Heart of Darkness Prompt #2

     In two distinct instances near the beginning of Heart of Darkness, Marlow describes the Congo river as a snake. The first time is as he is deciding to go into the Congo, when he sees the map of Africa in the shop window. He elaborates on the metaphor of the snake, saying the river resembled “an immense snake uncoiled, with its head in the sea, its body at rest curving afar over a vast country, and its tail lost in the depths of the land.” This image is repeated for emphasis while he is in the Company’s office in Brussels, again looking at a map of Africa. There he calls the river “fascinating--deadly--like a snake.”

     The image of a snake is an ancient one rich in symbolism. Generally, it represents evil, “darkness” as the book’s title suggests, and fittingly the Company men along the river are dark and corrupted. However, snakes also hold a seductive or tempting element--Marlow says “the snake had charmed me” at one point. As Marlow is an explorer by nature, this snake-like river tempts him to enter it, offering him greater knowledge of the world--but at a price. Marlow is clearly changed by this experience, having greater knowledge not only of Africa as a place but of the violent and exploitative goings-on there. In this sense, Heart of Darkness mimics the biblical story of the garden of Eden, one of the richest, most commonly alluded-to sources of snake symbolism in the Western world.

Heart of Darkness prompt #9

The question of whether a controversial book has a place in the canon is difficult, if not impossible to answer. Certainly books carry the mark of the ideology of their own time, yet one hopes that the great works provided in literature classes are to some degree universal, holding true even hundreds of years later. While parts of Heart of Darkness may certainly achieve this lasting effect, one hopes the racism inherent in its treatment of imperialism will not.

By itself, the more unpleasant aspects of Heart of Darkness do not warrant its removal from the canon. Many excellent books have problematic elements--would we avoid Kurt Vonnegut for his blandly rendered, objectified, and stereotypical women and skip Ezra Pound for his antisemitism when these unsavory elements are products of the time? While individual people may choose to, it’s clear that we as a society have agreed they are still worthwhile to read.

That is not to say, however, that those books, or Heart of Darkness, are so intrinsically valuable as to excuse their problems. It must be acknowledged that all elements of western society, literature included, have for thousands of years been dominated by white men. Were this not the case, it’s perfectly possible that Heart of Darkness never would have found its way onto lists of classic novels. The unoppressed by nature find it easier to excuse oppression--a white person will be less offended by racism than a black one, regardless of their level of sympathy for the struggle of those less privileged.

The problem with this book being taught is not its racism alone--when taught well, that can be acknowledged, discussed, dealt with in a reasonable way. The problem is that it is mostly white men who have decided it is worthy of being taught, when they’re not the ones affected by its problematic elements. The problem is that it’s the sixth book we have read in AP Literature this year written by a white male author. The problem is that even though equally excellent books which do not share its racism exist, they are not taught because they don’t hold the same place in the literary canon. The world of literature is vast. For every good book with problematic elements, there are equal books on similar subjects and without those elements--one only needs to look a little closer at the library shelves. That we have chosen to read Heart of Darkness instead of The Poisonwood Bible is a commentary on the unjustifiably dominant place white male voices still hold in the world of literature and on the ease with which privileged people such as ourselves swallow oppressive ideas as long as they don’t affect us.

Marlow and Kurtz

Marlow and Kurtz are two characters are two parallel lines that, somehow, also cross at some points. Ignoring the oblivious fallacy in that metaphor i would like to expound upon that concept. so first, what is the main difference between the two? Simple life and death. Delving further life and death become intangible and tangible. Marlow is present, Marlow is real, Marlow is a person, but Kurtz is different. Kurtz is no longer a person. He is a corpse, a legend, a name. He is stagnant while Marlow flows through the world, and because of this Kurtz becomes larger than Life. He becomes "Zeus". A mythical figure that carries "Thunderbolts","two shot-guns, a heavy rifle, and a light revolver-carbine." A God that has been chalked up to myth only to be told in past tense stories. While Marlow is more a likened to "Buddha". Interesting because this religious figure was a god, but also a man. Buddha was a real person who reached enlightenment. an idle that is not just for stories but also anchored in reality. So both are human gods, arrogant and powerful. 

Alluding to snakes

The symbol of a snake or serpent has changed throughout time, the most prevalent of which being the Judeo-Christian interpretation  of a great deceiver, the embodiment of temptation, lust, and even evil. While reading with this in mind one sees Marlow as depicting the river as and object of lust. His infatuation with the river is shown in the lines  “the snake had charmed me"  and calling it "Fascinating" and at the same time "Deadly". However, the snake also has further depth when alluding to the Greek/Latin Connotation of the snake. Snakes where omens of the gods, sacred in their own right, that appeared several times in the three great western epics. They represented wrath when a serpent rose from the sea to devour Laocoon and his sons, divine favor during the Trojan War as shown by a snake eating nine birds, and redemption illustrated when a snake emerged from under a monument to consume the offerings left by Aneaus. One theme that is relevant to the novella, that is also present in the epics, is the snake taking something into it, just as the river or "Giant serpent" takes Marlow into it. This  invokes a undertone of spiritual awaking, perhaps for Marlow, perhaps for the audience. It is interesting to find this juxtaposition of connotation within the same symbol. On one hand we see the snake as a symbol for corruption on the other we see a messanger of divine will. This could possibly foreshadow to the conflicting attitude that Marlow will face in the African wild. 

Prompt #11

Discuss Heart of Darkness from a feminist perspective. Discuss the female characters—their purpose, significance. What is revealed about the place and image of women?


Heart of Darkness is an extremely sexist piece of literature. Marlow’s attitude toward and treatment of women displays extremely sexist ideals. Women are barely mentioned at all in the entirety of the novella, and the ones who are mentioned seem to reinforce Marlow’s skewed ideas about women. The first woman we are introduced to is Marlow’s aunt who believes that he will be doing nearly Godly work and enlightening the poor savages in Africa. Marlow then comments that, “It’s queer how out of touch women are.” This idea presented by Marlow is reinforced by Kurtz who believes that, “We must help them [women] to stay in that beautiful world of their own, lest ours gets worse.” Kurtz’s intended fits perfectly with this view of women. She is blissfully ignorant to Kurtz’s actions. Her perception of Kurtz is in blatant contradiction of the reality Marlow has seen; yet he cannot bring himself to tell her the truth, perpetuating his idea that women live in their own little world. In staunch contrast to Kurtz’s intended is his African mistress. She, unlike the other women in the novel, displays a sort of power. Still, while she is viewed stronger, she still maintains a silent presence that pales in comparison to the men.

Prompt 8

Conrad has Marlow carry a rather stereotypical sense of civilized arrogance with him. Referring to every other character, including Kurtz, as empty or "no idol" of his. He frequently describes characters as hollow, or specifically "paper-mache Mephistopheles  with "nothing inside but a little loose dirt, maybe." However, Marlow's description of one of the natives as "one of those creatures," when the native was crawling on all fours to give himself a drink, suggests that the character who would otherwise be considered the most sympathetic towards the natives still has a sense of superiority over these other humans. Marlow then goes on to call them "poor devils" and "savages." These descriptions that Conrad employs from the character removes all human qualities from the natives. Without human qualities, the audience cannot easily relate to them, making them all that more difficult to side with. This is a powerful tool any artist or author can use to ensure that the people they want seen as the villain or the inferior are seen as so. It is far easier to kill and enslave something that is seen as more of an animal than a human. It is far easier for Marlow to convince himself he is in the right and justify his own actions when he has convinced himself that the other characters are hollow and empty. This technique does not only apply to Marlow, Conrad's descriptions of how each character describes the others, reveals to the audience how that specific character sees them self compared to the other.

Prompt #18

What might the title represent—the heart of darkness—what is this referring to?
 
Without any provided context, one could easily assume that Heart of Darkness is a rather sinister and dark story. The heart is often noted as the most vital organ in the human body, spreading and circulating blood throughout the body. It can almost be inferred from the title alone that the novella will provide a commentary on the nature of darkness. Upon reading the novella, this is found to be especially true. However, I believe the title serves two distinct meanings. Easily, simply, and extremely plainly spoken, this book is about imperialism, and its dire consequences. Building upon this idea, “heart of darkness” refers to the jungle in Africa. Taken at face level, the jungle is literally dark. Previous explorers nicknamed the African continent as “the dark continent.” Situated in this darkness are the “savages”—the uncivilized and rogue people that live in the heart of the dark jungle. At the time, it was customary for European nations to essentially reform the native, uncivilized peoples of the world. Conrad communicates that this type of attempted takeover can have horrid consequences. So basically, in the heart of the dark continent in the dark jungles, men become handicapped from their good judgment. They seem unable to understand the magnitude of the situation.  Their imperceptions cause feelings of confusion, which clouds the definition between good and evil actions.

Prompt 4

     The Heart of Darkness follows the white, upper-class, European, male, Charlie Marlow and his journey into Africa to find the white, upper-class, European, male, Kurtz. Since the story is told through Marlow, the reader is frequently exposed to Marlow and his particular traits; however, Kurtz remains mostly a mystery throughout the story, revealing few details on his character. Even though the audience knows very little about Kurtz compared to Marlow, subtle but significant similarities begin to appear. The primary personality trait that the two characters share is that of obsession: Marlow with the jungle and Kurtz, Kurts with power and ivory. 

     A rather subtle similarity between the two is that they are both explicitly compared to gods, but the gods they are compared to could not be more different. Marlow is shown as the god of Buddhism, "Marlow ceased, and sat apart, indistinct and silent, in the pose of a meditating Buddha." This comes in complete contrast to Kurtz who is given the role of Jupiter, "Some of the pilgrims behind the stretcher carried his arms, two shot-guns, a heavy rifle, and a light revolver-carbine- the thunderbolts of the pitiful Jupiter." This comparison between the two characters and their particular gods allows Conrad to show their status and personal arrogance above both the civilized and uncivilized characters, while at the same time revealing their two completely different roles and personalities.

Heart of Darkness response 1

Throughout the novel Conrad tends to degrade the natives. He makes them seem inhuman and unearthly. Discuss the effect this has on characterization in the novel.

Conrad does much more than degrade the natives; he degrades humanity as a whole. Because the traders treat the "criminals" so poorly, they become less relatable characters and morph into monsters that seem like a completely different species altogether. This is especially apparent when the full extent of Kurtz's power-hungry nature is revealed: the plans for "extermination," the the "rebel" heads on sticks, etc. Because the natives are treated like animals, their oppressors begin to become the animals as well, such as when the natives treat Kurtz as if he were a god and Kurtz accepts it. His desire to "bring civilization" to Africa resulted in him becoming the "brute" he sought to oppress. Yes, the Africans were treated inhumanely; they were referred to as "criminals" rather than slaves, they were killed at random, and the traders attempted to force their lifestyle onto them, but this shows more of how inhuman the traders are rather than the natives. Their greed and ethnocentrism shows that all humans, despite good intentions, can become the true "brutes."

Heart of Darkness response 2

What is the importance of ivory throughout the novel? How does it function as both a literal and figurative image?

The ivory can be interpreted in several different ways; my initial thought was that it represents the greed the traders are practically overflowing with. Without ivory, the novella would not exist, and the same can be said about greed. Both ivory and greed set in motion what becomes the entire plot: why Marlow and Kurtz end up in Africa, why the natives are treated so inhumanely, and why Kurtz eventually goes mad. However, after thinking on it, I came to a few weird interpretations of the ivory in the book--they might not be right, but I might as well just throw out some guesses. The ivory could represent the racism presented in the book. The main characters strive for ivory, an expensive material that is literally white. In a way, this reflects how Kurtz and Marlow expect the natives to strive for a "civilized" way of life, or the lifestyle of a white man at the time. The ivory could also be interpreted as the purity lost within the jungle. Both Marlow and Kurtz could not have expected so much brutality in one place; after experiencing the horrors of African jungles, they had lost their purity. The color white often symbolizes purity; when the traders sold the ivory, they had, in a sense, sold their innocence.

Heart of Darkness: response #2

Discuss your views on the racism inherent (or not) in Conrad's novella. What implications does this have for reading, teaching, and its place in the canon? 

The Heart of Darkness was written during a very racist time period in our history. Therefore, whether Conrad was trying to be racist or not I believe that his prospective in this in particular novel is not racist. While some may argue that the novel constantly makes racist remarks and attacks the African American race they have to keep in mind the time period in which the book was written.
However, as I said in my comment I do believe that Conrad's views of African Americans may have had something to do with what he was writing. But then again almost everyone had the same opinion as he did back when the novel was written. So, as many people may think The Heart of Darkness is racist today they people who read the novel back when it was first written more than likely did not.
For this novel to be racist Conrad's main purpose of this novel would have to have been to put down the African Americans or to hurt them, make them feel lesser of themselves. But, the purpose I believe of The Heart of Darkness is to just show how people of that time period felt.

HOD Prompt #2 Question 18

What might the title represent—the heart of darkness—what is this referring to?

           ‘The Heart of Darkness’ is such an appropriate title not because it means one thing but the fact that it can be representative of many ideas and themes presented in the novella. As Marlow remarks near the beginning of the novella “It had ceased to be a blank space of delightful mystery—a white patch for a boy to dream gloriously over. It had become a place of darkness.” ‘The Heart of Darkness’, the actual place, was a location that no longer maintained its shroud of mystery to the white man. No, now, as is always the case, the place is being extorted; manipulated; raped of its natural self and an imposed stamp of corruption is forever branded into its very existence. This interpretation seems to be more focused on the decency of the affair rather than the reality that Conrad seemed to be getting at that the place is no longer foreign to learned men and is forever changed for that reason. Another plausible interpretation of the ‘Heart of Darkness’ title is an idea; it is the idea that man cannot possibly degrade into his primal state if he had been previously exposed to civility without extinguishing parts of his previous self. The fact that man will give up knowledge and civility for blissful ignorance displays a hollowness of one’s character and soul which inevitably breeds a heart of darkness. Either one of these interpretations along with many others could possibly represent what Conrad meant by naming the novella as he did.  

Heart of Darkness, response #1

Is Marlow a trustworthy narrator? Why or why not?

Trustworthiness is something special. It is something everyone should be given the privilege of when they first meet someone. I believe everyone deserves a chance and trust until they do something to make one lose their trust or question it, then that person can choose if they want to give that one person their trust or not.
In my eyes, Marlow is just very opinionated and out spoken. His intentions are never to lie or mislead someone but solely to let one know how he feels and what he wants done. Therefore, Marlow has done nothing to lose anyone's trust. While the reader's think he has actually he has not. 
However, Marlow can be somewhat "harsh" in the way he talks to the natives or about the natives. Therefore, leaving the impression that Marlow is "untrustworthy" when really he is just voicing his own opinion and letting readers know how he feels. Marlow being "harsh" about the natives might mean he does not have very many friends but that does not mean he is not trustworthy. 

Heart of Darkness -- Post #2

What is the importance of ivory throughout the novel? How does it function as both a literal and figurative image?

As a literal image, ivory is everything to this novel.  Without ivory, Marlow would not have a new job to the Congo.  The company would not have a purpose.  The cannibals would not have a purpose to work.  Companies would not "fight" their way to get more ivory, more money, more fame.  To a figurative image, ivory created a new goal for Marlow's time.  More people demanded their ivory cut furniture, piano keys, and valuables for years to come.  The people demanded a royalty status by showing their loved ones and guests that they had money to invest on ivory.  
Ivory was a status symbol.  It's kind of like having an indoor pool in today's world.  It's just luxury, and everyone is super impressed by it.  
So, people's greed created jobs for others.  Greed created companies with a purpose, and a new demand (even though it's terrible on how it's obtained) from Africa.  Ivory gives Britain a domino effect, where every person from the owner to elephant, has a purpose.  If any of the people or things in between are involved, ivory could ultimately lose its purpose and value. 

Heart of Darkness; Post #1

What might the title represent--the heart of darkness--what is this referring to?

Throughout reading "Heart of Darkness," the idea of competition of the company came to mind, multiple times.  Still to this day, many say that the business world is "cut throat," or "dark."  People will be mean just to earn money for themselves and their business.  The heart side of the business is employees and owners competing after what they want; they want what their heart desires.  So, when these two ideas are mushed together, the product is doing anything, even if the consequence is terrible, to make oneself happy.  Which really, any business in the corporate world can be labeled under "heart of darkness."  

Heart of darkness can also just refer to the whole experience Mr. Kurtz, Marlow, and the cannibals experience.  Their purpose is to obtain more ivory and deliver it to its destination, and still accomplish that when other companies are trying to do the same.  Their experiences along the Congo are not the most joyous encounters, leaving a numb feeling for its audience (at least for me).  Illness, isolation, scare tactics, and death are all considered "heavy" topics, which can also be another explanation behind the meaning of "Heart of Darkness."  

HOD Prompt #1 Question 17

What is the significance of Kurtz’ soul going mad? What caused his insanity?

             In the text it is said, “Being alone in the wilderness, it had looked within itself, and, by heavens! I tell you, it had gone mad.” The question is, what did Kurtz see when he looked within his soul? The answer to this question is the cause of his insanity. Conrad’s use of light and dark imagery may be able to help us understand Kurtz’ insanity and why after prolonged exposure to the primeval wilderness Kurtz finally succumbed to his primal instincts. Over and over again Conrad uses diction corresponding to ‘light’ such as describing people or items as “white, luminous, shining, etc.” in order to convey a sense of civilized life or behavior. In comparison Conrad uses dark diction such as “black, evanescent, smoky, and desolate” to identify things that are unknown, primal, or incomprehensible to a learned being. The knowledge and continued fascination of these dark beings or objects is what drove Kurtz into insanity. His desire or primal need to be unburdened by civilized life and rather be surrounded by inferior beings that glorify him as a god while knowing full well his “Intended” was waiting for him back in civilization literally tore his soul asunder. He was no longer one being that came out of the ‘Heart of Darkness’ rather as the novella suggests “The shade of the original Kurtz frequented the bedside of the hollow sham, whose fate it was to be buried presently in the mould of primeval earth.” Kurtz, who already was accustomed to civilized life, came to this devouring place of nature and died, or rather was reborn as a hollow shell of a man that knew only isolation.

Heart of Darkness Prompt #9

Discuss your views on the racism inherent (or not) in Conrad’s novella. What implications does this have for reading, teaching, and its place in the canon?

To say that Conrad's novella is racist would be to ignore the fact that it speaks about and from the perspective of an incredibly racist time period. This would be like saying that a novel written to be from Hitler's perspective during World War II and the holocaust would be anti-semitic or anti-democratic. To clarify, such a novel would most certainly have to contain discussions and ideas about killing jews and taking over the world, but that isn't the novel, it's the topic.

The characters and the entire situation which Heart of Darkness revolves around is inherently racist, proven by the constant inclusion of racial slurs, crude descriptions of the African people in contrast to more civilized descriptions of Europeans, and the general sense that the Europeans were superior. However, this is a cultural view consistent with the time period. European culture was far more advanced than that of the Africans, or at least it was in the European mindset. So the Europeans set out to bring culture to the savages. Well, that was what they claimed they were doing, although most people today would claim it to be more along the lines of extorting wealth from people with no means of protection against superior technology.

To summarize, Conrad's novella is not racist, but the topics contained within it are due to historical accuracy. Conrad may have intended it to be racist, or he may not have. Either way, the book serves as an accurate depiction of the typically racist culture of the time period of the story. In this way it should be seen as a learning instrument about past culture. For a book to be racist, it would have to be written with its main purpose being to offend without the offense serving a greater thematic purpose. Any offense gained from Heart of Darkness comes simply as a literary tool either to give insight to the culture and the darkness of its imperialistic nature or to set a passage's tone and bring the reader's attention to an important realization.

Response #2

What might the title represent — the Heart of Darkness — what is this referring to?

The theme of darkness is spread throughout the novel, so much so that almost everything is described as "dark" or "shadowed" or a derivative thereof at some point in the novel. So much is described as "dark" that it is hard to discern a set of defining characteristics. The phrase "Heart of Darkness," however, is used more sparingly and consistently to describe the African bush and, more specifically, Kurtz's hut. These places, practically the same, serve as the gravitational center of the novel. Marlow's entire story, his entire "yarn," is focused on reaching Kurtz and, after reaching Kurtz, is focused on coming to terms with what he saw.

This "Heart of Darkness," the heart of Africa, could be interpreted in two directions. The "Heart of Darkness" could be the corruption that people find when they become "lost" in the African wild. It is separation from the limits of civility that cause corruption. This "Heart of Darkness" is a temptation to return to wild, base instincts. It is the fear that the Africans are not so different from everyone else. With a change in location, the white men would act the same way. It is civility that saves them. Given the less-racist-than-normal view of Africans presented in the novel, however, this stance is unlikely.

More likely is that the "Heart of Darkness" is greed. Kurtz fell to this darkness, as did the Manager and so many others who saw in the African bush only more money to be made or, in Kurtz's case, simply more ivory. This speaks more about Britain's imperial attitudes at the time. Kurtz's greed (and lack of willpower to stop it) resulted in the corruption of his soul and, consequently, his body. Greed — the need for ivory, his "Heart of Darkness" — destroyed him.

Response #1

Is Marlow a trustworthy narrator? Why or why not?

Trustworthiness is an incorrect concept. I begin an interpersonal relationship with maximum trust, only subtracting trust when actions merit it. Marlow presents no reason to distrust him. Nothing about his account seems too outrageous to believe. Everything he says is exactly as he saw it, but therein lies the rub.

Everything relayed is exactly as Marlow saw — or thought he saw — the events around him. The world seen by the reader is colored by Marlow's perspective. He mentions as much when describing the arrows as “sticks” and the severed heads as lawn ornaments. In the heat of the moment, Marlow mistook one objects for another. With these, he noticed his error, but how often could he have been fooled by a trick of the light or a corrupted memory? I have no doubt that Marlow says exactly what he remembers; it is the memories themselves I don’t trust. 

More than just mangled facts, I am worried about the perspective Marlow brings to the story. He calls the Africans "niggers" and constantly objectifies them. He uses the words "savage" and "uncivilized" to describe them, their practices, and their lives. Some would say that this makes Marlow's account untrustworthy, that it is shaped by bias. This is true. He is biased, but his bias is a product of his world. For his time, his views are progressive, and they should be seen in such a light. That he would even consider a black crewman's life as more worthy than Kurtz's is miraculous for any of his peers. This temporal bias must be approached from the proper angle and seen as progressive with respect to the time period in which it was written.

No one can know if what Marlow says is true. He did lie to Kurtz's Intended, but that was meant to soften the blow for a woman. It seems that Kurtz's story was unedited when told to Marlow's comrades, and his actions mark him not untrustworthy. 

Heart of Darkness Prompt #5

Contrast Kurtz’ black mistress with his Intended. What is the function of each?

Kurtz' black mistress and his Intended couldn't possibly be more different (aside from maybe being different species but that would likely distract from their meaning). Aside from one being an African and the other a European, their temperaments are on opposite sides of the spectrum.

His black mistress is a woman who strives on and revels in power, acting as a sort of queen or goddess above the African tribes in the area. She appears adorned with extensive and expensive jewelry and is described as "wild" and "gorgeous." Her appearance soars above that of her surroundings, both the people and the landscape, and causes her to seem like royalty. In action, she may as well be royalty due to her incredibly strong influence both on the area's tribes and on Kurtz.

On the other hand, Kurtz' Intended is a quiet and trusting European housewife. She holds an incredible capacity for belief in Kurtz even during the pain of mourning over his death. She seems to hold an unusually strong will which may be seen as a similarity to the black mistress, but the way in which she uses it sets here even further apart. Her will is used to keep her calm and fairly composed during the pain of loss and to hold her faith in Kurtz.

The function of the two women and their striking differences serves as an interesting plot point for anyone interested enough to compare them and wonder why Kurtz became involved with women who are as opposite as black and white (I mean the colors, not races); however, they hold a deeper significance within the novel's meaning. Kurtz' Intended serves as an embodiment of the perfect domestic housewife--trusting and caring for her man even during long periods with no news. His mistress on the other hand, embodies the wild spirit of the jungle and the thirst for power of the ambitious mind. These two women come from different worlds, and by connecting them through Kurtz, the two worlds are placed side-by-side to reveal and force attention upon their stark differences.

What is the importance of ivory throughout the novel? How does it function as both a literal and figurative image?

Ivory, has always been a resource that is hard to acquire and even harder to have a steady supply of.  In the “heart of darkness”, ivory is a competition for the company. They want it so badly that they are willing to do and say almost anything to receive it. This being the literal use and meaning of the ivory, it can also be figurative. Ivory signifies the want and need for the items in life we wish to obtain. It shows the need for wealth and the greediness that comes along with wealth. The greed continues to escalate to such a high level that the company becomes obsessed. They reminded me of drug dogs as they are searching for the drugs around areas. Both the dogs and the company are relentless. This leads them into darkness. The lingering need for wealth and power hovers over them throughout the entire story. The ivory causes them to become blind and leads them spiraling into the darkness that cannot be pushed aside or forgotten about. This causes them to loose sight of any previous goals they had set. This also leads us to believe the people were greedy to begin with and the need for ivory makes it show through even more.

Heart of Darkness Prompt #18

What might the title represent--the heart of darkness--what is this referring to?

I believe that the title "Heart of Darkness" can mean a number of things to any person who reads the novel. The most predominant idea I have relates to the ivory and the companies’ motives as too have they go about getting this ivory. The company goes to almost unrealistic measures to get the ivory for the consumers of the business. That could explain that darkness part of the titles but also leaves the heart. I believe that this is referring to Africa and all of the travels. I interpreted the literal meaning of the heart being “the heart of Africa”.  In the novel, Africa is portrayed as a dark place because of all of the differences between societies.  This also brings back the idea of ethnocentrism as talked about in class.  Marlow shows signs of this because of the ways the natives were acting and behaving. To him, these ways were different and out of the ‘norm’. This could represent the darkness stated in the title. It could mean that the “heart of darkness” symbolizes the heart of Africa and the dark people surrounding the path to find and retrieve Mr. Kurtz. Also, it could be decided that Mr. Kurtz is in the ‘heart of darkness’ which would mean that he is lost in isolation and the darkness of the places around him cause him to go mad.

Promp #14

Typically, light and dark are used to represent good and evil respectively. Being opposites of each other these two sides are often shown in equal combat. In Heart of Darkness, with its racial themes, it can logically follow the the black Africans represent evil (perhaps a lack of Christianity and a differing family structure) to one of the storytellers and white represents good (lots of Christianity and strong Victorian morals). However, in the overall story, that notion is constantly flipped about. One significant (or at least strongly brought to our attention) detail is the women knitting with black yarn. Later we do see examples of oppression over the black Africans--the groups walking in shackles, working in the mine, and receiving little food. It appears as though the supposedly good, white people are commiting more evil than those depicted as dark. There, light is more representative of oppression, and dark more representative of oppressed. The contrast between light and dark appears again when Marlow enters the dark jungle on a quest for glistening white ivory. It first appears as though the light is the one good thing to come out of the darkness, but wait. What's that! A white fog that has blinded the crew of this steamer! It appears as though the quest for good has blinded the Europeans from seeing the consequences of their action, when piloting their steaming and of the greater implications of the ivory trade on native Africans. Darkness appears again, and very prominently in the last line, "the heart of immense darkness." But where does this darkness come from? Were the black Africans the cause of the corruption? Is this the corruption of their souls? Or is this darkness uncertainty? Conrad blends the two colors together and uses them to represent similar ideas. Perhaps this works to show the uncertainty and constant doubts man has when determining the good or evil of an action. Perhaps he means to show the corruption of the soul. Perhaps he truly means to be rascist and the darkness is the darkness of their skin and souls. All of these ideas can be found within the work and having all these ideas present contributes greatly to the notion that the blending of the two extremes is meant to showcase our own doubt.

prompt #2

As humans we are not perfect creatures, one of our larges flaws is that we are so easily temped by our imagination and curiosity. In his tell of his adventures, Marlow describes the pull of temptation he feels by the image of a snake-like river on a map. This image is extremely relevant and important to the entirety of his story and to the book of the “Heart of Darkness.” Its geological placement is in the center of the landmass, the heart, and it’s wild, depth is the darkness.

Marlow is a man of the sea, attracted to the adventures it presents and the snake is a biblical illusion to the serpent that tempted Adam and Eve to the forbidden fruit. Having sailed the ocean for years the river enticed hip to travel the twisting fresh water. Marlow describes the river as “an immense snake uncoiled,” painting the physical image of the long curving river slithering throught the jungle and for him this is mesmerizing.  “it fascinated me as a snake would a bird.” The river’s existence and geography is charming, timpiting Marlow’s adventurous side to void the voice that calls him to the sea. It plays off his wondering nature just as the serpent did Adam and Eve.

Promt #8

The time in which Joseph Conrad's Hear of Darkness takes place is one very different from today. The setting of the novel is the uncolonized section of Africa. The mindset of the Caucasians at this point in history was that the white man was more civilized; they almost thought they were "better" as a race than the dark-skinned natives, proven through their enslavement and torture by the Europeans. At one point the colonization of Africa was even referred to as "the white man's burden." This phrase can be used to describe Marlow’s tone in his story of traveling up the charming, snake-like river of the uncharted area.  Marlow constantly refers to these people as "monsters." He sees the inhumanity of the natives with their behaviors and physical gestures which are to him animal-like. In his first stated encounter with the natives he shows compassion for a starving African man by giving him a biscuit of his own to eat, but later when moving up the river he refers to a native working on his vessel as a "dog" and a "chap" in the same sentence, showing a slight change in opinion of them as the story progress that continues on through the novel.

Prompt Sixteen

Ah, the Age of Imperialism—a mad time for Britain and the rest of Europe.  The Industrial Revolution a few decades earlier originally spurred the demand for new materials, and what better place to find them than the empty African continent?  Many others traveled to Africa for religious reasons, hoping to bring Christianity to the people there.  The concept of the “white man’s burden” was popularized, and though the missionaries’ intentions may have been good, the inadvertent mindset of white superiority spread throughout Europe.  With the invention of the machine gun, the English and other Europeans were able to easily overtake the Africans and exploit their resources, which included salvaging ivory from tusks of animals (mostly elephants) to craft and sell in their home countries.  Without prior knowledge of the time period, a reader might wonder why a man was so eager to journey to a known savage land to seek out elephant parts.  The truth of the matter was that everyone was out to make a profit, and that desire unfortunately superseded the lives of the Africans and the wildlife.  Though there was a social movement to stop the slave trade, it’s obvious where true priorities laid.  The countries’ governments did not stop scenes like what Maslow saw, where the “criminals” were forced to work for the whites.  In relation to my last post, I don’t believe it’s the fault of the Europeans for issuing such treatment, but there must be a line drawn somewhere between “Just Business” and “Needless Cruelty.”

HoD Prompt 10

1. What elements of the novel suggest that it might be a racist work?  In what ways does Conrad use language subtly or directly to express political views?

          I don't believe the piece is racist in a negative sense. I believe it is the opposite. While the language does have a WASP feel to it, the purpose of its existence is primarily to encourage a meta-cognitive reflection amongst readers that fit into said category. What I presume Conrad wanted to instill into a bigoted audience, is the error of their ways. With regards to the language of the piece, while Conrad does make use of the "N" word quite often, it's not in poor taste. That type of language just wasn't frowned upon back then; it was widely accepted and broadly used. In fact, if Conrad had not used such presently repulsive language his work would not have been believable, thus making it inferior to its current state.

The only way I see language being used to display views of any kind are, again, his use of the “N” word. This only places emphasis on racist ways of thinking, which I guess can be tied to some form of a political view. The only place I believe, where references to political views are brought in are through the relationship between the company and the cannibals. The company hired the cannibals to work for them, despite the fact that they are cannibals. The only logical reasons as to why they did this are because they are cheap labor and because the company feels the need to possibly assimilate the cannibals into a “respectable” state in society. This display of the company believing their way is the only correct way is similar to socialism, I think. This display is the only example of political views being expressed throughout the novella that I noticed.

Through negative portrayal in both characters, Conrad depicts Kurtz’s Intended and African mistress, while further accentuating women’s subservience to men. Unsurprisingly, both Kurtz and Marlow believe that since women live in a separate world, they are somewhat obligated to protect them from reality. This idea allowed Marlow’s lie to the Intended when he told her Kurtz’s last words were her name to be justified. The Intended was so fixed on her idealistic views, she truly believed nothing could happen to Kurtz on his expedition. Yet, Kurtz was aware of his and loved her even stating, “My Intended, my ivory, my station, my river, my-everything belonged to him".  He also stated, "...she had a beautiful expression...sunlight can be made to lie too, yet one felt that no manipulation of light and pose could have conveyed the delicate shade of truthfulness upon those features,” meaning the Intended is a strong figure, undisturbed by reality.  The mistress, on the other hand, is detailed using words such as “savage” and “superb”. She was revered for her materialistic image and outward appearance; attributes that could not contribute to a sustainable relationship. It is evident from the text that Kurtz has a stronger connection to the Intended than to the mistress.

Prompt Nine

The amount of racism present in the novel was (I believe) not due to Conrad's beliefs as an individual. When considering other works that have historically stood in the face of racism (such as Uncle Tom's Cabin), the controversy might have overshadowed the story itself if he had attempted to make a blatant social statement with the text.  I believe Conrad was writing to capture the mindset of the time, not to belittle the African people--the rest of the world knew so little about the continent at the time that it was impossible not to use our imaginations to fill in what we didn't know.  Marlow's character represents the common Englishman's beliefs and opinions of the period, which paints a social portrait that straight history might’ve not able to explain.  Was ethnocentrism England’s fault? I don’t think so.  Being racist in today’s society is a choice, but it’s imperative to understand that the only way we can initially perceive a new culture is through the eyes of our own.  Now that Africa and its indigenous people are no longer a mystery, refusing to see through their eyes is denial, not mere ignorance.  The American colonists mistreated the Native Americans for the same reasons.  Using this text as a history lesson can be useful in yielding many sociological clues to the lifestyle of the English during this time.

Throughout the story Conrad uses an assortment of practicable meanings to detail the events and characters of the novella. Although there is a plethora of obscurity, the idea that women are naïve and uncanny remains clear throughout the tale. In fact, the only female name ever mentioned was the name of the ship. Women were seen as individuals that fail to understand the general practices of life. Their oblivious nature caused them to be removed from the horror of life’s realism. Marlowe states, “It’s queer how out of touch with truth women are. They live in a world of their own, and there had never been anything like it, and never can be.  It is too beautiful altogether, and if they were to set it up it would go to pieces before the first sunset.”  Although these women are occasionally scorned throughout Conrad’s tale, they do have purpose in the world. Take note at Marlowe’s aunt, who was able to get Marlowe his job for the Company, when he could not. After Kurtz’s death, Marlowe visits Kurtz’s Intended, who is certain of his love for her, further illuminating the novella’s idea of detachment in women.