand how they relate to the book or plot at all.  I am purely lost in everything Conrad puts down on the page.  Even the narrator braces the audience with how 'inconclusive' the story will be.  So what's the point of the book, plot, and density, and how they relate to each other?

Can Anyone Understand Heart of Darkness?

It seems that each day I become more and more frustrated with Heart of Darkness. I quickly came to the realization that this book is not a "read in bed while on the verge of sleep at one in the morning" type of book. It requires quite a bit of effort to really understand what is going on. Sunday morning I resolved to try and spend a lot of time on reading this book and annotating and really trying to grasp it. While I did spend about an hour reading the first 21 pages, I still felt completely lost. Had you asked me for a summary of what had happened I don't think I would have been able to provide it. While I continue to read on I am just getting more and more confused because I just have no idea what is going on. Why can't the author just be more straightforward, rather than alluding to everything? I guess I'm wondering if I am the only one who is lost, or if others are having as much difficulty as me.

Somthing Very Old (Apologies)

While I was obsessively listening to Bob Dylan, which thankfully I do quite often I came across something that kind of connected to the stranger. The song was Gates of Eden and in order not to take up too much space I’ll only provide a few verses.

Relationships of ownership
They whisper in the wings
To those condemned to act accordingly
And wait for succeeding kings
And I try to harmonize with songs
The lonesome sparrow sings
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden

The motorcycle black madonna
Two-wheeled gypsy queen
And her silver-studded phantom cause
The gray flannel dwarf to scream
As he weeps to wicked birds of prey
Who pick up on his bread crumb sins
And there are no sins inside the Gates of Eden

The foreign sun, it squints upon
A bed that is never mine
As friends and other strangers
From their fates try to resign
Leaving men wholly, totally free
To do anything they wish to do but die
And there are no trials inside the Gates of Eden

In this song I thought that that Gates were Dylan’s mind, or anyone’s mind for that matter, and that he was essentially suggesting a rejection of previous values.
Thoughts?

A Very Frustrating Factor

Warning: The following post may contain a very angsty tone, hostile diction, and an aggressively opinionated view.

Small margins.  They are the bane of my existence.  I desperately try not to hate things in life, but small margins are pushing me to my limits.  Anyone who has tried, or is currently attempting to, annotate an elaborate novel with tiny margins knows exactly what I'm about to say...

IT BLOWS.

It's like trying to cut out an intricate paper chain with nail clippers.  Or trying to carry in the latest load of Costco (or Sam's Club) groceries armed only with a ziploc bag.  Or trying to stop a bleeding gash with scotch tape.  Trying to annotate in small margins can be done, but it is usually very frustrating, often messy, and sometimes painful.  Don't get me wrong, small margins in any other circumstances are fine.  It is only when I am forced to squeeze my commentary about important and usually elaborate passages into a space as wide as a baby cricket that I find myself with a throbbing headache and a jumble in tiny, illegible scribble.  In case you are wondering what may have prompted this tirade, this is pretty much the emotional course I go through when trying to annotate Heart of Darkness.  My situation is exacerbated because of Conrad's descriptive tendencies.  His long, winding sentences are often filled with striking diction and imagery.  How am I supposed to effectively comment on such writing in such a tiny space?  I realize I may be slightly blowing things out of proportion, but there comes a point at which enough is enough.  Apparently I have reached that point.

A Consensus on Legatt

Through our class discussions, many people have brought up that Leggatt , was not a real person. He was made by the captain in order to get rid of his loneliness on a ship, for which he feels a little out of place. Perhaps both of them being "Conway boys" is just the Captain's way of missing his old friends, who were in a higher class than the first mate he finds so unappealing.

Contradictorily, I believe Leggatt  is real because the story makes the character real. I don't think a captain boarding a ship trying to find him would follow a ghost. Although Leggatt , is real I believe that the Captain's own feelings have made a wrong interpretation of the man. His need for a companion, made him see Leggatt  as not a murder but a man who suffered some quick passion and shot.

I think this happens to every human, when we feel a need to connect to people. Sometimes when we are lonely or sometimes when we are looking for friendship. For example, many people when they are in a relationship say them and the other  person “connect on so many levels”, yet are completely different.  Within this feeling, the Captain is looking for someone who is like him, someone who feels and knows like he does.  It could even be said that he is writing Leggatt’s personality and biography without truly knowing who we was, just in case he was in contrast to his beliefs.  My question then is do you believe people can misinterpret other people, out of loneliness or hope to find common ground? Do you believe that Leggatt is a product of this?

Is Leggatt Real?

In The Secret Sharer, the captain encounters a man floating in the water, who he first describes as a headless corpse. The captain allows him on to the boat and hides the man, whose name is Leggatt, in his cabin. No other member of the crew every sees Leggatt, which causes me to wonder if he truly even exists. While reading, I noticed that the captain considers Leggatt to be exacty like him, which makes me wonder if he is only a figment of the captains imagination. I feel like the captain created Leggatt in his mind in order to fulfill parts of himself which he felt were not complete. My question is, Is Leggatt real, or just a creating by the captain.

He's A Ghost!!

In The Secret Sharer, Laggatt is portrayed as haunting and ghost like, I think this is to show that he is actually a spirit. When The Captain first sees him on the side of the boat he exclaims "a pair of feet, the long legs, a broad livid back immersed right up to the neck in a greenish cadaverous glow...he was complete but for a head. A headless corpse!"(127). The first time we are introduced to The Captains double he is described to have a "cadaverous glow" and to be "headless", this would indicated that he is dead. Later when they are talking on the deck, the narrator describes their interaction as "the strange captain having a quiet confabulation by the wheel with his own gray ghost."(133).

The Captain is hiding Leggatt in his bathroom when his steward goes to hang The Captains coat in the bathroom, The Captain becomes very nervous, hoping the steward doesn't run into Leggatt. The steward makes no mention of a man in The Captains bathroom upon return, after this The Captain thinks to himself "can it be...that he is not visible to other eyes than mine?"(159). I believe this is very true because upon talking to Leggatt, he discovers the steward only put his arm into the bathroom, which is a very strange way to hang a coat. Do you think Leggatt is a ghost? Or just a strange double of The Captain?

Love for Leggatt

It seemed to me in the Secret Sharer that the captain clung on the Leggatt simply because he was looking for someone to talk to. Prior to meeting Leggatt, the captain states that he doesn't know the crew very well, and that he is kind of alone. However, he has no problem with Leggatt boarding his ship even though he is completely naked and claimed to have killed a man. Once Leggatt is aboard, the captain loves his company because he has someone else that he can converse with. Does it seem that the sexual relationship between Leggatt and the captain grew only because the captain wanted someone to interact with?

No Name

Did anyone notice that the narrator and main character of The Secret Sharer did not have a name, or at least we the audience was not aware of? I have not read many novellas or short stories, but I found this odd and intriguing at the same time. I kept waiting for someone to address him, or for him to introduce himself to Leggatt, but no such luck.

Names give people a sense of identity. It may not be completely conscious, but how would people feel if they did not have a name? Throughout the story, the captain kept referring to Leggatt as his other self. I am wondering if Conrad did this on purpose to make the audience mesh the two characters into one identity. I believe so; you do not just "forget" to give your character a name. In fact, it is probably the first and foremost thing that comes to a writer's mind. Names have to fit the character, or at least the good ones do. So how does this affect the characterization of the captain? Does the audience have a tendency to not give him a more distinctive identity because they do not know his name? Also, what do you think would be the captain's name? Names often have meanings, so I thought it would be interesting what others would think of.

Is It Possible That...

I can't figure it out.  Seriously, I have no idea whether Leggatt is simply a well-crafted delusion or a potential lover.  There is ample evidence for both scenarios, and I am intrigued by the scandal of both.  I have been reading over recent posts, which seem to be overwhelmingly about this topic.  Who is Leggatt and what is his exact relationship to the captain?  Who knows.  Maybe the author meant for the reader to struggle with this.  Is it possible that Joseph Conrad crafted Leggatt to be as elusive as he is?  Is it possible that Leggatt was written specifically to be open to interpretation?   Perhaps these compromising questions are simply my non-committal side asserting itself.  But then again, perhaps we are not giving the author enough credit.  Or too much credit.  Anything is possible...

Secrets Aren't THAT Intimate

In class today it was suggested that the Secret Sharer could perhaps be a romantic story between the Captain and Leggatt.  However to me it honestly seems implausible.  There's no reason why two men should instantly be suspected of being gay because they share a room, and have discussions late at night.  Would the same be assumed of two women?  It seems stereotypical to assume that because they are men, sharing the secrets of their lives implies they are romantically involved, for most men keep their thoughts and feelings to themselves.  The Captain is "attracted" to Leggatt, not romantically, but because he has found a person he can empathize with.  Leggatt is a source of comfort to him in an uncomfortable situation where he is attempting to run a ship and crew he does not know.  He sees himself in Leggatt for one reason or another, and it is fascinating to him.  Perhaps he was just desperate for someone to talk to, and once he was able to let go and take control of his ship, he moved on. 

Awkward Relationships

I have noticed in the last three things we have watched/read in class (The Stranger, Trust, and The Secret Sharer) there have been really awkward relationships. Meursault and Marie, Matthew and Maria, and the captain and Leggatt. They all seem to be a bit of social outcasts but some how find love for each other. My question is is the relationship between Leggatt and the captian forshawdowing something or is it a symbol for something entirely different?

An Exchange of a Whisper

During class today we had a discussion posed on the question, what is the " Secret Sharer" about.? As a class we came up with two options. One being a romantic love story and the other being the category of leadership and danger. There are many viable options for either of the topics to fully answer the question what is the "Secret Sharer" about. For the leadership and danger topic, you could propose that the Captain was fufilling his potential as a leader. Also, that he was a Captain free of all restraints. He still wanted to show leadership, but didn't want to push to hard on the shipmates. Either way the option of Leggatt being real or not fits in with both of these topics. On the contrary, the romantic vibe in the novel is pursued by the fear of discovery. This moves the romance on and keeps it going. There exchange of whispers and loving goodbye puts up a red flag to the reader, suggesting the there is more to their relationship. Which category do you think best answers the question of what is the "Secret Sharer" about?