You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.03 AVERAGE
3.03 AVERAGE
I have so much to say about this book and so little patience to give it any more of my time.
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
dark
mysterious
reflective
medium-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
I understand that TECHNICALLY this is a nuanced story, and I know some readers will argue to the death about its intentions, but this was such a disturbing read.
For a book written in 1899 I suppose there’s something to be said about the fact that the European characters are actually seen as violent and brutal for their treatment of the African men by the narrator. But the African men themselves are portrayed as nothing at all, and are barely even considered human.
Some of the prose really is stunning, and the entire concept of the ‘heart of darkness’ itself is fascinating. It’s just one of those books that doesn’t, and couldn’t ever be able to, hold up over time. Oh well!!!!!!!
For a book written in 1899 I suppose there’s something to be said about the fact that the European characters are actually seen as violent and brutal for their treatment of the African men by the narrator. But the African men themselves are portrayed as nothing at all, and are barely even considered human.
Some of the prose really is stunning, and the entire concept of the ‘heart of darkness’ itself is fascinating. It’s just one of those books that doesn’t, and couldn’t ever be able to, hold up over time. Oh well!!!!!!!
challenging
dark
Turns out the real heart of darkness were the Charlies we surfed along the way
challenging
dark
mysterious
reflective
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
challenging
dark
reflective
medium-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
challenging
dark
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
slow-paced
I went into this with the expectation that it would make me consider the same things everyone talks about with this novel. How racist is the depiction of black people? Is that depiction what the author thinks or just the thoughts of an unreliable narrator? Is this text anticolonial? Should this text be taught in universities?
Unfortunately for me, I did not have time to consider any of these factors in any amount of detail. I was too distracted by something much more surface level: prose so overwrought and redundant that it made any further analysis of the more interesting elements impossible. Conrad has the vocabulary required to pull off what he's attempting, but not the restraint. A sentence will be almost good, almost meaningful and evocative and memorable, and then Conrad will just decide to string more nouns onto the end of it, ruining the rhythm and the impact. He's also immensely fond of using three or four adjectives to describe a single trait, and by trying to drive his point home he simply irritates me instead. Air in a jungle does not need to be warm, thick, heavy *and* sluggish, one of those would do.
I cannot overstate how much the entire book reads like the ramblings of someone who is convinced he's got something to say, but really doesn't. You can't just say inexorable. You can't just say Heart and Darkness over and over again like you're writing the fucking Kingdom Hearts wiki. You have to have a point. Conrad doesn't.*
*Addendum: I have thought about it more and I don't think it's fair to say he has nothing to say. There is a ton of stuff to pick apart and discuss in this book. I do however also think that the style with which he makes this point is so horrendous that the point mostly gets lost. The metaphors are so overused, so overly descriptive, that they leave you thinking none of what he just said has any meaning whatsoever. There is meaning there, but Conrad tries so hard to have every single sentence be an all time banger of a description that it just ends up over-written. You could clean the style up with heavy editing and this book would have a much stronger core (or heart?).
This is a theoretically good book, executed poorly.
Unfortunately for me, I did not have time to consider any of these factors in any amount of detail. I was too distracted by something much more surface level: prose so overwrought and redundant that it made any further analysis of the more interesting elements impossible. Conrad has the vocabulary required to pull off what he's attempting, but not the restraint. A sentence will be almost good, almost meaningful and evocative and memorable, and then Conrad will just decide to string more nouns onto the end of it, ruining the rhythm and the impact. He's also immensely fond of using three or four adjectives to describe a single trait, and by trying to drive his point home he simply irritates me instead. Air in a jungle does not need to be warm, thick, heavy *and* sluggish, one of those would do.
I cannot overstate how much the entire book reads like the ramblings of someone who is convinced he's got something to say, but really doesn't. You can't just say inexorable. You can't just say Heart and Darkness over and over again like you're writing the fucking Kingdom Hearts wiki. You have to have a point. Conrad doesn't.*
*Addendum: I have thought about it more and I don't think it's fair to say he has nothing to say. There is a ton of stuff to pick apart and discuss in this book. I do however also think that the style with which he makes this point is so horrendous that the point mostly gets lost. The metaphors are so overused, so overly descriptive, that they leave you thinking none of what he just said has any meaning whatsoever. There is meaning there, but Conrad tries so hard to have every single sentence be an all time banger of a description that it just ends up over-written. You could clean the style up with heavy editing and this book would have a much stronger core (or heart?).
This is a theoretically good book, executed poorly.