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.
Ben, I agree completely agree with your outlook on trust. I also believe that until someone gives you a reason to not trust them you should give them the benefit of your trust. While Marlow does not do anything to lose the anyone trust he does not do anything to gain friends either. Marlow is just simply an outspoken person who calls things like he sees it whether he is right or not.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I must note your parallel to Hamlet's "to be or not to be" soliloquy--"therein lies the rub"--and tell you that I enjoyed it.
ReplyDeleteNow on to other matters. I enjoy your pragmatic approach to Marlow's trustworthiness. He is, first and foremost, a person regardless of if he's alive or simply a literary figure. As such, he's susceptible to human error. Over time, memories fade and details are lost. What one night is the memory of a vivid summer sunset while strolling along a secluded cape by the serene sea may later be a memory of an early morning sunrise while lying on a beach towel on the sand. Regardless of this possibility for degradation of Marlow's memories, he never gives any impression that he means to deceive his audience. As you said, he even tries to correct himself and stay as close to the truth as he is humanly able. Perhaps the best way to look at his account of the story is to believe what he says but to use this as reason to explore the events and topics rather than act in any way on his word alone.
I definitely agree with your points about memory's fallibility. In many cases where a novel is purposely given an untrustworthy narrator, this is done not by making them dishonest but by damaging their mental state. The way Heart of Darkness is framed by the scenes on the ship, with Marlow telling the story aloud, certainly leaves room for direct dishonesty on the part of the narrator, but many novels don't. In these cases, it is the reader's job to discern the narrator's biases and personality in order to determine in which ways the story may be skewed.
ReplyDeleteYour statement at the end of your second paragraph that suggests that you don't mistrust Marlow, but his memories is a perfect way to describe how trustworthy he really is. He has no reason to lie to the audience, but it's not a question of if he is "willing" to tell the truth, but if he is "able" to tell the truth. However if he is actually intentionally lying to the audience we wouldn't be able to know, since he is our only connection to the story. However, as we learn throughout the novella, how accurate Marlow's memories are is definitely questionable. This makes it l difficult to distinguish which parts of the story are true, and to what extent.
ReplyDelete