Take a photo of a barcode or cover
simpmor 's review for:
Heart of Darkness
by Joseph Conrad
I had never read any Conrad before this, nor did I really know anything about him, certainly not that he was a Ukrainian refugee writing in his third language. I was very impressed by his writing, and can see why he is so well lauded; incredibly powerful. This book is very brief, refreshingly concise, and the plot is simple, yet the whole thing is very heavy and there are some really memorable images in the book.
Of course there is a lot of racially charged language, very offensive terms and comments, some from Marlow's narration and some from the other characters in his tale - but it would surely be impossible to tell this story without this. I certainly can't think of a way to have Marlow in that environment, complicit in the actions of the colonisers without being entirely one of them, without him considering the native people as primitive and savage - even if, unlike the rest of the Europeans around him he at least acknowledges their humanity and right to live. I actually think creating the character exactly in that position was a very clever move to be able to make the required points.
I also thought it was a good introduction, opening the narrative with Marlow musing over the 'civilised' Romans invading and colonising 'savage' Celtic Britain and drawing the parallels to European invaders in Africa. Then we see throughout the narrative (sometimes through Marlow's realisation and sometimes inspite of his lack thereof) how wild and savage the invaders are.
There's a metaphor introduced quite early on in Marlow's narrative which I think encapsulates a good deal of the story, when they sail past a French Man o' War firing cannons endlessly into the face of the jungle - just emptying their ammunition into the continent. I am intrigued by the impotence symbolised here, and whether back in 1899 Conrad imagined the colonisation would be completely unsuccessful and ultimately withdrawn, like the Roman invasion of Britain. There was also a scene with white characters repeatedly shooting at a hippo, with no effect; and a firefight on the river in which the Europeans are emptying their firearms into the jungle, apparently with a similar lack of consequence - the returning arrows fired at the boat were referred to as twigs and were also spoken of as though harmless, almost like toys - it was invariably the climate and disease, or even suicide killing the Europeans off at such a rate, never an act of aggression or even of defence from an African. In fact, every act of violence throughout the tale is perpetrated by white characters, "pilgrims" as termed by Marlow, even the brief attack by natives we discover later to have been at the orders of white man Kurtz. The only character killed by a direct act of violence is an African working with the pigrims, killed by a native tribe. That's not to say the native characters are unscathed by this brutal invasion and pillaging, just that the deaths we see are due to exploitation, overwork and starvation. I think Conrad is clearly making a point here, with these futile acts of aggression but I haven't come up with a coherent conclusion that rings true to me just yet and it's something I will continue to think over.
It's made very clear that the white characters, while they consider themselves the civilised race, also consider themselves sufficiently far removed from this 'civilisation' to forget its constraints and its laws. We see this in their willingness to kill not only the Africans but other white Europeans, knowing there will be no consequences - there are regular references to taking care of how things will be received "back in Europe" but also awareness that they control the narrative that will be heard there. There's a powerful moment when Marlow refers to an expedition lost in the jungle, reported back to the station "that all the donkeys were dead. I know nothing as to the fate of the less valuable animals" - referring to a group of both black and white humans alike, in a clear illustration of the disposability of all human life in this rapacious pillaging enterprise. And ultimately I think that is the tale here, and the nature of colonisation, of such greed and avarice that all humanity is removed, even better if an environment can be created to facilitate that, with racism and remote wildernesses, while money piles up back in the "sepulchral cities" of Europe, the dark hearts of putative 'civilisation'.
Of course there is a lot of racially charged language, very offensive terms and comments, some from Marlow's narration and some from the other characters in his tale - but it would surely be impossible to tell this story without this. I certainly can't think of a way to have Marlow in that environment, complicit in the actions of the colonisers without being entirely one of them, without him considering the native people as primitive and savage - even if, unlike the rest of the Europeans around him he at least acknowledges their humanity and right to live. I actually think creating the character exactly in that position was a very clever move to be able to make the required points.
I also thought it was a good introduction, opening the narrative with Marlow musing over the 'civilised' Romans invading and colonising 'savage' Celtic Britain and drawing the parallels to European invaders in Africa. Then we see throughout the narrative (sometimes through Marlow's realisation and sometimes inspite of his lack thereof) how wild and savage the invaders are.
There's a metaphor introduced quite early on in Marlow's narrative which I think encapsulates a good deal of the story, when they sail past a French Man o' War firing cannons endlessly into the face of the jungle - just emptying their ammunition into the continent. I am intrigued by the impotence symbolised here, and whether back in 1899 Conrad imagined the colonisation would be completely unsuccessful and ultimately withdrawn, like the Roman invasion of Britain. There was also a scene with white characters repeatedly shooting at a hippo, with no effect; and a firefight on the river in which the Europeans are emptying their firearms into the jungle, apparently with a similar lack of consequence - the returning arrows fired at the boat were referred to as twigs and were also spoken of as though harmless, almost like toys - it was invariably the climate and disease, or even suicide killing the Europeans off at such a rate, never an act of aggression or even of defence from an African. In fact, every act of violence throughout the tale is perpetrated by white characters, "pilgrims" as termed by Marlow, even the brief attack by natives we discover later to have been at the orders of white man Kurtz. The only character killed by a direct act of violence is an African working with the pigrims, killed by a native tribe. That's not to say the native characters are unscathed by this brutal invasion and pillaging, just that the deaths we see are due to exploitation, overwork and starvation. I think Conrad is clearly making a point here, with these futile acts of aggression but I haven't come up with a coherent conclusion that rings true to me just yet and it's something I will continue to think over.
It's made very clear that the white characters, while they consider themselves the civilised race, also consider themselves sufficiently far removed from this 'civilisation' to forget its constraints and its laws. We see this in their willingness to kill not only the Africans but other white Europeans, knowing there will be no consequences - there are regular references to taking care of how things will be received "back in Europe" but also awareness that they control the narrative that will be heard there. There's a powerful moment when Marlow refers to an expedition lost in the jungle, reported back to the station "that all the donkeys were dead. I know nothing as to the fate of the less valuable animals" - referring to a group of both black and white humans alike, in a clear illustration of the disposability of all human life in this rapacious pillaging enterprise. And ultimately I think that is the tale here, and the nature of colonisation, of such greed and avarice that all humanity is removed, even better if an environment can be created to facilitate that, with racism and remote wildernesses, while money piles up back in the "sepulchral cities" of Europe, the dark hearts of putative 'civilisation'.