You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.03 AVERAGE
3.03 AVERAGE
A book i had to read for school that I was constantly falling asleep through. I would have DNFd if I was reading this for fun. This book could have been 100 pages shorter and gotten the point across just as well. (its only 102 pages) I would feel bad for rating it a 1, but I didn’t like any of it and my opinion means very little so who cares?
I LOVE APOCALYPSE NOW !!!!!!! anthony bourdain and francis ford coppola convinced me to read this
"Africa as setting and backdrop which eliminates the African as human factor. Africa as a metaphysical battlefield devoid of all recognizable humanity, into which the wandering European enters at his peril. Can nobody see the preposterous and perverse arrogance in thus reducing Africa to the role of props for the break-up of one petty European mind?"
Chinua Achebe, An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness
An interesting and disturbing read from the perspective of a narrator (and author) who was personally complicit in the atrocities committed in the Congo during the late 1800s. Whilst I found it a somewhat atmospheric read, this almost entirely relied on the racist and dehumanising depictions of Africa and African people, which are used simply as a narrative foil to one European white man's journey into madness and back. Achebe's essay, available here, offers a much more thorough critique that I can, and I would recommend reading alongside Heart of Darkness.
Chinua Achebe, An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness
An interesting and disturbing read from the perspective of a narrator (and author) who was personally complicit in the atrocities committed in the Congo during the late 1800s. Whilst I found it a somewhat atmospheric read, this almost entirely relied on the racist and dehumanising depictions of Africa and African people, which are used simply as a narrative foil to one European white man's journey into madness and back. Achebe's essay, available here, offers a much more thorough critique that I can, and I would recommend reading alongside Heart of Darkness.
challenging
dark
emotional
mysterious
sad
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I can't remember the last time I read something written so engagingly and vividly. The moral and psychological implications run as deep as the river the main character Marlow embarks his expedition on.
It is essential to distinguish Marlow from Conrad, because Conrad could only have created a character who slowly—and ambiguously—comes to grasp the horrors of colonialism if he himself held a firm moral opposition to it. The nuance and ambiguity in Marlow’s perspective are possible precisely because Conrad was writing from a critical distance, not from complicity! Any troubling or ambivalent views expressed by Marlow should therefore be read as part of the character’s journey, not as a reflection of the author’s own beliefs.
The mythological elements and intertextuality are clever and narratively integral.
It is essential to distinguish Marlow from Conrad, because Conrad could only have created a character who slowly—and ambiguously—comes to grasp the horrors of colonialism if he himself held a firm moral opposition to it. The nuance and ambiguity in Marlow’s perspective are possible precisely because Conrad was writing from a critical distance, not from complicity! Any troubling or ambivalent views expressed by Marlow should therefore be read as part of the character’s journey, not as a reflection of the author’s own beliefs.
The mythological elements and intertextuality are clever and narratively integral.
A phenomenal and important piece of literature.
I don’t know how to rate this book- especially in terms of stars. Before reading I thought it was critical of the colonial ‘mission’, and I suppose of it’s time it was, but that doesn’t make up for the fact that it is awful to read in modern times. Konrad may have disapproved of the chaotic structuring of the colonial agents but he was still a raging racist and shouldn’t be platformed. I don’t think it’s helpful to read dehumanising descriptions of people when they are not presenting critically but rather constantly insisted upon. I think the plot was a vessel for some lofty prose and ruminations on life, as was popular with early 20th century writers. These instances of writing are at times beautiful but overshadowed by how horrible the story and descriptions of black people are.
I've been sitting with this one for a bit, mainly because it's really hard to square the praise I've seen it get with the horrific racism dripping from every page.
What this book *wants* to be is indeed a horrific condemnation of colonialism at its worst. It sort of gets there, but it's stumbling over all of its early 20th-century biases and weird Victorian hangups.
These days, there exist dozens of better works that grapple with the legacy of colonialism in Africa. Every single one of them will summarize this book. No need for anyone who isn't specifically interested in Victorian literature on colonialism to touch this mess.
What this book *wants* to be is indeed a horrific condemnation of colonialism at its worst. It sort of gets there, but it's stumbling over all of its early 20th-century biases and weird Victorian hangups.
These days, there exist dozens of better works that grapple with the legacy of colonialism in Africa. Every single one of them will summarize this book. No need for anyone who isn't specifically interested in Victorian literature on colonialism to touch this mess.
I had tried to read this book several times before, always feeling out of sync with it—but this December, I finally finished it.
The novel builds its tension around the enigmatic Mr. Kurtz, a figure whose presence is both ubiquitous and, paradoxically, hollow. By the time Kurtz finally appears, he is a fragment of the man we were led to anticipate—his voice, his thoughts, his power all dissipated. And yet, Marlow truly does come to know Kurtz“as well as it is possible for one man to know another”. This knowledge coming from their humanity and mortality. This anti-climactic unraveling serves as the novel’s profound statement: the truths we seek are often empty, and what remains is the bareness of human existence, experience and darkness.
Marlow’s fascination with Kurtz is not born of blind admiration but of a subtle recognition that Kurtz understands the moral abyss of his own actions. He respects Kurtz not for his power or “promise” or “vision”, but only because from the beginning he senses that Kurtz, however fleetingly, understands the “horror” of what he has done and become.
The portrayal of African characters is deeply unsettling by design. They are shown through the eyes of the colonizers—silent, savage, dehumanized. Yet, in this depiction, Conrad exposes the inhumanity of that perspective. The novel does not soften or sanitize Marlow’s perspective—it could not, without falsifying history.
The genius of the book is so simple: Conrad never explicitly says that the bad things are bad and the good things are good; it presumes “the horror” of it all to be self-evident.
The novel builds its tension around the enigmatic Mr. Kurtz, a figure whose presence is both ubiquitous and, paradoxically, hollow. By the time Kurtz finally appears, he is a fragment of the man we were led to anticipate—his voice, his thoughts, his power all dissipated. And yet, Marlow truly does come to know Kurtz“as well as it is possible for one man to know another”. This knowledge coming from their humanity and mortality. This anti-climactic unraveling serves as the novel’s profound statement: the truths we seek are often empty, and what remains is the bareness of human existence, experience and darkness.
Marlow’s fascination with Kurtz is not born of blind admiration but of a subtle recognition that Kurtz understands the moral abyss of his own actions. He respects Kurtz not for his power or “promise” or “vision”, but only because from the beginning he senses that Kurtz, however fleetingly, understands the “horror” of what he has done and become.
The portrayal of African characters is deeply unsettling by design. They are shown through the eyes of the colonizers—silent, savage, dehumanized. Yet, in this depiction, Conrad exposes the inhumanity of that perspective. The novel does not soften or sanitize Marlow’s perspective—it could not, without falsifying history.
The genius of the book is so simple: Conrad never explicitly says that the bad things are bad and the good things are good; it presumes “the horror” of it all to be self-evident.
Quite difficult to read. When I had the energy to properly focus, it was a great read. Very immersive. Confronting and pretty honest. Very specific with the human emotions and power dynamics it was showing. Might have to read this one again, I got lost quite a few times
Nä vet ni va. 2014 läste jag den här boken och fattade ingenting. Nu läste jag den och fattade betydligt mycket mer men inte var den bättre för det. Hoppas innerligt att jag inte behöver stöta på den igen i framtida kurslitteratur. Blä så tråkigt.
challenging
informative
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes