How many of you have read this book? I just finished writing an essay 'Discuss the proposition that Heart of Darkness is a racist novel' and now I'm kinda curious about what other people think... So, if you've read the book, do you think it's racist, or do you think that it's just a product of its time and it only reflects the views of the era? And for those who haven't read the book... Read it. It's really really good.
i never read it..but the bbc did a program about it yrs ago, its darkness is haunting me still.. hope its relevant.. is it hard going to read ? its free here then get a free text reader.. http://www.planetpdf.com/ebookarticle.asp?ContentID=6142 i never kept it on tape.. i will one day.. Africa was never like this.. spurned Apocolypse Now ! a classic !
Racist? It revealed to me that 'The Heart of Darkness' lives within our own hearts. I strongly recommend Margret Atwood's, 'The Poison Wood Bible'. Margret is the author of the famous, 'A Handmaiden's Tale'. 'The Poison Wood Bible' is about the strange evolution of a christian fundamentalist missionary family in the Congo at the time of independence from the European Colonialists. Sorry, my mistake, Barbara Kingsolver wrote 'The Poisonwood Bible', NOT Margaret Atwood.
Heart of Darkness has been criticised of being racist, especially this Nigerian guy called Chinua Achebe. He wrote an essay about Conrad being a racist back in the 70's. I can kinda understand where he's coming from, but then again... the book was written in the end of the 19th century and the whole white supremacism thing was still pretty strong and the general attitudes towards Africans were very different from what they are now, so I guess it's pretty understandable why Conrad's views are the way they are. I mean... racism is racism in only certain context right? And anyway... I think the book is more about the criticism towards imperialism than about racial issues... Anyhooo... I love Margaret Atwood, she's such an amazing author. Her books are great.
I read it and agree with the above poster. It's only racist in today's politically correct eyes. It's not about racism at all, and it's ridiculous to even suggest that. It's just the way it was back then. And anyone who says it's racist completely missed the point, and consequently missed out on a really great tale of psyche exploration. If it was written today, perhaps it would have appeared more like Apocolypse Now. Do you think Apocolypse now was racist?
Conrad would very likely be judged racist today, as FNA says above, by politically correct notions. But I don't think Heart of Darkness is racist at all. More so is the provocative title of '****** of the Narcisuss', but again, this is not racist by the standards of Conrad's day. And like all Conrad's work, its very high quality writing.
Actually i had to do the same paper about the same topic. I asserted that Achebe was way off the mark and that Conrad was not racist. I got a 98 or 100 on it so if you want it... hehe... you can buy it from me... Just kidding, but i'll post it anywas it is only about a page. By the Way, the movie Apocalypse Now is basically an adapted version of this book, set differently of course, but it has the same plot and the like. here is a grade A paper, as reated by my prof. : Heart of Darkness There are many instances in “Heart of Darkness” where Marlow’s (Conrad’s) observations are influenced by the shock of his placement in a totally unfamiliar situation. It is this confusion mixed with unmitigated prejudice and admiration that can give the appearance of “thoroughgoing racism”. I however, refute Achebe’s assertion on Conrad’s character, both fictional and moral. Marlow calls Africa “the other world” and refers to the incoming as “wanderers on a prehistoric earth… an unknown planet. (Conrad 37)” Achebe uses this other world reference as a way to insinuate that Marlow views it as bad or “ugly”, but it is more the disorientation of the scene that “cut [us] off from the comprehension of our surroundings”, which holds meaning in the perception of “the other world”. In the same passage a seemingly unearthly earth strikes Marlow because he is “accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a monster,” but instead sees something “monstrous and free.” Now obviously Achebe will look at the statement and be concerned with the use of monster, but taken in the context of both the passage and the entire novel, Conrad is being neither racist nor degrading. The unearthly earth is still earth is it not? The appearance alone can be misleading, but it must still be earth. Conrad says that “the men were… No they were not inhuman.” meaning that they are human, but manipulated forms that Marlow’s kind aren’t “accustomed to look upon”. Kurtz’s natives are the “monstrous and free” and equal in the human right but not in familiarity. If we can move past semantics like Achebe cannot than we can see that the natives and the pilgrims are primitive in there own ways, illustrating that unflattering terms are applied to both parties by Conrad, some more subtly than others. Marlow says he has seen “the devil of greed, and the devil of hot desire…that swayed and drove men—men, I tell you.” These men, real men, are victim to this “pitiless folly” that ivory brings. The men are bloodthirsty and stupid, to be very un-Conrad with my blatancy. The true prejudice comes from the “pilgrims on deck getting out their rifles with an air of anticipating a jolly lark”, not from Marlow however who goes on to call the entire deck an “imbecile crowd”. In fact Marlow is even dumbstruck (struck dumb!) when the realization hits that the cannibals, in a dazzling show of “Restraint! (43)” have not devoured his crew. He uses “unfathomable enigma” to describe this willpower the cannibals possess. I am sure he is thankful they have not devoured his crew, but the true shock and admiration are seen coming from Marlow. He rarely has anything wonderful to say about the lower white men. The women characters in “Heart of Darkness” play interesting roles, and to quote the man whose stance I share, C.P. Sarvon “Achebe…alleged that the contrast made between the two women who loved Kurtz…was highly prejudiced. (Sarvon, 255)” I agree with Achebe only here; Conrad speaks of the “Intended” as a loquacious bother too self absorbed in her own sorrow and importance that is just pitiful. The native woman however has a commanding presence, even with out speaking, but through mysterious actions. By throwing her arms “rigid above her head as in an uncontrollable desire to touch the sky”, Marlow says she makes shadows dart out from the earth and a silence emerges. She is the only women in the short novel to be an independent figure, the two women in the beginning are performing the age old ‘women’s deed’ of knitting. Of course the prominent white woman in this novel is a mess, and even causes Marlow to lie, and the notion of lying “appalls” Marlow, even makes him “sick like biting something rotten would do. (29)” This is his most striking and out front statement of hate and disgust throughout, and it turns out that he performs this heinous act himself. Either way, the last time we read of the mystery native woman she isn’t even present except in the memory of Marlow. As he is speaking with the Intended, in a fit of sadness, “she put out here arms…stretching them back. Never see him! I saw him (Kurtz of course) clearly enough then. I shall see this eloquent phantom as long as I live and I shall see her (Intended) too, a tragic and familiar Shade resembling in this gesture another one, tragic also and bedecked with powerless charms, stretching bare brown arms over the glitter of the infernal stream, the stream of darkness. (75)” His admiration for Kurtz seems here to extend to his native lover and her bronze arms, but that of “dull anger” is directed to the Intended, which then yields to his pity. I cannot agree with Achebe’s assertion that Conrad, or his character was a “thoroughgoing racist”. Marlow was as equally judgmental to character as he was indifferent and shocked by the strange people and surroundings about him. yeah that.
