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.