Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.03 AVERAGE
3.03 AVERAGE
challenging
dark
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
dark
slow-paced
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I tried to read this book about 6 years ago, but couldn't face it any more once he started waiting for rivets.
Once I got to the bit about rivets again, I understood why I failed last time. Alas, I pushed on. The most harrowing and interesting parts of the story happen post-Rivet, so I'm glad I continued.
The story is excellent, and deserving of the Francis Ford Capolla re-telling in Apocalypse Now. It is harrowing, relentless & brutal.
The writing itself is paced in that frustrating, turn-of-the-century way. Three stars is maybe harsh but I didn't enjoy the ride.
Is this book problematic by the standards of 2025? Yes. Absolutely.
Is it unfair to judge a book set in the 1890s, written in the 1890s, by 2025 standards? Also absolutely yes.
If you're picking up this book by a white man from 1899 about colonialism in Africa and expecting a refreshing, contemporary take: I would encourage you to manage your expectations.
If you're reading this book just to critique it's backwards views, that doesn't make you clever xxx
Once I got to the bit about rivets again, I understood why I failed last time. Alas, I pushed on. The most harrowing and interesting parts of the story happen post-Rivet, so I'm glad I continued.
The story is excellent, and deserving of the Francis Ford Capolla re-telling in Apocalypse Now. It is harrowing, relentless & brutal.
The writing itself is paced in that frustrating, turn-of-the-century way. Three stars is maybe harsh but I didn't enjoy the ride.
Is this book problematic by the standards of 2025? Yes. Absolutely.
Is it unfair to judge a book set in the 1890s, written in the 1890s, by 2025 standards? Also absolutely yes.
If you're picking up this book by a white man from 1899 about colonialism in Africa and expecting a refreshing, contemporary take: I would encourage you to manage your expectations.
If you're reading this book just to critique it's backwards views, that doesn't make you clever xxx
This is one of the classics where reading its analysis is MUCH more satisfying than reading the book itself. Heart of Darkness is a novella, only 110 pages long, and yet it's incredibly dense and complex. I fell asleep several times trying to finish it and by the time I hit page 100 I was hating myself for having picked up this book and the only reason I pressed on was to say "Yes I have read Joseph Conrad". But as I read CliffNotes I began to start appreciating the effort put into this book and the masterful way that Conrad manipulated the letter that, had I been a more seasoned reader, I would have appreciated it the first time 'round.
The prose is handled in a way so that it reads considerably lighter and accessible at times and incredibly dense at others. Darkness is the main theme in this book, and the further Marlow goes into the impenetrable jungle of the Congo, the denser and vaguer the prose becomes. The book isn't just saying that the experience was eerie and eye-opening, the fact that Marlow was narrating it to well to do Englishmen on the boat and struggling to find words and be coherent at times was a literary device in itself.
Much has been written to analyse Kurtz and Marlow and how Kurtz represents how, when a person gives into their inner darkness, they will be consumed by it, and Marlow was one step before he walked into it, too. I would also point out that the jungle of Africa is a significant "character" in this book. The way it asserts its ominous presence and alters a person's psyche is one of the things that I felt clearly even during my first reading of it.
I would also like to point out that this book is not racist. Marlow used typically racist language of the 1890s and he intitially had a racist opinion of Africans; however, towards the end, as the truth of Kurtz and the Company gradually unravels, he was shown to be reasonably sympathetic. Also, the book portrays Africans in a relatively positive and humane light - they have agency, most of those portrayed were brave and hardworking people, and the brutal exploitation of the Congo during Belgian rule was exposed in a controlled way during the narrative. Furthermore, Marlow is not the author. He was a typical European adventurer in the late 19th century, and he held biases and common sensibilities that by writing this book, Conrad threw the first grenade to dismantle.
The prose is handled in a way so that it reads considerably lighter and accessible at times and incredibly dense at others. Darkness is the main theme in this book, and the further Marlow goes into the impenetrable jungle of the Congo, the denser and vaguer the prose becomes. The book isn't just saying that the experience was eerie and eye-opening, the fact that Marlow was narrating it to well to do Englishmen on the boat and struggling to find words and be coherent at times was a literary device in itself.
Much has been written to analyse Kurtz and Marlow and how Kurtz represents how, when a person gives into their inner darkness, they will be consumed by it, and Marlow was one step before he walked into it, too. I would also point out that the jungle of Africa is a significant "character" in this book. The way it asserts its ominous presence and alters a person's psyche is one of the things that I felt clearly even during my first reading of it.
I would also like to point out that this book is not racist. Marlow used typically racist language of the 1890s and he intitially had a racist opinion of Africans; however, towards the end, as the truth of Kurtz and the Company gradually unravels, he was shown to be reasonably sympathetic. Also, the book portrays Africans in a relatively positive and humane light - they have agency, most of those portrayed were brave and hardworking people, and the brutal exploitation of the Congo during Belgian rule was exposed in a controlled way during the narrative. Furthermore, Marlow is not the author. He was a typical European adventurer in the late 19th century, and he held biases and common sensibilities that by writing this book, Conrad threw the first grenade to dismantle.
adventurous
dark
informative
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Graphic: Racial slurs, Slavery, Violence
dark
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Themes or characters that resonated with me: I've read a little bit and listened to some analysis and I haven't really heard anyone mention how the setting or landscape feels like a character itself. Maybe character isn't the right word. The descriptions of the river and the jungle are very ominous and contribute a great deal to the tone of the book in my opinion. I was reading and took a little bit of a nap, and dreamt of what I imagined to be the suffocating jungle. As far as characters go, outside of Marlow and Kurtz, and maybe the russian, everyone is quite hollow. They're all just simulacra of people. The pilgrims, the natives. I couldn't figure out what to think about this book or the characters or the messages. One interesting comparison I heard was Kurtz to Trump. It makes sense, especially since at the end of the book when someone describes Kurtz as a politician, and a populist, it makes absolute sense. And then it makes Kurtz's relationship to the natives easier to understand. He was supposedly more civilized, he had the power to make people see reflections of themselves in him, which is why he seems to be so charismatic to everyone perhaps. He also maybe fell in love with the admiration, much like Trump. Kurtz didn't want to leave. He enjoyed being revered. He was concerned about his reputation in Europe as well. People found in him what they wanted to see in themselves. The manager was worried Kurtz was better than him at the business. The harlequin ascribed to him god-like wisdom. The people at the end of the book called him a good painter, journalist, and could have been a politician. I think Marlow sees some of himself in Kurtz. His Intended imagines in Kurtz the same admiration she has for him.
She claims to have known him better than anyone, but in reality she knew very little.
The theme of the book that I hear over and over is the nature of evil and a critique of colonialism. Since there is not much detail given about Kurtz's actions in the Congo, I guess the natures of evil part weren't as easy to grasp. Maybe because I found it ambiguous when Kurtz wrote 'exterminate all the brutes'. I'm not certain who he means when referring to the brutes.
Emotions, thoughts, or memories it brought up in me: I think this book will stick in my mind for a while. There's a lot to unravel in so few pages. There are many possible interpretations.
At one point the Russian states "You can't judge Mr. Kurtz as you would an ordinary man. No, no, no! Now-just to give you an idea-I don't mind telling you, he wanted to shoot me too one day-but I don't judge him." This was very reminiscent of Raskolnikov's theory in Crime and Punishment of the superior man.
Opinion about the author or writing style: As far as the writing style, sometimes it was hard to track what the author was saying, and it required re-reading certain parts. There seems to be a lot of controversy about the possible racist nature of this book. I guess with each book I've read, I'm always approaching it with the optimistic view. This book is told through Marlow's point of view. So I ascribe any sort of prejudices to that character rather than the author. At the end of the day, Conrad's point is that we are all savages. The criticism could be that in order to illustrate this he portrayed Africans as the baseline savage.
Favorite Passage: "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..." He was silent for a while. "...No, it is impossible; it is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one's existence, --that which makes its truth, its meaning--its subtle and penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live, as we dream--alone..."
and
"However, as you see, I did not go to join Kurtz there and then. I did not. I remained to dream the nightmare out to the end, and to show my loyalty to Kurtz once more. Destiny. My destiny! Droll thing life is—that mysterious arrangement of merciless logic for a futile purpose. The most you can hope from it is some knowledge of yourself—that comes too late—a crop of unextinguishable regrets. I have wrestled with death. It is the most unexciting contest you can imagine. It takes place in an impalpable greyness, with nothing underfoot, with nothing around, without spectators, without clamour, without glory, without the great desire of victory, without the great fear of defeat, in a sickly atmosphere of tepid scepticism, without much belief in your own right, and still less in that of your adversary. If such is the form of ultimate wisdom, then life is a greater riddle than some of us think it to be. I was within a hair’s breadth of the last opportunity for pronouncement, and I found with humiliation that probably I would have nothing to say. This is the reason why I affirm that Kurtz was a remarkable man. He had something to say. He said it. Since I had peeped over the edge myself, I understand better the meaning of his stare, that could not see the flame of the candle, but was wide enough to embrace the whole universe, piercing enough to penetrate all the hearts that beat in the darkness. He had summed up—he had judged. ‘The horror!’ He was a remarkable man. After all, this was the expression of some sort of belief; it had candour, it had conviction, it had a vibrating note of revolt in its whisper, it had the appalling face of a glimpsed truth—the strange commingling of desire and hate."
My ratings-
Writing Style: 90
Relatability: 90
Originality: 95
Personal impact: 95
Plot: 85
She claims to have known him better than anyone, but in reality she knew very little.
The theme of the book that I hear over and over is the nature of evil and a critique of colonialism. Since there is not much detail given about Kurtz's actions in the Congo, I guess the natures of evil part weren't as easy to grasp. Maybe because I found it ambiguous when Kurtz wrote 'exterminate all the brutes'. I'm not certain who he means when referring to the brutes.
Emotions, thoughts, or memories it brought up in me: I think this book will stick in my mind for a while. There's a lot to unravel in so few pages. There are many possible interpretations.
At one point the Russian states "You can't judge Mr. Kurtz as you would an ordinary man. No, no, no! Now-just to give you an idea-I don't mind telling you, he wanted to shoot me too one day-but I don't judge him." This was very reminiscent of Raskolnikov's theory in Crime and Punishment of the superior man.
Opinion about the author or writing style: As far as the writing style, sometimes it was hard to track what the author was saying, and it required re-reading certain parts. There seems to be a lot of controversy about the possible racist nature of this book. I guess with each book I've read, I'm always approaching it with the optimistic view. This book is told through Marlow's point of view. So I ascribe any sort of prejudices to that character rather than the author. At the end of the day, Conrad's point is that we are all savages. The criticism could be that in order to illustrate this he portrayed Africans as the baseline savage.
Favorite Passage: "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..." He was silent for a while. "...No, it is impossible; it is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one's existence, --that which makes its truth, its meaning--its subtle and penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live, as we dream--alone..."
and
"However, as you see, I did not go to join Kurtz there and then. I did not. I remained to dream the nightmare out to the end, and to show my loyalty to Kurtz once more. Destiny. My destiny! Droll thing life is—that mysterious arrangement of merciless logic for a futile purpose. The most you can hope from it is some knowledge of yourself—that comes too late—a crop of unextinguishable regrets. I have wrestled with death. It is the most unexciting contest you can imagine. It takes place in an impalpable greyness, with nothing underfoot, with nothing around, without spectators, without clamour, without glory, without the great desire of victory, without the great fear of defeat, in a sickly atmosphere of tepid scepticism, without much belief in your own right, and still less in that of your adversary. If such is the form of ultimate wisdom, then life is a greater riddle than some of us think it to be. I was within a hair’s breadth of the last opportunity for pronouncement, and I found with humiliation that probably I would have nothing to say. This is the reason why I affirm that Kurtz was a remarkable man. He had something to say. He said it. Since I had peeped over the edge myself, I understand better the meaning of his stare, that could not see the flame of the candle, but was wide enough to embrace the whole universe, piercing enough to penetrate all the hearts that beat in the darkness. He had summed up—he had judged. ‘The horror!’ He was a remarkable man. After all, this was the expression of some sort of belief; it had candour, it had conviction, it had a vibrating note of revolt in its whisper, it had the appalling face of a glimpsed truth—the strange commingling of desire and hate."
My ratings-
Writing Style: 90
Relatability: 90
Originality: 95
Personal impact: 95
Plot: 85
I will be very happy if this is the last time in my academic career that I have to read this book. I fear it may not be.
challenging
dark
emotional
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Marlow/Conrad didn’t venture into the heart of darkness, the were the heart of darkness.
They took the darkness with them. The book is indeed,”offensive and deplorable.”
They took the darkness with them. The book is indeed,”offensive and deplorable.”