zaaaAP Lit Blog 4

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.

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.

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.

"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.

CAPITALIZing Things

So I've been noticing as I read GOST that Arundhati Roy periodically (actually it's more like frequently) capitalizes phrases or words that would not normally be capitalized.

A few examples are:

• "Universe" (79)
• "Male Chauvinist Pig" (79)
• "the Man" (104)
• "Man's Needs" (160)
• "Live" (212)
• "He and She. We and Us" (225)

I'm sure there are plenty more examples but I'm only point out a few.

And so after noticing how Roy repeatedly capitalizes words, I started thinking about why she does it. I think that her technique is used to show important ideas or ideals that are held by characters or the world. It's her way of highlighting large ideas and making the reader think more. But this only holds true for a few of my examples. But I can't figure out "He and She. We and Us" (225). It just doesn't seem to have a larger purpose by being capitalized apart from showing how Estha and Rahel are so connected and inseparable.

If anyone has any other thoughts or interesting ideas I'd love to hear them. Please let me know.

The Horror.

I was reading the article about the sexual genocide in African Congo, and it disturbed me. I remember too what we discussed during the Achebe article. Racism, violence, and brutality; they all cause suffering. This may have been what Kurtz meant when he exclaimed in his dying breaths, " The horror. The horror!" I believe that Kurtz saw through imperial justification of colonization, and observed acts of cruelty and dehumanization in Africa. I stood against Achebe's article in class, because I thought it was irrelevant to the book at hand. I still stand by my position in this respect, but I now recognize that in Africa , people were, (and continue to be) degraded and mistreated.

I believe that Conrad was in a position to expose imperialism, but was unable to confront the darkness of racism. He was plagued by it in his writing. I believe that inconsistency is what Achebe is trying so passionately to convey. Racism still exists in Heart of Darkness, and that racism survives throughout years through Conrad's literature. There must be a confrontation of that unceasing racist darkness.

Maybe Conrad just hates everyone

While I was reading Achebe's article it struck me how truly brutal the text was toward the natives. His citations provide consistently excellent points having to do with the perception of 'savagery' in the natives. Even when the natives are humanized, like when a native announces Kurtz's death, they are described in a very demeaning way, as an 'insolent black head'. I think Achebe has some valid points about Heart of Darkness not being particularly generous with its descriptions of natives, but then why isn't it immediately apparent that this is a racist text. If what Achebe says is true, Conrad would be inclined to attack natives in the book as harshly as possible 'providing a foil for Europeans'. I would argue that most of the citations used by Achebe are being reinterpreted to say what Achebe wishes to see. Such as Marlow wandering the prehistoric earth, what Conrad wants to do is talk about the perception Europeans have about Africa. This leads to some of the ideas that Achebe also critiqued, the viewing of Africa as a 'junior brother'. Thusly Achebe and Conrad wind up critiquing the same thing, in this case, the idea that the motives of colonialism are altruistic. In my view Conrad presupposes the worse, giving his natives terrifyingly little in the way of recognizable characteristics, he instead gives them filed teeth, cannibalism and superstition. I think this was to deepen the readers understanding of the flaws of imperialism. He in effect contends, even when natives are as savage as we, Europeans, imagine imperialism is still bad. Also it should be noted that Conrad is hardly glorifying Europeans on the whole, he calls the whole city of Brussels a white tomb and makes light of a European superstition when the doctor measures his head. Further I thought it was a weak argument to claim that Conrad praises the intended, when he has Marlow allow her to continue her fanciful notions of Kurtz. Reading Achebes article, displayed more vividly then before the subtle undertones found in the Heart of Darkness even though I don't see quite eye to eye with him.

Waiting on the World to Change

So I was thinking about the post that shows the parallels between the imperialism in Heart of Darkness and Iraq, and then I read the article for tonight about racism, which got me thinking about my own experiences in Africa last summer.  With all of that in mind, here's what I have to say:

It seems like we still treat the African continent in a weird way- a way that evolved directly from the imperialistic racist attitude illustrated in Conrad's text.  We have different standards for Africa versus the US and Europe.  It's more acceptable for an African child to die of malaria than it is for some six year old from Chicago.  It's because we're so used to the massive problems in Africa that we've grown complacent with them.  It loses its shock value and we come to expect it.

Looking back, I've become uncomfortable with a few things about my trip to Kenya.  (Which is no where near the Congo, and I'm not mushing the two together, they just happen to be on the same continent.)  It's so strange to think that I was systematically vaccinated for yellow fever, malaria, and typhoid so that I could fly to a place where many people live with little or no defense against those diseases.  I should have been more outraged at the fact that two nuns had to love and care for 30 orphans, a near impossible feat.  I should have been more shocked at how insane the village school kids went for the pens that we gave them.  They each got a ball point pen, and you would have thought we were dishing out iphones.  All of these situations are simply unheard of at home.   

I think at the time I was just absorbing all of this, and now, months later, I've actually been able to digest it.  However, I didn't need any time to digest things when I went to a hillside memorial mass for a friend's sister who died of aids at 40, leaving a daughter behind.  Why is this such a common occurence?  It doesn't have to be.  I am indignant about all of it, we all are, and the reason this double standard is perpetuated is that the problem,  just like all of the world's problems, seem so huge that we feel powerless to stop them.  And it's endlessly confusing because if our solution is to go in there ourselves, aren't we just repeating a strain of the same attitude the pilgrims and the women in Heart of Darkness had?  But anyway maybe changing the way we think can be the first step.  I don't even know though.  Sorry to be such a downer.

Layer Cake and existentialism in The Heart of Darkness

After reading Andy's post it got me thinking about Layer Cake.  It is a movie kind of like Fight Club- at least it is clever like it; kind of blows your mind away.  It is a great movie.  It stars the new James Bond, Daniel Craig-don't know if that is spelled right- and is about the illegal drug market in Europe.  The existentialism in this movie is comparable to that in The Heart of Darkness.

In Conrad's novel Marlow rambles on about the dark parts of the world, and sheds a meloncholy light on life in general.  Marlow says

I found myself back in the sepulchral city resenting the sight of people hurrying through the streets to filch a little money from each other, to devour their infamous cookery, to gulp their unwholesome beer, to dream their insignificant and silly dreams.  They trespassed upon my thoughts.  They were intruders whose knowledge of life was to me an irritating pretence, because I felt so sure they could not possibly know the things I knew (107).

Life appears meaningless to Marlow, at least in Brussels, after reading this passage.  In Layer Cake Daniel Craig trys to clear his name from the drug lord's hit-list.  He supposedly stoll a, well a lot of drugs so the kingpin of the British maphia is coming after him.  At the end of the movie Daniel Craig -stop reading if you haven't seen the movie- succeeds in stopping the British maphia.  He even becomes the new kingpin.  However, as he walks out of his luxerious country club he gets shot.  After escaping the maphia he still dies.  It shows an existentialist view of life.  That we all appraoch death, it is inevitable, there is no point to living life.

Anyway thought it was interesting.  See the movie!

Heart of Darkness... Racist?

There is no question that Joseph Conrad was racist. In that time, all Europeans were, and everyone believed in  white superiority. Europeans looked down to Africans as "savages" or "heretics"  because of the difference in culture, religion, and the obvious difference of skin color. Unless Conrad somehow differed from the norm in this way (and there isn't much evidence to support that), he was definitely racist.

This being said, is Heart of Darkness a racist text? This is different from asking whether or not Conrad was a racist. Some may say that yes, white superiority seems to be one of the novel's motifs. However, underneath the surface, is it possible to interpret this as a challenge to white superiority? The Europeans in this book hardly appear to be "saving" the Africans from "savagery", or making anyone's lives except their own any better. 

25 Crazed Five-Year-Olds

Yep. Take 25 sticky, sugar high 5-year-olds and add me. It's awesome. I basically AM Mr. Kurtz. I'll explain...

I pretty much babysit 25 little kids for next to nothing, a.k.a. I work for the park district. Not that I don't like it, I have so much power! Kind of. They look up to you, take every single word and absorb it because to them, I am the coolest person ever. Well, not really. They ignore me, talk, fight, kick each other in the face, cry. And I'm stuck, desperately trying to get them to do what I say or at least look organized so the parents don't complain to my boss that we don't do anything.

Here's where Mr. Kurtz comes in. Picture him, stranded in the middle of nowhere with 25 five-year-olds whose mother's force them to listen to him. He would be ecstatic. Not that I'm saying the natives were childlike or unintelligent or obedient. For some reason they were really attracted to Mr. Kurtz's presence. But for those who weren't, well, there were consequences much worse than the time-outs that I give. Mr. Kurtz abused his power, and even though I'd like to flip out on one of the kid's, I restrain myself. Something Mr. Kurtz lacked when he resided in the heart of darkness.

I Am Joe's Stained Metaphor: A Study Of Kurtz's Failure Through "Fight Club"

I read Lena's post, and now I'm ripping her off.  It's a beautiful thing.  Now, it is my sincere promise that I will never again mention "Fight Club" in this blog so long as I live, but I think I might be on to something this time.

Oh, and if you haven't read it but want to (it takes all of an afternoon), you may want to stop reading this post now.  I say read because the movie, entertaining as it was, sort of missed the point of the book--but more on that later.

The narrator of "Fight Club" is like Marlow.  He lives his miserable existence, traveling with his work from place to place investigating car accidents to calculate whether or not mass recalls are financially viable.  In his travels, he falls into a slump--he is doing something which he seems to hint is futile  when he says "On a long enough time line, the survival rate is zero".  In his travels he eventually encounters his Kurtz, Tyler Durden, on a nude beach.  Unlike Kurtz, Tyler has not yet amassed his following, but he seems to share the same beliefs that there is an inherent darkness in civilization.  Now, the similarities are pretty standard and you could reasonably apply this model to a laundry list of things.  But I think it gets interesting once we investigate the differences.

As I mentioned, Tyler has not yet amassed his following.  However he does this rather quickly in the form of Fight Club and Project Mayhem.  Unlike Kurtz, who seems fine just recognizing the darkness of society and spreading the word here and there, Tyler is intent on embracing the darkness and bringing down the society that masks it.  The narrator eventually becomes so horrified by the idea that he tries to stop it, unfortunately there is one problem--he is Tyler.

Now after all this writing, I feel I should get to the point.  The ending of the novel can be seen as a sort a study of Kurtz and his failure to achieve what he set out to do.  The movie ends on a romantic note with a storybook kiss between the Narrator and Marla after seeing a series of building blow up, showing the full extent of Tyler's accomplishments.  The book, on the other hand, ends with the demolition being a failure.  The Narrator decides the best thing he can do is end his life, but failing to do even that we find him at a mental institution thinking he is in heaven.  He clings to the idea that Fight Club still exists back on Earth and will accomplish something, but it is evident  at the end that there is nothing to show for what he has done.

I see Kurtz in the same way, before he dies he seems sure that Marlow will carry his work and do him justice, but in the end Marlow cannot even bring himself to tell the Intended Kurtz's last words.  The idea of Kurtz dies with Kurtz, his failure is all that is left.

"The River"

The  rivers in Heart of Darkness are means of entry into the unknown. Marlow tells his crew-mates on board as they are going down the Thames about the Roman Soldiers who, "first came here, nineteen hundred years ago."(Conrad 7). At one time even the illustrious city of London was shrouded in darkness. The Romans, he says, "were men enough to face the darkness" (7). It is the river that allowed them acess to the wilderness, without truly having to enter the unknown lands.

Traveling down a river is a singular experiance; one travels through land, but these lands are separated by the water. The river provides a mean of transportation, while ensuring a sense of separation from the dangerous wilderness.

The Congolese river flows downwards, seemingly back towards established civilization. By traveling up the river, Marlow went, "back to the earliest beginnings of the world." (49) It is almost as though nature wishes to flush out the Europeans from the congo, back out to sea. When marlow struggles with his crew to voyage to Kurtz's trading post, there are many instances in which he feels that nature itself is working against him. " the snags were thick, the water was trecherous and shallow, the boiler seemed to have a sulky devil in it". (55)

After the confrontation and death of Kurtz. Marlow easily ventures back down the river. Nature has won out by its unceasing darkness; the river has dragged them back out of the wilderness. Following the river has led him to Kurtz and the wilderness. Marlow, as long as he is travelling down the river, can never get closer to the darkness. He will always be a stranger to this wilderness. The river has shown him that much.

Gossip Girl

Everyone is probably wondering how Gossip Girl can have anything to do with Heart of Darkness. If they don't understand, they obviously aren't a teenage girl. While reclining in my chair to watch my hour of Upper East Side drama, I began seeing bothersome parallels between the show and Heart of Darkness. Is the book taking over my life? Or could there be similarities?

Here I go. A main character of Gossip Girl is Blair. Blair is a self centered, cold, and unforgiving bitch. She has no problem making other people's lives miserable to get ahead in some way. In contrast to her dark and inpenetrable soul, she is gorgeous. Of course she is. Perfectly sculpted, shaded, and colored in rich girl, and she even wears white. She represents every evil in the Heart of Darkness. She personifies being beautiful and pristine on the outside, and dark and evil on the inside. She represents greed, selfishness, and pride.

In contrast, her ex-best friend by the name of Serena is emotional, honest, and natural. She seems to try to do what is right for everyone, including standing up for her little brother. She does not trample other peoples lives to get an upper hand. Most of all, she does not care about reputation. She dates Dan, a much much much less wealthy boy from Brooklyn on and off throughout the series. Unlike Blair, the fact that Dan doesn't have much money or doesn't "fit in" doesn't bother her. She is okay with a little darkness, and doesn't drown it in eyeshadow.

Let me know if I'm crazy.

Meursault vs. Marlow

It always fascinates me how two characters, fashioned from completely different minds, can relate to one another so effortlessly. Meursault from The Stranger and Marlow in the Heart of Darkness, though possessing seemingly opposite personalities, have a lot in common. First, I’d just like to say that I can’t believe both their names start with the letter M. But seriously, both characters share one incredibly, substantial trait—they both struggle against the hypocrisy of society, thus becoming strangers in their communities.

Quickly reviewing The Stranger, we remember Meursault’s existentialist views and his refusal to conform to society’s demands. Prior to his trial, Meursault’s lawyer attempts to persuade him to say that he shot the Arab because he was emotionally unstable after his mother’s death. Meursault, instead of agreeing to this—which undoubtedly would have saved his life—responds that his mother’s death had nothing to do with him shooting the Arab. He refuses to lie. In fact, his whole life is a struggle against the hypocrisy of society—this idea that society is built on truth, justice, and faith when in fact it is forged from deception and denial because people continue to conceal their true feelings. Meursault lives for the truth and as a result, is rendered the “stranger”.

Similarly Marlow, though his struggle is more internal than Meursault’s, fights against the hypocrisy of society as well. He comes to understand that the Company is far from the “white sepulcher” it has been perceived as. People believe that the Company is bringing advanced civilization to the savages of Africa, or as Marlow’s aunt put it “weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways” (Conrad 17). But as the story progresses, Marlow sees the evil that this seemingly hallowed society has committed. Between the greed for ivory, the starvation and brutality of slaves, and the massacre of native tribes, Marlow is repulsed by these acts and mentally separates himself from the Company. In turn, he sides with Kurtz, who has also acknowledged the hypocrisy of the Company. Like Meursault, Marlow becomes a stranger to society—his “hour of favour was over” (94).

I don’t know whether I’ve compared these two characters accurately, but I definitely see a connection. What do you think?

How Does the Whited Sepulcher Apply To Our Own Lives?

After reading "Conrad's Whited Sepulcher," I found The Heart of Darkness to make a lot more sense. Characters from Europe would often appear orderly and admirable from the outside, however they were disguising reality and the disorder and hollowness that lies beneath the surface. Specifically, the company's accountant clearly represents this idea. Brady's thesis was that one must actually seek the evil in him or herself , attempt to understand that evil, and then "try in the light of his self- knowledge to create the standards that will make life worth living." While I find this thesis very in line with Conrad's novel, I have been thinking about whether I actually agree with what that means in my own life, or atleast in modern day terms.

Does each person put on a mask each day to give a false idea of what they are like, and truly be full of evil and darkness beneath that mask? Do people disguise their personality or lifestlye by acting differently in the presence of others? While many people do put on a "happy face" to disguise their true feelings about how terrible a day they experienced, however, this does not mean that each person is always hiding an evilness inside them. In my own life, I do not feel that I need to deliberatly seek any evil in order to understand a life "worth living." Each person is not necessarily evil, because many do live out life honestly and admirably. I do not think Brady's thesis can apply to everyone? What do other people think abou this topic? Is Conrad trying to teach us something by creating a novel like The Heart of Darkness?

Choose Your Own Film

Okay, I'm only going to give you two choices, but it's still a choice.

Next week, we have time scheduled to view a full-length film (while you are consumed by writing the first draft of your Heart of Darkness essay).   I'm torn between two choices -- and I thought I'd leave it up to you.

The first option is Dead Man, a film by American independent filmmaker Jim Jarmusch.  It stars Johnny Depp, among other notables.  But it's no Pirates of the Caribbean.  It's a disorienting journey into the heart of darkness that is/was the American West -- a truer American West than we see in most Westerns.  It's slow-paced, all black and white, and amazing.  Follow the link for one of the original reviews of the film.

The second option is The Piano, a film by the Australian independent filmmaker Jane Campion.  It stars Holly Hunter, among others you'll recognize, and back in the day it won a few Academy Awards.  The uniqueness of this journey (which takes place in an imperialist context, among the Maori people of New Zealand) is that it's from the perspective of a woman -- and very much about a woman's experience on the edge (of many things).  It's gorgeously filmed and more dramatically paced than Dead Man.

Both of these films are masterpieces in their own right.  I've shown both of them in class -- and students have enjoyed them.  What sounds better to you? 

Leave your vote -- and any other thoughts -- in the comments.

Greed and Its Impact on Society

Mr. Kurtz, the Eldorado Exploring Expedition and others were stripping the land and selling ivory, artifacts, beads for profit which to “tear treasure out of the bowels of the land was their desire, with no more purpose at the back of it than there is in burglars breaking into a safe.”

This greed for money was devastating to the people, animals and land of the congo. The disregard for human life –

They were dying slowly-it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now-nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation.

Greed is still very much present in today’s society; the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Enron is a recent example of greed that turned devastating to thousands of people. Skilling and the upper management of Enron falsified the finical records of the company in order to keep the price of stock inflated. As a result of their greed, thousands of people, employees and stock holders, were affected by losing money. For many of the employees, they lost all their pension money for retirement and stockholders lost money as the companies stock lost all value.

Thanks, Apocalypse

I'm really glad about watching Apocalypse Now. Not only is it a good movie, but it has improved my understanding of Heart of Darkness exponentially. One part I liked was how they betrayed the European guy who said Kurtz "enlarged his mind". In the movie, he was an hippy-like American photographer who worshipped Kurtz. Kurtz almost shot him for taking his picture, instead of for having ivory like in the book. I also thought that the fact it takes place In Vietnam makes it real and gripping, unlike the book which seems distant and obscure.

Recently I watched the movie Blood Diamond, and I think it has some similarities with Heart of Darkness. They both take place in Africa, and people are dying because of a valuable substance desired by Africans and Europeans alike. In Heart of Darkness it is ivory and in Blood Diamonds it is diamonds.

Kurtz as an Idea

I'm pretty deadset on this interpretation of Kurtz as an idea, a message that has long outlived it's human shell. Let's see if I can back it up with textual support.

The reader hears about Kurtz about eighty pages before he or she actually sees him, lending to a sort of mythical notion of Kurtz from the outset. He is presented as the manager of a profitable outpost, sure, but rumors and stories of him are stressed over facts. He is immortalized as a "universal genius," and is wondered at by Marlow as to "whether this man, who had come out equipped with moral ideas of some sort, would climb to the top after all, and how he would see about his work while he was there" (46). Marlow's description of Kurtz here seems to demonstrate an interest in the idea Kurtz champions more than Kurtz himself, and whether this idea would work when executed back in Europe.

Kurtz is certainly manifested physically, but the details surrounding him as a man are hazy, and seem unimportant when compared to his metaphorical purpose. Kurtz seems most like an idea after he dies, appearing as a shadow to Marlow, and forcing him to embrace or reject his way of life. Most telling is Marlow's interaction with Kurtz's ex-spouse at the end, and their collective reaction to Kurtz's legacy:

"'No!' she cried. 'It is impossible that all this should be lost--that
such a life should be sacrificed to leave nothing--but sorrow. You
know what vast plans he had. I knew of them, too--I could not perhaps
understand--but others knew of them. Something must remain. His words,
at least, have not died.'
"'His words will remain,' I said. (110)

Kurtz's words and ideas are immortal, and they are the point of admiration for his followers, Marlow and the spouse included. His legacy is those ideas, but even more than that, his life is those ideas. He will leave his ideals behind, and in doing so will cement his own immortality.

Purple Haze!

It's bizarre, it's gruesome, it's Apocalypse Now! The movie we're watching may be gross, but it's pretty intriguing.

Haze. It's everywhere. When the Captain (from the movie... not sure of his name?) and his crew head deeper into Cambodia, they become enveloped in fog. What started out as a guy messing around with some purple haze, led to a true fog. Clearly, very similar to what occurred in Heart of Darkness as Marlow and his crew penetrated deeper into the Congo.

It seems to be everywhere; it clouds their vision, as it clouds my understanding of the novel. But I think that's the way Conrad meant it to be. Anticipated behavior and ordinary laws do not apply in the heart of darkness. When one enters the jungle, the war, whatever it may be (the asshole of the world is how I think they phrased it in the movie), everything becomes clouded. Judgement, for one. I think the haze is a good representation of the confusion that accompanies entering the heart of darkness.

OH NO Anything but H.O.D.!

Okay, so you know how before we started reading Heart of Darkness, Mr. Heidkamp said that he always gets two different reviews of the book? Some kids love it and understand it fully and the others, by the time they finish reading they still have no idea what happened on the first page, they're just reading it because they have too. Well put me right in with the second group!

I do not think I have ever been so confused with a book ever in my life. I try and read it to myself, I've read it out loud (making me look very weird to my family at home) and I've downloaded it as a book on tape to try and listen and concentrate to the words instead of how fast I'm reading it my self. So basically I've tried everything and I still have no idea where they are, what's going on. It just seems like every other paragraph they are in a completely different setting and it is driving me insane. What makes it worse is that I don't understand it well enough to do good on those 'instaquizzes' that heidkamp loves so much even though I read the book entirely! AHh

Maybe I just missed a huge part in the book that told the whole secret to the message, but I am so lossed! Anyone else with me?!?!

The Kurtz Conundrum

"Heart of Darkness" is not neat and tidy, and for this reason I hate it--and yet I cannot help but be impressed by the novel.  Like Marlow, Conrad seems to have set out to tell a very specific story a very specific way for a reason that only he may know.  Like the narrator, we as readers are left with a rambling mess that tells us everything that there is to tell, except explicit meaning.  I write this, and suddenly it comes to me.  I understand it completely, and yet not at all.

There it is, the stifling brilliance of Conrad staring me in the face.  I am Marlow, the novel is Kurtz.  I do not understand him, but to know him is to respect him.  The wishy washy sentiment that Marlow seems to have in describing Kurtz after he died encapsulates my own sentiments on the novel.  But what of the frame story?  Has Marlow in some way become a new incarnation of Kurtz?  Is the narrator the new Marlow?  Is Bernie the Russian?  Have I finally cracked?

While I hope this has been as illuminating for you as it has for me, I know you all will have better luck finding meaning outside this post--maybe in the comments.