zaaaAP Lit Blog 4

Defend Conrad

After the discussion in class today, in some extend, I can agree with Achebe's stance. But I also think one should not to look at a piece of literature from a point of view that is different from author's original intention, and criticize the author for it. A book should never be criticized for what other than it's intended idea. It's very hard, if not impossible, to find a perfect piece of work that is complete flawless in terms of social and political meaning or stance. Many times, when an author is focus on one stance, especially when he/she is trying to reveal a type of underlying social problem, they try to amplify their point by oversimplify some of the fact. I think this is what Conrad does in Heart of Darkness, almost all his arguments are to demonstrate the hypocrisy and the potential of evil of European Imperialism. Therefore many of the examples he uses is solely for the sake of his argument. On the other hand those examples may contain other meaning in there or can be interpreted differently, but it's not the intention of Conrad, thus not the meaning of the book. It's foolish to look at the meaning of great literature by analyze it's parts and put them back together afterward, because the whole is always greater than it's parts.   

Let's Not be Hasty Here Achebe...

While I believe that Achebe made many solid points showing racism in Heart of Darkness, I'm not sure if all  parties involved (the book, Conrad, and society) intended on spreading it. It is also not fair to ignore some of the positive intentions Conrad might have had when writing the book. I came to these conclusions after discussing the motifs and reading Marion Brady's Whited Sepulcher article.

Starting from the basics, my first reason to believe Conrad did not consciously intend on spreading racism with his book is that Marlow is clearly disgusted with what he sees going on in Africa. In addition, the characters that practice racism or ignorance are not exactly looked at with admiration by Marlow. I find it hard to believe that Conrad supported what was going on in the Ivory Coast because of this.

Futhermore, the possible themes our class discussed completely go against the idea that Conrad is racist. Why else would he make symbols representing the hypocrisy of Europe and compare his home city to a whited sepulcher? Is it just me or is this article just making the book even more confusing than it has to be?!

The Whited Sepulchre finally helps!

Okay. So finally I've read something pertaining to this crazy book we are reading that helps me understand it better. Its the article called "Conrad's Whited Sepulchre". For some reason, I am super struggling with this book and what's going on in general with it. However, when I read the article, it clarified even simple details. It made clear some of the symbolism and motifs, such as the whited sepulchre and how it symbolizes the deceitfulness of the Company and European imperialism using specific examples. It also clarified how Marlow views the world and how he expects a person to live their life by living through Truth and not deception. I'm hoping the next article we read opens my eyes to other aspects of the novel as well.

ivory is the devil

In the book Heart of darkness there are many examples that would prove that Ivory is a form of the devil. It is the reason for most of the death and suffering in the congo. it is the reason Kurtz is out there. all he wanted to do was get rich. he didnt care who he killed, as long as he got Ivory.

Kurtz's Intended

In the end of Heart of Darkness, Marlow visits Kurtz’s Intended to return the last of the papers that Kurtz gave him. The two talk for a while about Kurtz, though I never got a firm feel for how Marlow felt about her. At first, he obviously feels pity. “She came forward, all in black, with a pale head, floating towards me in the dusk. She was in mourning.” (page 112) But later on he sounds almost jealous of her relationship with Kurtz when she makes comments about how much better she knew him. “I knew him best” “You knew him best,’ I repeated. And perhaps she did. But with every word spoken the room was growing darker” (page 113)
“Yes! I am proud to know I understood him better than any one on earth – he told me so himself. And since his mother died I have had no one.’ “I listened. The darkness deepened” (page 113)
It seems to always get darker when she talks about knowing Kurtz better than Marlow did, which makes me think he must have been getting upset about this. The other quote that really stuck out was when she says “Ah, but I believed in him more than any one on earth – more than his own mother, more than – himself. He needed me! Me! I would have treasured every sigh, every word, every sign, every glance” Marlow replies by saying “Don’t” (page 116). I imagine he would be pretty annoyed at her. He did treasure every word and sigh, yet she is so sure it was her that Kurtz needed.
I think that might be why he lied to her about Kurtz’s last words. Maybe he wanted that last piece of Kurtz to himself. Only he, Kurtz’s last friend, who stood by him to the end, would get to know what his true last words were.

Darkness of Iraq

Watching the movie was fascinating and clarified my understanding of the novel. It was very interesting to watch the director take events from the novel and place them in a Vietnam setting. I was especially intrigued by the additions the director included in the movie. One of these changes that caught my attention was the photographer character that replaced the Russian trader. It was interesting to see how different yet the same the two variations of the character.

I was not surprised that Mr. Heidkamp brought up the war on Iraq. I too thought about the war in Iraq when the class discussed futility being a theme. How do people feel about the Iraq war being compared to the ivory coast?What similarities are there between the two settings?

Why Did He Lie?

One of the reading journal questions for section three, "Why did Marlow lie to Kurtz's Intended about his last words?" really made me think. At first I though the question was straight forward, but then I wasn’t so sure.

At the end of the novel, after Kurtz has died and Marlow has returned from the Congo, Marlow goes and visits Kurtz's Intended. While talking, she asks Marlow what were Kurtz’s last words before he died. And, instead of telling her the truth, that his last words were "The Horror, The Horror" he tells her that his last word was her name.

Now, I understand that thought this journey, Marlow looked at Kurtz with a feelings of admiration. However, after meeting him and seeing things like dried heads on the steaks facing his station, it seemed to me that Marlow realized that Kurtz might not have been the man he thought he was. Or at least not someone with great ideals. So why did he lie to Kurtz's Intended? I don’t think that Conrad had Marlow lie just to protect the women’s feelings. Or if he did, was that met to further emphasize the idea of ignorance? It seems that through Marlow's lie, he was almost protecting Kurtz reputation, keeping him this ideal man in her mind. So why did he do it if he had seem the awful and un ideal things he had done?

"The horror..."

I am still very confused as to what Kurtz was trying to say when he managed to yell out "The horror...the horror!" as his last words before his death. I, however, still have two naive theores as to what it could have meant. First, I thought that Kurtz may have been having a vision of the greedy mission his company was set out to do. It could have been like his epiphany, where he realized that the horror is actually all the darkness the Europeans brought with them to an innocent continent. Maybe at that moment Kurtz was no longer blinded by any fog or blackness but he was able to see the effects that his men were leaving behind. Maybe Kurtz saw that this was the horror. My second theory was that Kurtz was just terrorized by the thought of losing all his precious ivory. It could have been evidence to how greedy and empty the white men are in this book. Either way I am pretty sure that neither of these are the right analyzation of Kurtz's last words...

Remarkable Yet still left Dissatisfied

After watching the clip from Apocalypse Now I am craving more of the movie. I am very upset with the fact that we never were able to see how Kurtz was actually portrayed in the movie. Yes, one could assume that the character was the same of that of the book, yet there were some differences between the book and the movie. There was a person who praised Kurtz in both depictions, but one was a Russian, and the other an American hippie type photographer. In both the book and movie the helmsman is killed via a spear, yet the helmsman in the movie had a greatly expanded role compared to that of the helmsman in the book. Looking at these differences makes me wonder what Kurtz might have been like in the movie. I might even go rent the movie just to find out. Do you think Kurtz would be portrayed the same in the movie as he was in the book? 

Translating Imagery

There are many connections between Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now. However the one that struck me the most was how Conrad's extensively descriptive scenery seemed to crop up a great deal in Apocalypse Now. For example in one passage Conrad describes a river scene, writing, "All this was in the gloom, while we down there were yet in the sunshine, and the stretch of the river abreast of the clearing glittered in a still and dazzling splendor, with a murky and overshadowed bend above and below"(89). When I read this passage I immediately recalled an image in Apocalypse Now. I forget when exactly the scene occurred but i think it was right before the "purple haze". The landscape shown in the movie depicted a serene river with a cloudy haze over it but there still was an intense sense of light cast around the seen and especially on the river. Even small details such as this add enormously to the connections between the novel and the film.

Caroline or Change is a Good Mix

I liked the play Caroline or Change.  It had a good mix of music (especially different styles), singing, tense drama, and humorous moments.

The details of the play were intriguing: a Black-American woman working as a maid for a Jewish family, in Lake Charles, LA, in the "deepest" part of the Deep South USA.  I see that something like this is very particular to America, with its many ethnic groups living together.  And the play itself examines the struggles that different groups of people face when interacting with each other in America.

That reminds me of this question that someone asked: Did Caroline still retain feelings of resentment at the end, or did she experience a sense of reconciliation?  What was nice about this play was that the conclusion gave the audience a sense that Caroline was reconciled to Noah and his family, but her struggle to coexist in a stable manner with them still continued.  And these struggles continue for all Americans, as we look to find a way to coexist peacefully with each other.

Can Marlow's actions and thoughts be explained???

The more of the novel I read, the less I understand Marlow. I think he has severe A.D.D. . In many passages, his thoughts are hard to connect. While the Helmsman's death is being discussed, Marlow says, "To tell you the truth, I was morbidly anxious to change my shoes and socks" (p 70). I think it is frustrating to not understand the main character of a novel. At this point in the novel, I am struggling to connect with his character. I have been waiting for a revealing section in the novel to help me out a little. Why is Marlow's character so complex and confusing?

The Racism of Marlow

I feel like Marlow has gotten more racist as the story has progressed. At the very beginning, he was always disturbed by the atrocities carried out by his fellow Europeans upon the African natives. Later in the play, while he still claims to dislike this violence, it seems that the trying times of this adventure has revealed a more racist side. For example, when his boat was trapped in the fog and he heard screams coming from the woods, he called the Africans savages much more than he did normally. Also, during the attack on the steamship, his racism was unleashed in his discussion on his helmsmen. In fact, when the helmsman died, Marlow only felt sorry because the helmsman was useful; it seems Marlow thought of him only as a tool. In addition, Marlow simply threw his body into the river, while it seemed that a native who had worked so hard for the Europeans and gave his life for Marlow deserved some sort of proper burial. Overall, it seems that Marlow is becoming the racist overseer that he used to decry. I wonder if this development has significance later in the book.

Conrad's Exauhsting 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.

Awesome Action Scene!

In the majority of this novel Conrad vividly describes everything that is going on through the lens of Marlow.  For the most part his descriptions seem unnecessary, but in some circumstances they are a great addition to the scene.  This is the situation during the action scene on the river starting on page 67.  Marlow is just lazily moving down the river until, "Sticks, little sticks, were flying about--thick they were whizzing past my nose (Conrad 67)."  It took me a little while to figure out what was happening, but when I did, his vivid description of the sticks (arrows) was very useful in painting a picture in my head.    His does an amazing job describing the helmsman after he gets shot.  "That fool-helmsman, his hands on the spokes, was lifting his knees high, stamping his feet, champing his mouth, like a reined-in horse (Conrad 67)."  Again, it took some time to realize that he had been injured, but upon re-reading this passage, it became grotesquely clear that he was.  There are so many amazing descriptions in this scene, that they would make this post very long, so I suggest that you re-read over the scene yourself to find them.  Try and picture the scene in your head like a movie.  Doing so might make it easier to read and comprehend his descriptions.  Did anyone else enjoy this scene as much as I did?  Are there any other descriptions that you think are worth noting?

"Heart of Darkness" and Politics: "If elected, I will end all suffering"

I find it quite fitting that we come to "Heart of Darkness" at the election time. One of the major motifs in Conrad's book is the difference between ideals and real action. Elections are infamous for candidates' lofty ideals, especially with the current candidates, but once elected, the necessary actions to realize these ideals rarely materialize. "Heart of Darkness" addresses this many times.

The omnipresent yet never introduced Kurtz provides the highest ideals:

"Each station should be like a beacon on the road towards better things, a centre for trade of course, but also for humanizing, improving, instructing" (48).

"He began with the argument that we whites, from the point of development we had arrived at, must necessarily appear to them [savages] in the nature of super natural beings--we approach them with the might of a deity" (75).

Marlow, on the other hand, acts as a reality check:

"Principals won't do. Acquisitions, clothes, pretty rags--rags that would fly off at the first good shake. No; you want a deliberate belief" (54).

"No fear can stand up to hunger, no patience can wear it out, disgust simply does not exist where hunger is. It's really easier to face bereavement, dishonour, and the perdition of one's soul--than this kind of prolonged hunger" (62).

Which candidate possesses the highest, least realistic ideals? Who, if anyone, questions the likelihood of these ideals to come to real action? I am highly interested in what everyone thinks, because I can see this going either way.

CSI: Congo

I am obsessed with CSI: Miami.  I find it very interesting and brutally graphic.  This novel reminds me of an episode of CSI: Miami.  Horatio, is the main character on CSI repeatedly tries to solve to mystery to the crime.  I am unaware of why this book really reminds me of CSI but there was one scene in the novel that was very similar to the TV show.

"Can't say I saw any road or any upkeep, unless the body of a middle-aged Negro, with a bullet-hole in his forehead...." (29)

What a horrible scene! Can you imagine someone leaving a dead man behind just sitting in the middle of the road.  This connects with CSI because this sounds like an opening scene of what CSI:Miami usually looks like.  Nonetheless, this was a brutally visible scene.

Unconsciousness Vs. Consciousness

I think Leggatt is actually the unconscious half of the captain. With Leggatt, the captain is able to forget all the social rules and the moralities. Only when he is alone with Leggatt,  the captain is able to express his true feelings and face himself as who he actually is. The captain is able to find the similarity between himself and Leggatt and uncontrollably fall in love with Leggatt, although it is against the morality at the time. There is always a strangeness exists inside the captain. At the beginning of the story he complains about how little he knows about his crew, "My strangeness, which had made me sleepless.... the ship of which I knew nothing, manned by men of whom I knew very little more."(Pg. 125) Because the captain is young and comparatively well educated, his present doesn't fit with the rest of the crew. On the other hand the existence of Leggatt brings many similarity and make the captain feel that he actually belong to this place. Thus, the unconsciously, Leggatt become the mental and emotional safe house for the captain, but the conscious half of the captain is telling him that hiding a murderer in his own room and having a relationship with a man is morally incorrect.

The Dark Side

I believe that Leggatt brought out the dark side of the Captain because he began doing things he normally wouldn't, most of them being things he knew he shouldn't be doing. To me it is obvious that something bad had been influencing the captain do do these things, in this case it was Leggatt. The captain knew he Leggatt had killed someone yet he still let Leggatt hide aboard the ship and he even lied to the captain of the sephora to cover for him. He also put the lives of all his crew to try and save this man when he steered toward the island. This is clearly the dark side of the captain.

Secret Sharer: A Love Story

IT seems a little that there is a possibility that the Secret Sharer could have been a romance story. at the end of the book, the Captain's relationship was stronger then ever with his ship and he believed that nothing would come in the way of that. in a sense, he is in a loving relationship with his ship and it took Leggatt to help him realize that.

Why So Many Options?!

While discussing The Secret Sharer, the class concluded that there were multiple ways to view the story. The viewpoints involving Leggatt being a symbol of the captain's ideal or the captain's dark side seemed to be the most logical to me in class. The idea that Leggatt represented the captain's dark side seemed even more believable than the belief that he represented the ideal captain because of the fact that the captain improved once he had gotten rid of Leggatt.

However, I wonder why the author made so many aspects of the story a mystery. The more I think about the story, the more possibilities I see for what actually happened. Though a definite explanation of the story is difficult to agree on, does anyone have any speculations on why the author made the story so flexible? Do you think he possibly did not think his story would be so hard to decipher? My confusion was escalated when Mr. Heidkamp tried to discover if the word "queer" was being used as a homosexual term while explaining the romantic theory about the story and discovered that it was a mystery whether or not the author intended it to be used with such a connotation. Will there ever be clarity?

Meursault And The Captain

Already a couple of people have noticed that the two books we've read so far, The Stranger and The Secret Sharer, both describe their characters as strangers.  While reading The Secret Sharer I noticed not only the similarities between the two books, but also the main characters.

As I said before, both Meursault and the captain are characterized as strangers compared to the world around them.  With Meursault we have to pay attention to detail and his reactions that set him apart from society, but the captain tells us flat out that he feels like a stranger among the ship and the men on board. 
Next there is the company that the two men choose to surround themselves with.  Meursault wanted to be friends with Raymond despite his reputation.  The captain forms a strong bond with Leggatt, but has to hide him since no one else would accept him.

I also noticed that both the captain and Meursault were not very religious.  It is more obvious in Meursault who fights religion when other people tried to force it on him.  This actually happened twice, once before his trial, and the other before his death.  When the two captains in The Secret Sharer are talking about the storm Archbold went through, he describes how the foresail saved them.  The captain tries to explain their survival rationally, but Archbold has a different take on the matter.  "It was the setting of the sail which ---" I began.  "Gods own hand in it" he interrupted me." (Page 147).  Maybe it doesn't exactly say the captain isn't at all religious, but it was just a small thing I noticed.  What do you guys think?
 

Could It Be...Love At First Sight?

For the past three days in class, having the discussions on the symbolism and alternative meanings for The Secret Sharer have intrigued me. When I first began to read this novella I must addmitt that I was confused. However, in class, everything was pretty much cleared up and I grew a greater sense of appreciation towards the captain and Leggatt. What really grabbed my attention during our class discussions were the  "secret romantic connections," as Kevin B. in class put it, found between the captain and Leggatt. I probably would not have noticed how the abundant use of "queer" could have indicated homosexuality because I didn't take into account the date, which was about 1910 I believe. We learned that "queer" back then would most likely refer to a homosexual. I also underlined quotations such as "our eyes met... our glances mingled" (166), and  "our hands met gropingly" (167), however I only wrote "strange" on the margins... Now, I am most definitley intrigued by the meaning that can possibly exist behind the captain and Leggatt's relationship as doppelgangers (an awsome word I learned today). There is so much more to this novella then I was expecting, and these class discussions have really opened my eyes! Even towards the end of the story when the captain leaves Leggat and says that nothing can get in the way between him and his ship (her) and that there was a communion (marriage) involved, that just made the romantic point of view of this story that much more believable and real. I could add so many more comments on the symbolic meaning of Leggatt in The Secret Sharer, and how Leggatt seemed to change the captain from the darkside to a more ideal version, but I prefer to leave those notes to be shared in discussion. It's more stimulating that way!

Double Trouble

In The Secret Sharer, the discussion of whether Leggatt represents the ideal captain or a dark captain in my opinion can be able to be argued either way. Both portrayals have characteristics that a captain would and would not want to have. But the one question that I feel was not answered or completely resolved was the idea The Captain and Leggatt being very similar, or even the same person.

At one point, Conrad writes that, "He was not a bit like me, really; yet, as we stood leaning over my bed-place, whispering side by side, with our dark heads together and our backs to the door, anybody bold enough to open it stealthily would have been treated to the uncanny sight of a double captain busy talking in whispers with his other self” (135). This is just one instance that Conrad refers to the two as “double.”

So, what is the significance of Conrad writing about them being doubles? Does it maybe tie in with the idea of them having a romantic relationship?

An abundance of strangers???

The topic of "strangers" seems to be everywhere. In my opinion, we have encountered three strangers in the literature we have read. Meursault, Mr. Leggatt and the captain all seem to be outcasts. The captain admits that he barely knows his crew, and feels alienated. Similarly, Mr. Leggatt was outcasted after his accusal of murder. Are there strangers in every story? I'm beginning to love the stranger character. 

Come To The Dark Side

In my opinion, Leggatt represents the evil side of the captain. While reading this novel I was always skeptical about the events that took place during the murder. I always thought that Leggatt lied to the captain. Leggatt killed a man because he got in his way and the Captain just immediately did not care and took Leggett's side. The Captain was so gullible and Leggatt played him. When the captain from the other ship came aboard the Captain did not even listen to his side of the story and when he left everyone was talking about how horrible the incident was and the captain did not even listen to them. The story that Leggatt told did not seem that horrible though. So who was telling the truth?

Brightly Shining Stubborness

I feels slightly stubborn saying this because in class, Heidkamp kind of rejected my idea, but I still stand by my belief that Legatt shows the weak side of the Captain, not the Ideal or evil side.  Now that was not supposed to be a burn for Mr. Heidkamp because I did not really explain myself in class so I am going to do so now. 

From our discussions in class it has been clearly decided that Legatt and the Captain are essentially the same person, so I will not try and prove that point with literary evidence.  Instead I will focus more on my belief that Legatt is a portrayl of the weak side of the Captain.  Legatt was deemed a murderer by the crew of his former ship, The Sephora, because he killed one of the men on board a ship.  However, the way he describes it, it was not on purpose.  While talking to the Captain, Legatt tells his side of the story: "I had him by the throat and began shaking him like a rat...Then a crash as if the sky had fallen on my head (Conrad 132)."  The crash of sky he describes is a huge wave that broke on the ship.  Then ten minutes later, his crew mates found him with his hands still around the neck of his victim.  This proves that Legatt made one sad mistake which ended up getting him into a lot of trouble.  Now the Captain also feels that one wrong move could result in a mutiny.  When he was talking to Legatt, the Captain says, "I felt that it would take very little to make me a suspect person in the eyes of the ship's company (Conrad 139)."  Legatt and the Captain share the same fear, so therefore, Legatt is definitely not an Ideal Captain because he got kicked off his own ships, and he is definitely not the evil Captain because he did not even mean to murder his fellow seaman.

The Captain is not respected by his crew, especially the chief mate.  Therefore he feels alone on his ship.  He then sees Legatt alone and depressed sitting on a stool in his office, "I saw him far back there, sitting rigidly on the low stool, his bare feet close together, his arms folded, his head hanging on his breast...Anybody would have taken him for me (Conrad 144)."  Now, the Captain is still Captain, so what he says goes.  He may be disrespected, but Conrad never shows a situation where he really gets down about it.  This image of Legatt balled up in the fetal position hanging his head which helps reveal the Captain's inner weakness to the reader

Juliet oh Juliet....or is it Legatt?

We had a very interesting discussion today about the sexual orientation of the two men in the secret sharer that had intrigued me very much. Throughout the story it is obvious that the two men are developing some sort of relationship. But the question remains to be answered, What kind of a relationship is it? There was a quote that interested me from the selection:

At night I would smuggle him into my bed place, and we would whisper together...

I feel that it is important to look at the historical relevance when discussing this particular case. Is there a possibility that two men staying in a bed together whispering, could not have the same meaning taken on by today's society? What could the author possibly be telling us by having a romantic relationship between the narrator and Lebatt? Is there a valid reason? I say that there is no romantic relationship between the two because logistically and contextually it does not make sense. It does not contribute to the character growth and development of either character.