Scan barcode
A review by qiaosilin
Heart of Darkness: and Selections from The Congo Diary by Joseph Conrad
3.0
Heart of Darkness is a book that has really put me on the fence. I don't really know what to make of it. First, let me give you a small summary: The narrator is on a boat on the Thames listening to Marlow tell a story about his journey up the Congo River in search of an elusive ivory trader, Kurtz.
I'm going to be frank: Kurtz is the most interesting character that came out of this book. Marlow seems less of a character and more of a narrative frame. I never really felt that Marlow was a character or a person, just a window into how the late 19th century viewed Africa. And let me tell you, it is not a pretty view. Almost every bad adjective is used to describe the Congolese and nicer ones were ascribed to the Europeans, or white people. There are only two Africans who have speaking roles, and even those are minimal (one of them being the famous "Mistah Kurtz--he dead."). Marlow points out that all the Africans are cannibals and it's amazing they haven't eaten each other yet because they're all so thin. Just wow. Also, Conrad overuses the n-word, at least in my opinion. I understand that in 1899 the n-word wasn't as taboo as it is today, but that doesn't make it any less racist.
So does this mean that Heart of Darkness is a racist book? I'm going to have to agree with [a:Chinua Achebe|8051|Chinua Achebe|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1294661664p2/8051.jpg] ("An image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's Heart of Darkness", Massachusetts Review, issue 8 (1977)) on this one: yes, it is. So then why is it constantly considered one of the greatest short novels of all time? The answer for this question is more contextual.
As a writer, Conrad has immense skill. He manages to incorporate Victorian ideals and flawlessly change them into Modern ideals. And if you're not paying attention, it's hard to notice the subtle tone shifts throughout Marlow's tale. This has a way of masking the racism. Also, Heart of Darkness was written at the turn of the 20th century, and even though a lot of people hate this argument I'm still a stern believer that literature needs to be read within the context of its artistic movement/historical happenings. That means that Heart of Darkness, while racist for our standards, wasn't racist back then. The attitudes towards Africans portrayed in the book was the ubiquitous attitude of the time. I'm not saying it's right, I'm only saying that's the truth of it.
I don't believe Conrad was being vehemently racist, but I do think this novel is a product of its time. Should we still read and/or study it? This is where I'm on the fence. Studying it for a university class to learn style, tone and the interesting psychoanalysis happening in part III, I say go ahead. Reading it for fun? Yeah, maybe not so much.
I'm going to be frank: Kurtz is the most interesting character that came out of this book. Marlow seems less of a character and more of a narrative frame. I never really felt that Marlow was a character or a person, just a window into how the late 19th century viewed Africa. And let me tell you, it is not a pretty view. Almost every bad adjective is used to describe the Congolese and nicer ones were ascribed to the Europeans, or white people. There are only two Africans who have speaking roles, and even those are minimal (one of them being the famous "Mistah Kurtz--he dead."). Marlow points out that all the Africans are cannibals and it's amazing they haven't eaten each other yet because they're all so thin. Just wow. Also, Conrad overuses the n-word, at least in my opinion. I understand that in 1899 the n-word wasn't as taboo as it is today, but that doesn't make it any less racist.
So does this mean that Heart of Darkness is a racist book? I'm going to have to agree with [a:Chinua Achebe|8051|Chinua Achebe|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1294661664p2/8051.jpg] ("An image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's Heart of Darkness", Massachusetts Review, issue 8 (1977)) on this one: yes, it is. So then why is it constantly considered one of the greatest short novels of all time? The answer for this question is more contextual.
As a writer, Conrad has immense skill. He manages to incorporate Victorian ideals and flawlessly change them into Modern ideals. And if you're not paying attention, it's hard to notice the subtle tone shifts throughout Marlow's tale. This has a way of masking the racism. Also, Heart of Darkness was written at the turn of the 20th century, and even though a lot of people hate this argument I'm still a stern believer that literature needs to be read within the context of its artistic movement/historical happenings. That means that Heart of Darkness, while racist for our standards, wasn't racist back then. The attitudes towards Africans portrayed in the book was the ubiquitous attitude of the time. I'm not saying it's right, I'm only saying that's the truth of it.
I don't believe Conrad was being vehemently racist, but I do think this novel is a product of its time. Should we still read and/or study it? This is where I'm on the fence. Studying it for a university class to learn style, tone and the interesting psychoanalysis happening in part III, I say go ahead. Reading it for fun? Yeah, maybe not so much.