J.G. Keely's Reviews > Heart of Darkness
Heart of Darkness
by
by

J.G. Keely's review
bookshelves: novel, fiction, reviewed, adventure, realism, africa, uk-and-ireland
Jun 30, 2007
bookshelves: novel, fiction, reviewed, adventure, realism, africa, uk-and-ireland
Like contemporaries Haggard and Melville, Joseph Conrad lived the adventures he wrote. He left his native Ukraine to escape the political persecution of his family and became a merchant marine in France, sailing to the West Indies and gun-running for a failed Spanish coup. Soon after, he learned English and became a british citizen, eventually attaining the position of Master Mariner. Had his story ended there, he might have become merely a footnote in history: a successful seaman and minor writer of romantic adventures.
Instead, he took a fateful steamship voyage into deepest Africa, an experience which forever changed him. Like the protagonist of the book which his journey inspired, Conrad found horror deep in the jungles. He witnessed the cruel depth of mankind, and not in the barbaric tribes, but in the colonial whites who ruled them. Far from civilization or law, these men became utter tyrants, mad with power and answerable to no one.
Having lived under repressive colonial forces in his own troubled Ukraine, Conrad's deconstruction of this human subjugation was both sympathetic and satirical. Apparently unable to detect Conrad's sarcasm, Chinua Achebe accused him of the most profound racism. Doubtless, he was tired of his continent being defined in literature by an outsider. Why Achebe then chose to write his own, much more hopeless, racist, and sarcastic book in an attempt to replace Conrad's, it is difficult to say.
When Conrad finally emerged from Africa, he was a different man. He said of the experience that it forced him to cease simply living, like an animal might; instead he found himself saddled with a profound self-awareness. As any writer can tell you, only two things issue from inescapable self-awareness: pain and art.
Conrad's writings took a darker turn, resulting in his most contentious and influential work, 'The Heart of Darkness'. While his other stories are not without death and pain, they tend towards lighter fare, none quite reaching its inexorable brooding. Doubtless this is why it garners the most attention, dealing as it does with messy issues like race, nation, and death. The author's literary catharsis leaves us raw and shocked, but then it was always Cornad's intention to use writing as a means to share real experiences with his reader.
Though often compared to other adventure fiction of the era, such as Stevenson's or Haggard's, like Melville, Conrad transcends his genre. His tight pacing and evocative, poetic prose help to elevate all of his stories, and here, his language is bolstered by an overriding, passionate, personal message. There is an ever-present thread of philosophy throughout all of Conrad's works, but rarely is it as naked and powerful.
In some ways, the great interest paid to 'Heart of Darkness' is unfortunate, as it tends to ignore the rest of his varied and masterfully-constructed oeuvre, but the vast swathes praise and criticism are not misplaced: it is a Great Book.
Instead, he took a fateful steamship voyage into deepest Africa, an experience which forever changed him. Like the protagonist of the book which his journey inspired, Conrad found horror deep in the jungles. He witnessed the cruel depth of mankind, and not in the barbaric tribes, but in the colonial whites who ruled them. Far from civilization or law, these men became utter tyrants, mad with power and answerable to no one.
Having lived under repressive colonial forces in his own troubled Ukraine, Conrad's deconstruction of this human subjugation was both sympathetic and satirical. Apparently unable to detect Conrad's sarcasm, Chinua Achebe accused him of the most profound racism. Doubtless, he was tired of his continent being defined in literature by an outsider. Why Achebe then chose to write his own, much more hopeless, racist, and sarcastic book in an attempt to replace Conrad's, it is difficult to say.
When Conrad finally emerged from Africa, he was a different man. He said of the experience that it forced him to cease simply living, like an animal might; instead he found himself saddled with a profound self-awareness. As any writer can tell you, only two things issue from inescapable self-awareness: pain and art.
Conrad's writings took a darker turn, resulting in his most contentious and influential work, 'The Heart of Darkness'. While his other stories are not without death and pain, they tend towards lighter fare, none quite reaching its inexorable brooding. Doubtless this is why it garners the most attention, dealing as it does with messy issues like race, nation, and death. The author's literary catharsis leaves us raw and shocked, but then it was always Cornad's intention to use writing as a means to share real experiences with his reader.
Though often compared to other adventure fiction of the era, such as Stevenson's or Haggard's, like Melville, Conrad transcends his genre. His tight pacing and evocative, poetic prose help to elevate all of his stories, and here, his language is bolstered by an overriding, passionate, personal message. There is an ever-present thread of philosophy throughout all of Conrad's works, but rarely is it as naked and powerful.
In some ways, the great interest paid to 'Heart of Darkness' is unfortunate, as it tends to ignore the rest of his varied and masterfully-constructed oeuvre, but the vast swathes praise and criticism are not misplaced: it is a Great Book.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
Heart of Darkness.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
January 1, 1999
–
Finished Reading
June 30, 2007
– Shelved
February 27, 2008
– Shelved as:
novel
October 24, 2008
– Shelved as:
fiction
December 13, 2009
– Shelved as:
reviewed
December 13, 2009
– Shelved as:
adventure
February 19, 2010
– Shelved as:
realism
September 4, 2010
– Shelved as:
africa
September 4, 2010
– Shelved as:
uk-and-ireland
Comments Showing 1-23 of 23 (23 new)
date
newest »


As for other stuff, I really like his short stories. There's also 'The Duel', which is a novella.

At several points in the book,the savage,ugly and black Africans are juxtaposed with the white characters in the book and Marlow prefers the blacks to the whites.Now to me,that is a harsh critic on the whites but it is still racist.Yes,the whites reading the book at that time might have been shocked that the protagonist prefers the ugly,black savages and not someone like them,it is not a compliment to natives.In this context I liked Things Fall Apart,it portrays the natives as humans with their own social customs,economic system and superstitions.Also,at instances where the natives were not juxtaposed with whites,savage and ugly was still used to describe them.That is racist according to me,but still,I don't think Conrad was a bloody racist.His intentions were good,which can perceived from the text.
I also think that Conrad treated the darkness metaphor with a heavy hand and adjectives like unspeakable,inconceivable etc cropped up a lot.
On the whole,I would have liked it more had the author portrayed how Kurtz degenerates,instead ,loses his ideals and morals which he came with and goes nuts(forgive the slang,a book with beautiful prose in general deserves a better description,howsoever,I think nuts perfectly describes my thoughts regarding the Kurtz).
Maybe that wasn't the purpose of the book,if the purpose was to bring forth the cruelty of the colonists,the book achieves that remarkably,though as a modern reader I was disappointed.Kurtz is an enigmatic character and a shroud of mystery surrounds him from the start,that built up my interest in him and before the end I was expecting some insights as to what is the right way to live,how to set your ideals,or even how not to,something in that vein.Maybe they were there and I missed them, please do mention if you noticed them.


"Marlow prefers the blacks to the whites."
I think it's important that we separate the author from the protagonist. An author can write a racist character without being a racist, just as they can write a murderous character without being a murderer. I don't think an author should have to write a progressive character in an exploration of cultural interrelationship.
I think in such situations, it's important to look at the context of presentation. If the narrative voice goes off and starts talking about race, then we can usually comfortably assume we are getting the author's opinion, but an individual character's reactions are a different matter.
I do think Marlow (and probably Conrad) are ethnocentric, because they don't have access to African culture. These are not people they can understand or interact with in a meaningful way. In that sense, Marlow preferring whites to blacks is similar to preferring Whigs to Tories--it's a question of whether they are people you can communicate with and understand. I would separate this kind of ethnocentrism from someone who expresses racial preference against someone who is otherwise similar to them and able to communicate on equal footing.
There is also the fact that the Whites are capable of being many times more savage and brutish--that outside of the watchful gaze of their culture, they become more monstrous than any native. But this portrayal is not free of racial prejudice, because to be a villain is still a powerful and central role. So which is the more demeaning, to show natives as helplessly caught up between white heroes and white villains, or to show natives only as villains, but with some agency?
In any case, Conrad is depicting a story of how White power operates in Africa and on African people, and it is not a flattering or sympathetic portrayal. And his depiction of White power relations in Africa is also a commentary on White power in Europe and across the world, as the machinations of heartless men and the deaths they cause. It is a rejection of the notion that Whites bring civilization, or that they have any moral ground superior to the people they conquer.
"I was expecting some insights as to what is the right way to live,how to set your ideals,or even how not to,something in that vein."
Yeah, I don't see this as a book that has answers for the problems it brings up. Conrad was fundamentally disturbed by what he saw, and I don't think he felt it was something he knew how to fix or make better. He felt he was seeing some fundamental core to humanity, a core of cruelty and self-interest and I don't think he felt we could fix that.
His later books have a lot of humor, and depict beauty and honor and all those things human beings construct to make the world more livable, but in this case, Conrad saw humanity stripped bare to an inescapable conflict within us, a conflict we try to cover up with civilization, but which is always there, creating struggle and strife. It's not a book with answers.

Yes, I think the point Conrad was trying to make, was that though Europeans at the time (late 1800's) often saw other cultures as "more savage" than themselves, they themselves weren't always exactly little angels and models of "civilized behavior" when it came down to the nitty gritty.
I wouldn't really say that whites are necessarily 'worse' or 'more savage' than any other race or culture, but I think Conrad wanted to show the particular irony inherent in Europeans calling Africans savages.
Authors like Conrad often bring home a point via irony.
Bottom line is that Conrad was probably as non-racist as it was possible for a man in his particular circumstances to be at that particular period of time.
Europeans simply generally were racist. But that was long ago, and things have changed in the meantime, and works like that of Conrad's may indeed have been instrumental in changing the racist eyes through which people used to look at other ethnicities, by exposing the inhumanity inherent in the way that some cultures tended to treat others.
I think Keely's summary above of the novella is an exceptionally apt and astute one, plus I just love this review so much that I actually linked to it in the comment section of my own review of the novella.

Yip, that's exactly what I said in my review.

Yeah, as I was trying to say, I think he's more ethnocentric than actually racist. He does not have direct access to African culture or knowledge. This limits his ability to represent them and their point-of-view. He is not 'racist' in the sense that he can access and understand another culture and still chooses to reject or diminish it. And yes, I think the irony of the 'savage' label is definitely a part of his analysis.
"I actually linked to it in the comment section of my own review"
Well, I'm glad you liked it enough to want to use it--very flattering.

When I mentioned Marlow preferring the natives,I didn't meant in the sense that this states something about the author's own view,I see this as a technique used by Conrad to maybe instill a sense of horror and shock the white readers,to get them to introspect their view of life.
And I say technique,because this happens at least three times and each time in a very similar way.First a grotesque portrayal of the natives is given,then the actions of some white character/characters are described,and then Marlow states that he prefers the company of natives and likes them more.
I agree with you on what this book is about,and like I said earlier,it does that well,but as it fails in other areas.For me at least,it's powerful,evocative,resonating but not great.
@Jonathan-I somewhat agree with you,I also felt that he was a bit restrained in expressing his views,his hatred was clear to me though right from the start.To elaborate more I'll need to read it again.
As for every human having a heart of darkness,every living creature is in a way selfish but I think humans are different,we have the power to reason.When we stop thinking critically we are no different from any other species,actually,we can be more lethal.A deranged mind can always limit his reasoning power to making plans to achieve his selfish aims,somewhat like Kurtz.That's why I was very much interested to know how the breakdown happens but was disappointed.
I also agree with Keely that civilization is a way tame our natural instincts and also emotions like anger,jealousy even greed,which might have been essential in helping the ancient man survive(read this in a general psychology book) but now I think that it's better for the survival of human race that we rely more on reason and become like Houyhnhms(Gulliver's travels).

"Man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all."
Our intelligence gives us the capacity to be both much greater or much worse than any other animal.
"For me at least,it's powerful, evocative, resonating but not great."
I also admit to some disappointment. I felt that with its focus on horror and negativity, it lacked depth of humanity, and perhaps that's what you're getting at when you said you were looking for answers in it--or at least alternatives.
It is a very powerful book, and it's hard to think of a more focused exploration of the dark side of humanity--perhaps Darkness at Noon--but I think it would have been more powerful and profound if he had reflected more of the possibility of man, if only to illustrate by contrast the full tragedy of the descent into evil.


I somewhat agree with that and that actually might be the real problem.His view of the natives is the same as other whites.In HOD,he does nothing to break that stereotype.Yes,he shows them the mirror that they are as savage as they think others are,like Traveller said,but he fails to show them that the natives are not as savage as the whites think they are.
HOD as a lot of positives and might have contributed in changing the racist views of Europeans,but it could have done a lot more and hence,I feel Achebe was right in questioning the place of HOD as one of the best books of English language.
He is not 'racist' in the sense that he can access and understand another culture and still chooses to reject or diminish it.
I think working on a steamboat with natives as a part of his crew,he might have had an opportunity to discover more about them.I'll need to research more about his own journey into Africa to be sure.

I suppose I tend to think that natives who were part of a steamboat crew would tend to be the most brutalized and dominated by White colonialism, and so might be reluctant subjects from which to learn about a foreign culture. In addition, Conrad was also being brutalized and alienated by the oppressive tyranny, so it seems unlikely that he would find an opportune time to reach out and have contact with natives whose would tend to expect violence and oppression from whites.

Anyhow,I don't think that Conrad was intentionally a racist,but the portrayal is definitely stereotypical,I think we agree on that.
Considering the positives and the negatives which we agree on,I can't see how this might be one of the best books.What do you think about that?
Please give me some suggestions of the books you rate the highest,I'll pick them up after I'm done with my to-read list.

I still think it's a very unique and powerful book. The force and depth of Conrad's exploration of human failings is impressive. He maintains a dark, driving tone throughout and uses deep cynicism and irony to explore his theme.
But it's a specific, narrow theme. He's trying to get to the heart of one issue: the fact that 'civilization' is a mask beneath which lie desperation and desire. He's pointing out that most people have a morality that justifies their actions, not a morality which guides them. It is a critique of colonialism, and of White power.
It is a book that strips away ideals. It is deeply cynical and it is not concerned with giving us something to believe in. It fundamentally tears down, and leaves it up to the reader what they want to build in place of that old ideal--if anything.
This is part of why I think accusations of racism are a bit off the mark. This is not a book about redeeming Africans, it's a book about tearing away the veil of sophistication that Europeans use to justify themselves. It is not a book which tries to access and explicate African culture--that was not a position Conrad had the experience to put forth--it's primarily concerned with revealing the faults in European culture.
There are some books that try to create equality by uplifting the low and revealing how they can be just as good as anyone else. The problem with this is that it tends to reinforce the ideal of superiority by trying to lift everyone up to that same level. It takes the mask for granted and tries to fit it on everyone, despite the fact that in sophistication of thought, different groups tend to have fundamental differences.
What I find more interesting is a book which strips away the ideal to reveal that we are all equally flawed, because in basic terms of desire and power relations, people tend to be very similar. Not everyone has an equal capacity for success, but we are all similar in our ability to suffer. My favorite take on feminism, The Sadeian Woman, takes the stance that we are all equally flawed.
I think the book could have presented a more complex picture--as some of Conrad's later work does--but it is hard to imagine a work that is more focused and driven.
***
As for suggestions, I suppose it depends what you're looking for. There are a lot of books I am very fond of, but which I would hesitate to suggest lightly, since many of them are complex, arduous, stylistically unusual, and ensconced in genres which some readers don't prefer. You can always look through my shelf, sorted by rating, or let me know if there are specific styles, genres, or themes that interest you.

I'll be 100% honest and admit that I haven't read Achebe's essay: An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness' yet, so I'm trying to make up for that lack and fitting it into my reading programme.
To the participants of this thread: Thanks for all your interesting and well-thought-out comments, it's been a pleasure to read your thoughts and ideas so far. :)

I was thinking of something very similar to this,but as of now I don't know which one I prefer.I'll put The Sadeian Woman on my to-buy list.Looking forward to more discussions with you.
@Traveller-I think you should,Achebe puts forth some good arguments.Although,I agree with him,I still don't think Conrad was a racist as he claims him to be.
Do tell me your thoughts after reading it.
And I'm glad you enjoyed the thread.

I was thinking of something very similar to this,but as of now I don't know which one I prefer.I'll put The Sadeia..."
Akash! Hey, interesting you should pop up, because you got me onto reading this essay by Achebe and his stuff has been bothering me, man!
In fact, it bothered me so much I haven't slept half the night, and I'm writing a long piece about this very issue - about Conrad and the varieties of racism and attitudes towards other cultures and and and..and it's really heavy stuff, because we all live in a world filled with different cultures, and you have to face the facts that maybe people (writers or other artists) whose art you like, could be racist, and then you start wondering... anyway, I say it all in a comment on a book of Achebe's essays; and I'll link from here to what I'm writing there when I'm done.
Anyway while pondering this question during the night, first I came to the conclusion that Conrad was indeed a variety of racist, but then I got to thinking even more, which brought me onto the whole issue of different kinds of racism and sexism and prejudices and attitudes. Not nice stuff to be rolling around in your mind when you should be sleeping, oi!
Talk again later. :)

I read the comment you made on Things Fall Apart and that has made me even more curious to read your views on the essay.But don't lose your sleep,a good REM sleep facilitates the cognitive process.

I read the comment you made on Things Fall Apart a..."
Hehe, yes, I decided to sit on the review a bit, because I'm probably being guilty of exactly the same thing I feel Achebe might be doing in the essay. I feel he might have been reacting angrily to language that I must agree, in some places does feel pretty racist, offensively so, in one place especially. (The description of the black guy who has been 'trained' to stoke the steam engine.)
Much as I am aware that European culture of the time was pretty ethno-centric, that particular description does come across as particularly offensive to me.
I find the whole diatribe about the 2 rivers rather silly though. I'll elaborate on that aspect more when I dare to post my review, which won't be before tomorrow, as I fear I'm indeed pretty tired today and probably not thinking clearly as a result.

I agree with you on the river thing,I actually like the comparison Conrad makes.African natives were lagging in technology and knowledge of the world,that is a fact,so the continent was dark in that sense.
What I don't like is that Conrad doesn't portray the human potential the natives had.
I hope you get a good sleep and finish your review tomorrow.

I personally found at times that despite the raw beauty and power of Conrad's prose here that his work seemed disjointed at times. This I believed was more perceived by my mind because of the ambiguous nature of his work. I wonder whether the fact that Conrad could not at the time state outright his anger at colonialism influences this aspect of his work for me. Because despite the power of the work I sensed a sort of confusion in the writing as if he were holding back from truly stating his opinion.
In discussion of the so called racism it must be noted that Conrad also makes his European characters into savages and brutes. And when compared to similar novels written at the same time his work is more a portrayal of what white supremacy has done to this region of Africa rather than a novel that is racist. It features racism to be sure but that is more to show how people were treated in my view.