Joseph Conrad- Essay, Research Paper
Joseph Conrad-
Conrad’s novel, Heart of Darkness, relies on the historical period
of imperialism in order to describe its protagonist, Charlie Marlow,
and his struggle. Marlow’s catharsis in the novel, as he goes to the
Congo, rests on how he visualizes the effects of imperialism. This
paper will analyze Marlow’s “change,” as caused by his exposure to the
imperialistic nature of the historical period in which he lived.
Marlow is asked by “the company”, the organization for whom he
works, to travel to the Congo river and report back to them about Mr.
Kurtz, a top notch officer of theirs. When he sets sail, he doesn’t
know what to expect. When his journey is completed, this little “trip”
will have changed Marlow forever!
Heart of Darkness is a story of one man’s journey through the
African Congo and the “enlightenment” of his soul. It begins with
Charlie Marlow, along with a few of his comrades, cruising aboard the
Nellie, a traditional sailboat. On the boat, Marlow begins to tell of
his experiences in the Congo. Conrad uses Marlow to reveal all the
personal thoughts and emotions that he wants to portray while Marlow
goes on this “voyage of a lifetime”.
Marlow begins his voyage as an ordinary English sailor who is
traveling to the African Congo on a “business trip”. He is an
Englishmen through and through. He’s never been exposed to any
alternative form of culture, similar to the one he will encounter in
Africa, and he has no idea about the drastically different culture
that exists out there.
Throughout the book, Conrad, via Marlow’s observations, reveals to
the reader the naive mentality shared by every European. Marlow as
well, shares this naivet in the beginning of his voyage. However,
after his first few moments in the Congo, he realizes the ignorance he
and all his comrades possess. We first recognize the general naivet
of the Europeans when Marlow’s aunt is seeing him for the last time
before he embarks on his journey. Marlow’s aunt is under the
assumption that the voyage is a mission to “wean those ignorant
millions from their horrid ways”(18-19). In reality, however, the
Europeans are there in the name of imperialism and their sole
objective is to earn a substantial profit by collecting all the ivory
in Africa.
Another manifestation of the Europeans obliviousness towards
reality is seen when Marlow is recounting his adventure aboard the
Nellie. He addresses his comrades who are on board saying:
“When you have to attend to things of that sort, to the mere incidents
of the surface, the reality–the reality I tell you—fades.
The inner truth is hidden luckily, luckily. But I felt it all the
same; I felt often its mysterious stillness watching over me at my
monkey tricks, just as it watches you fellows performing on your
respective tight ropes for—what is it? half a crown a
tumble—(56).”
What Marlow is saying is that while he is in the Congo, although
he has to concentrate on the petty little everyday things, such
as overseeing the repair of his boat, he is still aware of what is
going on around him and of the horrible reality in which he is in
the midst of. On the other hand, his friends on the boat simply don’t
know of these realities. It is their ignorance, as well as their
innocence which provokes them to say “Try to be civil, Marlow”(57).
Not only are they oblivious to the reality which Marlow is exposed to,
but their naivet is so great, they can’t even comprehend a place
where this ’so called’ reality would even be a bad dream! Hence, their
response is clearly rebuking the words of a “savage” for having said
something so ridiculous and “uncivilized”.
Quite surprisingly, this mentality does not pertain exclusively to
the Englishmen in Europe. At one point during Marlow’s voyage down the
Congo, his boat hits an enormous patch of fog. At that very instant, a
“very loud cry” is let out(66). After Marlow looks around and makes
sure everything is all right, he observes the contrasts of the whites
and the blacks expressions.
It was very curious to see the contrast of expression of the white
men and of the black fellows of our crew, who were as much strangers
to this part of the river as we, though their homes were only eight
hundred miles away. The whites, of course greatly discomposed, had
besides a curious look of being painfully shocked by such an
outrageous row. The others had an alert, naturally interested
expression; but their faces were essentially quiet… (67).
Once again, we see the simple-mindedness of the Europeans, even if
they were exposed to reality. Their mentality is engraved in their
minds and is so impliable, that even the environment of the Congo
can’t sway their belief that people simply don’t do the horrible
things Marlow recounts. The whites are dumbfounded and can not
comprehend how people, in this case the natives, would simply attack
these innocent people. That would just be wrong! The blacks, however,
who are cognizant of the reality in which they live, are “essentially
quiet”. They feel right at home, and are not phased by the shriek.
Similarly, the difference of mentalities is shown when Marlow
speaks of the portion of his crew who are cannibals. While in the
midst of his journey, Marlow, quite casually, converses with these
cannibals; even about their animalistic ways! As Jacques Berthoud said
so accurately in his Joseph Conrad, “what would be nspeakable horror
in London…becomes, on the Congo river, an unremarkable topic of
conversation…”(47). These “unspeakable horrors” are hardly
unspeakable in the Congo because they are normal occurrences there.
On the Nellie, Marlow explains to his comrades, the basic difference
between living in Europe, and being in the Congo. He states:
“You can’t understand. How could you? With solid pavement under your
feet, surrounded by kind neighbors ready to cheer you
or to fall you, stepping delicately between the butcher and the
policeman, in the holy terror of scandal and gallows and lunatic
asylums—how can you imagine what particular region of the first ages
a man’s untrammeled feet may take him into by the way
of solitude—utter solitude without a policeman—by the way of
silence utter silence, where no warning voice of a kind
neighbor can be heard whispering of public opinion(82)?”
In Europe, there are “kind neighbors” who are there to make sure
that everything is all right. The European lives his life “stepping
delicately between the butcher and the policeman”. Everywhere he
looks, there is always someone there who can “catch him if he is
falling”. On the other hand, once a man enters the Congo, he is all
alone. No policeman, no “warning voice of a kind neighbor”…no one!
It is now when Marlow enters the Congo and begins his voyage, that he
realizes the environment he comes from is not reality, and the only
way he is going to discover reality is to keep going up the river…
There is one specific theme in Heart of Darkness in which the
reader can follow Marlow’s evolution from the “everyday European” to a
man who realizes his own naivet and finally to his uncovering of his
own reality. This evolution comes about as a direct result of Marlow’s
observations of how things are named. This sounds very unusual, that a
man would find his true reality by observing the names of certain
things. However, it is precisely these observations which change
Marlow forever. Marlow first realizes the European’s flaw of not being
able to give something a name of significance, in the beginning of his
voyage, when he has not quite reached the Congo, but he is extremely
close.
Once, I remember, we came upon a man of war anchored off the
coast. There wasn’t even a shed there, and she was shelling the bush.
It appears the French had one of their wars going on there-abouts. Her
ensign dropped like a limp rag; the muzzles of the long six inch guns
stuck out all over the low hull; the greasy, slimy swell swung her up
lazily and let her down, swaying her thin masts. In the empty
immensity of earth, sky, and water, there she was, incomprehensible,
firing into a continent. Pop, would go one of the six inch guns; a
small flame would dart and vanish, a little white smoke would
disappear, a tiny projectile would give a feeble screech—and nothing
happened. Nothing could happen. There was a touch of insanity in the
proceeding, a sense of lugubrious drollery in the sight; and it was
not dissipated by somebody on board assuring me earnestly there was a
camp of natives—he called them enemies!—hidden out of sight
somewhere (21).
Conrad is teaching us something extremely important. Berthoud
points out that the “intelligibility of what men do depends upon
the context in which they do it.” Marlow is watching this occurrence.
He sees the Europeans firing “tiny projectiles” and their cannons
producing a “pop”. The Europeans, however, see themselves fighting an
all out war against the savage enemies in the name of imperialism! The
Europeans feel that this is an honorable battle, and therefore, all
get emotionally excited and fight with all they have. Marlow, however,
sees it differently. He is now in Africa where reality broods. It’s
lurking everywhere. The only thing one has to do to find it is open
his mind to new and previously ‘unheard’ of ideas. He looks at this
event and reduces it from the European’s image of a supposedly intense
battle, with smoke and enemies everywhere, to a futile firing of “tiny
projectiles “into an empty forest. For the first time, Marlow
recognizes the falsity of the European mentality, and their inability
to characterize an event for what it is. At the end of the passage,
his fellow European crewmember is assuring Marlow that the allied ship
is defeating the “enemies”, and that they just couldn’t see the
“enemies” because they were “hidden out of sight somewhere”. In
actuality, they’re shooting at innocent natives who have probably fled
from the area of battle already. Marlow is beginning to realize that
“what makes sense in Europe no longer makes sense in Africa”(Berthoud.
46).
With that passage, Conrad informs the reader of Marlow’s
realization. From that point on, Marlow is looking to corroborate if
in actuality, the mentality instilled upon him in Europe is similar to
this, or if those are atypical Europeans who are living in a dream
world. As the novel continues, Marlow recognizes that this flaw of not
being able to see something for what it is, and in turn, not being
able to give it an accurate “label”, is indeed “the European way”.
There are some names given by the Europeans that simply don’t fit
the characteristic of the object being named. Marlow points out that
the name ‘Kurtz’ means short in German. However, at Marlow’s first
glance at Kurtz, he remarks how Kurtz appears to be “seven feet
long”(101). Conrad shows us, through Marlow’s observation, how Kurtz’s
name is just a blatant oxy-moron. Marlow recognizes yet another
obvious misrepresentation. Marlow meets a man who is called the
“bricklayer”. However, as Marlow himself points out, “there wasn’t a
fragment of a brick anywhere in the station”(39).
During his voyage, however, Marlow doesn’t only observe this
misnaming, but realizes the importance of a name. While overhearing a
conversation between the manager of the station and his uncle, he
hears Mr. Kurtz being refereed to as “that man”(53). Although Marlow
hasn’t met Kurtz yet, he has heard of his greatness. He now realizes
that by these men calling him “that man”, they strip him of all his
attributes. When one hears Kurtz, they think of a ” very remarkable
person”(39). These men are now, by not referring to him by his name,
denying Kurtz’s accomplishments.
This same idea of distorting a person’s character by changing his
name is displayed elsewhere. The Europeans apply the terms ‘enemy’ and
‘criminals’ to the natives. In actuality, they are simply “bewildered
and helpless victims…and moribund shadows”(Berthoud. 46). Clearly,
the injustice done by the simple misnaming of someone is unbelievable.
After witnessing all of these names which bare no true meaning, as
well as possibly degrade a person’s character, Marlow understands that
he can not continue in his former ways of mindlessly giving random
names to something in fear of diminishing the essence of the
recipient. As a result, Marlow finds himself unable to label something
for what it is. While under attack, Marlow reefers to the arrows being
shot in his direction as “sticks, little sticks”, and a spear being
thrown at his boat “a long cane”(75–77). When Marlow arrives at the
inner station, he sees “slim posts…in a row” with their “ends
ornamented with round carved balls”(88). In truth, these are poles
with skulls on top of them. Marlow can formulate a name even for the
simplest of things.
Taking a step back and looking at his voyage, Marlow realizes the
insignificant, mindless, meaningless ‘labels’ which the Europeans use
to identify with something, and he wants to be able to “give to
experience, names that have some substance”. At this point, he is
similar to Adam in the Garden of Eden who is “watching the parade of
nameless experience” go by. However, Marlow is missing an essential
thing which Adam possessed. As opposed to Adam, who was delegated by
G-d to name experiences, Marlow lacked this authority to name. It is
Kurtz who will become this authority, and eventually teach Marlow the
essence of a name(Johnson. 76).
Mr. Kurtz is the Chief of the Inner Station. He is a “universal
genius, a prodigy, an emissary of pity science and progress”(40-45).
It is Kurtz who will teach Marlow what a name is, for one simple
reason…
“The man presented himself as a voice…of all his gifts, the one that
stood out preeminently, that carried with it a sense of real
presence, was his ability to talk, his words—the gift of expression,
the bewildering, the illuminating…(79).”
Kurtz was “little more than a voice”(80), but there was no one with a
voice like his. He could speak with remarkable eloquence, he could
write with such precision… he could name with true meaning! “You
don’t talk with that man[Kurtz], you listen to him”(90)! Marlow has
heard enough about Kurtz, in this case from his devoted pupil, to know
that it is he who can provide Marlow with the authority to offer
“correct and substantial names”(Johnson. 76).
Indeed, Kurtz gives Marlow everything Marlow is looking for. However,
he does it in a very unconventional way. Kurtz teaches Marlow the
lesson with his last words. “The horror! The horror!”(118). These last
words are Kurtz’s own judgment, judgment on the life which he has
lived. He is barbarous, unscrupulous, and possibly even evil. However,
he has evaluated at his life, and he has “pronounced a judgment upon
the adventures of his soul on this earth”(118). Marlow sees Kurtz
“open his mouth wide—it gave him a weirdly voracious aspect, as
though he wanted to swallow all the air, all the earth, all the men
before him…”(101). Kurtz takes everything in. He takes his life, and
puts it all out on the table. “He had summed up— he had judged…The
horror!”(119).
Kurtz’s last words is his way of teaching Marlow the essence of a
name. A name is not merely a label. It is one man’s own judgment of an
isolated event. However, unlike the Europeans who judge based on
already existing principles which they have ‘acquired’, Kurtz taught
Marlow to look inside of himself and to judge based on his own
subjective creeds. While Marlow is recounting the story, he says to
his comrades:
“He must meet that truth with his own true stuff—with his own inborn
strength. Principles won’t do. Acquisitions, clothes, pretty
rags—rags that would fly off at the first good shake. No; you want a
deliberate belief. An appeal to me in this fiendish row—is
there? Very well; I hear; I admit, but have a voice too, and for good
or evil mine is the voice that can not be silenced (60).”
This is the lesson which Marlow has learned. Objective standards
alone will not lead one to recognize the reality in something. One can
not only depend on anther’s principles to find his reality in
something because they have not had to bear the pain and
responsibility of creating it. Principles are usually acquisitions,
which like other things we acquire rather than generate, like clothes
are easily shaken off. The power of speech which will sustain a man is
the power to create or affirm for one’s self a deliberate, or a chosen
belief (Bruce Johnson. 79).
This judgment must be from one’s own internal strengths. That is
why Marlow says, “for good or evil, mine is the speech that can not be
silenced”. As Kurtz has taught him with his own judgment, a judgment
of truth overpowers morality. To find one’s own reality, one must not
rely solely on other people’s morality, others people’s ‘principles’
and he must assess his own life. What Kurtz did is that he showed that
regardless of whether the truth is good or bad, one must face up to
his reality. He must face up to his own actions even when the
conclusion is “the horror”, and by doing so, he will find his true
reality.
Marlow understands that being true to yourself is not following
anther’s moral code, but being able to judge one’s self honestly and
uncover their own reality. It is because of this understanding that
Marlow claims that Kurtz’s last words is “a moral victory paid for by
innumerable defeats…”(120). Despite Kurtz’s immoral ways, he is
victorious because he didn’t run away from the truth; and that is his
moral victory. He is true to himself.!
On his voyage, Marlow notices at one of the stations, a picture
that Kurtz had drawn when he was there. It is a “sketch in oils on a
panel representing a woman draped and blindfolded, carrying a lighted
torch. The background was sombre—almost black”(40). At the time,
Marlow didn’t really know what it meant. However, this is a precise
representation of Kurtz himself. Firstly, the background was
“sombre—almost black”. This is a manifestation of Kurtz because his
life is full of darkness. He kills, he steals, and he is worshipped as
a god. Kurtz cannot be without blackness and survive. In addition, the
picture displays the lesson itself. It is a picture of the lady of
justice holding a torch. This is Kurtz’s role. Unlike Europe, which
imposes their principles upon others, he is merely there to
“illuminate”(79). Kurtz is there to expand the peoples minds, to
introduce them to a broad new spectrum of reality. However, he does
not impose his own reality upon them. Hence, he is blindfolded in the
picture. To him, they make a subjective decision and they find their
own truth, regardless of what that truth may be. That is his lesson.
Eventually Marlow realizes that Kurtz’s picture was in essence, a
self portrait. The same thing which Kurtz conveyed with ‘the horror’,
he conveyed with this picture. Marlow’s realization is evident with
this remark. “I don’t like work—no man does—but I like what’s in
the work—the chance to find yourself. Your own reality—for
yourself, not for others”(47).
Marlow learns the essence of ‘naming’ and understands what it
means to ‘be yourself’. However, Marlow has encountered two extremes.
The European mentality, which is completely oblivious to reality, and
Kurtz, a man who has found his reality, but it is one of horror and no
restraint from any wrongdoing. He is now returning to his home to deal
with his former world, however, he now possesses his new
‘understanding’. Marlow cannot return to his previous ‘European ways’
simply because he has ‘been enlightened’ and lost his naivet.
However, why can’t he adapt Kurtz’s ways and live the other extreme?
At one point, Marlow had “peeped over the edge”(119). Why didn’t he
‘jump over’?
Marlow is repelled from joining Kurtz for several reasons. Firstly,
Kurtz had “kicked himself loose from the earth…he had kicked the
earth to pieces. He was alone, and I[Marlow] before him did not know
whether I stood on the ground or floated in the air”(112). Kurtz had
denied any sort of moral convictions in order to be worshipped as a
god. Because of this unmonitered power, Kurtz lost all sense of
restraint and became the savage that he was. Marlow, however, has not
lost his sense of morality. What Marlow rejected in Kurtz was the
“complete absence in Kurtz of any innate or transcendental sanctions”
(Johnson. 99).
It is because of Marlow’s rejection of both the Europeans, who
Marlow claims are full of “stupid importance”, and of Kurtz’s
inability to establish his own moral code, that Marlow chooses an
“alternative reality”(Berthoud. 60). The first time the reader
witnesses Marlow’s choice and becomes a centrist, is when he first
gets back to Europe. Marlow finds himself resenting the way the
Europeans went about their life, “hurrying through the streets to
filch a little money from each other…”(120).Not only did he find
their lives meaningless, but he mocked them to himself. “I had no
particular desire to enlighten them, but I had some difficulty
restraining myself from laughing in their faces so full of stupid
importance… I tottered about the streets…grinning bitterly at
perfectly respectable people. I admit my behavior was inexcusable…”
(120). Although Marlow looked down upon these Europeans, he says
something remarkable. He judged his own actions and found them
‘inexcusable’. This is his manifestation of breaking away from Kurtz’s
extreme. Unlike Kurtz who lacked all restraint and would never find
looking down on people bad, Marlow realized that he couldn’t hold it
against them simply because they didn’t know better. Clearly, Marlow
is edging toward a ‘middle ground’.
Despite this act of judgment, the reader doesn’t know exactly
where Marlow stands. However, Marlow does something that is the
quintessential act of affirmation that he has chose the middle of the
two extremes. While aboard the Nellie, Marlow tells his comrades that
“I hate, detest, and can’t bear a lie…simply because it appalls me.
There is a taint of death, a flavor of mortality in lies…”(44).
Towards the end of the novel, Marlow is invited by Kurtz’s fiancee to
go to her house to speak of her beloved Kurtz. Upon her asking Marlow
what his last words were, Marlow responded “The last word he
pronounced was—your name”(131). He lies to her. He does something he
utterly detests. This is the event that convinces the reader of
Marlow’s uptaking of a middle position. He does look inside himself
and use his own personal ability to judge this event. He does what
Kurtz had told him. Despite his abhorrence of lies, he judges this
situation and decides that it was right to lie. However, he is
different from Kurtz. Kurtz did judge every event independently,
however, he does it solely based on his own whims. He could
not incorporate any objective principles whatsoever in making his
decision. Marlow does judge every event independently, however, he can
not rely solely on his own creeds. Regardless of his decision, he will
always incorporate some objective principles into his judgment. Marlow
now creates his ‘alternative reality’ and achieves his truth.
When Marlow was exposed to the imperialistic environment of the
congo, it had a tremendous effect upon him. The protagonist of
Conrad’s novel undergoes a drastic change in response to his
environment, common only to that specific time period. Kurtz shows
Marlow the flaws in the Europeans imperialistic ideals. Kurtz sees the
meaninglessness of European standards of the time, and therefore
changes his entire perception and behavior.