Heart of Darkness Part II Discussion
Please post a question, comment, or significant quotation about Part II of Heart of Darkness by Monday, April 14th. Also comment on one other post by Tuesday, April 15th.
posted by mferrill | 3:39 PM
19 Comments:
Does Marlow believe in the white man's burden and feel he has a responsibility to civilize the savages or does he believe that they can live however they want? Or does he not have an opinion and just want the adventure?
Fairly early on in part II, Marlow comments on the fate of the manager’s uncle and his gang:
“In a few days the Eldorado Expedition went into the patient wilderness, that closed upon it as the sea closes over a diver. Long afterwards the news came that all the donkeys were dead. I know nothing as to the fate of the less valuable animals. They, no doubt, like the rest of us, found what they deserved.”
This passage interested me, because I feel it may exemplify a slow moral transformation occurring within the novella’s protagonist. Although the members of the Eldorado Expedition arguably deserve their fate for plotting to rid themselves of Kurtz, it seems to me that Marlow is expressing a certain joy or at least satisfaction in their demise. Is this attitude of moral superiority indicative of a character flaw within the protagonist? Does Marlow have a right to judge the manager’s uncle and his crew to the point of commenting that they deserve death?
In Marlow's meeting with Kurtz' wife, Kurtz' last words appear in quotations, but his wife continues to ask for Kurtz' last words. Does Marlow actually say these words? If he says them aloud, does Kurtz' Intended's reaction justify his belief that women can't comprehend the evils of life?
Shortly after the native tribe crowds around Kurtz' stretcher, Marlow contemplates the meaning of Kurtz' name: "Kurtz--Kurtz--that means short in German--don't it?" Why did Marlow drop his formal tone by saying don't instead of doesn't?
Why is it that the screech of the whistle caused the savages to run but the firing of guns did not? Did not Kurtz attack with guns and pistols as referred to in Part III as the “thunderbolts of that pitiful Jupiter?” And were the colonist on board adamantly opposed to Marlow blowing the whistle just because they wanted to shoot some savages?
I think that in Part I, Marlow revealed through his negative view of colonization and his disapproval of his aunts motives for signing up for navigating in the Congo that he does not really approve of the White Man's burden. However, Marlow still views the African inhabitants as savages. Although he may just be going with the common view at the time, he is still putting himself above them. This makes one stop and consider that even though Marlow may disapprove the white man's burden, he still believes in white superiority. Taking this into consideration, it would be interesting to know Conrad's view of the white man's burden and white superiority and how it ties into his theme of the heart of darkness. Conrad compares Marlow to the the Manager, Kurtz, the Russian, and Kurtz intended to bring out many contrasting views on these three topics. However, Marlow's dynamic progression also hints at a slight change in perspective. Which side is Conrad on? Is he firm in his decision or open to persuasion from either outside influences or his own inner heart of darkness?
When Marlow is on the steamer and the food has all but run out, he says, "don't you know the devilry of lingering starvation, its exasperating torment, its black thoughts, its sombre and brooding ferocity? Well I do. It takes a man all his inborn strength to fight hunger properly. It's really easier to face bereavement, dishonour, and the perdition of one's soul"(70). Does Marlow value or see more importance from his physical life than his spiritual life. Could this journey into the jungle really just be Marlow searching himself? (By the way, perdition means damnation or ruin, so keep that in mind.)
In response to Brian's comment, I absolutely believe that this novella centers on Marlow's search for himself, especially in a spiritual sense. Heart of Darkness has already been compared to Dante's Inferno, in which the protagonist goes through a similar moral journey and demonstrates many of the same emotions.
In relation to my earlier post, Marlow's wrath toward the members of the Eldorado Expedition parallels a particular scene towards the end of the Inferno, when Dante torments one of the damned souls in the ninth circle of Hell after he refuses to tell Dante his name. In both cases, the soul-searching protagonists exhibit wrath towards those who they believe they are morally superior to - this is ironic because the protagonists are, in a sense, displaying the same moral depravity they claim to deplore.
My question is more personal: Do we ever feel like Marlow? Do we ever feel like we're simply traveling deeper into the depths of something we don't understand, a force that literally overtakes us? This something could be anything from friends to our greatest fears.
What greater ideal does Kurtz represent?
In response to cory c, I think everyone feels this way at one time or another. It is part of the human experience and is expressed in Hamlet.
What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason!
how infinite in faculty! … the beauty of the
world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me,
what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not
(yes, the cartoon reminded me of this passage)
The conflict of man being a flamboyant show, but hollow and barbaric deep down is something all artists must face at one time or another.
When the steamboat's crew hears the cries of the natives coming from the mist, Marlow notes how the natives "had given me an irrestible impression of sorrow. The glimpse of the steamboat had for some reason filled those savages with unrestrained grief" (72). What is the cause for this great sadness? What does a steamboat symbolize to these native people? Later, the Russian man Marlow meets tells him that the natives attacked him because they did not want Kurtz to leave. How has Kurtz come to have so much power over them that they would fight to keep him with them?
I have a response to Corey's question. I think his question is one of the themes and moral issues that Joseph Conrad tries to explore with this novel. The entire experience is not only a physical exploration but an exploration into any person's soul. Life itself at times feels like one is traveling into something unexplainable and uncharted. But there is that intense unreasonable draw to keep treading deeper into it and not knowing why? I relate to and understand Marlow's uncontrollable need to go deeper into the darkness. It’s human nature but also on a metaphysical level it’s a personal experience that keeps a person alive. It’s how a person discovers who they are and why they are there. For Marlow, it’s no longer a matter of civilizing the savages, but of understanding life in its simplest form so as to understand it on a more complex level. He realizes that contrary to his initial belief, he has more to learn from the land and people then they have to learn from him. Any person can relate. It’s scary and unpredictable but Marlow will keep traveling into the darkness and learning about life with the simple teachers of Africa.
I too can identify with Corey’s question because many times I feel as if my life is guided by a force that doesn’t slow down and I may not know where I’m going, but like Marlow, I know I must complete my voyage. I agree with Kaitlin too in what she says about how Joseph Conrad was exploring the moral values as well as surface conflicts. That is why I believe this novel is considered one the best short stories. There is depth in what Conrad writes. By looking at the novel through Marlow’s eyes, we are able to have a personal connection and a positive reaction to Marlow based on his actions and what he encounters. Marlow is pulled further into the depths of the unknown and that’s where he begins to test himself. As humans, we cannot grow if we are not challenged. Being pulled into the unknown can be terrifying, but can be very rewarding.
However, my question is whether or not Marlow himself will begin to show traits or inhabit the “darkness” the further he travels into the “heart of darkness.” Otherwise will he become more enlighten from his experience? The novel is a frame story, and Marlow is sharing his story with the men on his current voyage which leaves me to wonder if Marlow feels the need to share his story about Kurtz to warn people about the nature of evil that is contained deep inside all humans or to sulk in his own sin from a voyage ending badly. As I finished the novel, I’m curious to see if Marlow’s character stands up the growing struggle between “light” and “darkness.”
In response to Cory, of course we all do. If you have never felt lost, confused, and unsure about yourself, then you must be not be alive. Every situation presents us with at least some sort of question, if id didn't then there would be nothing to learn from and no plot to life. Marlow has a tough journey ahead of him and has already gone through a lot of trials, but if someone was to read a script about any of our lives, they would be able to analyze and tear apart any of us.
In response to Kaitlin:
I don't think Marlow believes in the White Man's Burden, especially because of the way he describes his silly aunt who does. He seems to think it's immature and unrealistic. Marlow doesn't seem to have an opinion regarding all savages; instead he's just an observer. He observes the cannibals as man-eating but self controlled, and he observes the heads upon the posts near Kurtz's house, and he observes the death tree with the man with the white cloth around his neck. Marlow seems to be in it only for Kurtz and for the adventure.
In response to brianc, I think Marlow's journey is, as kaitlinb argues, an exploration of Marlow's most simple, primal influences. Hunger is such a basic human experience, such an overpowering feeling, that it overshadows such hardships as grief and dishonor. I think Marlow is slowly discovering how the most primitive human instincts operate in the virtual "jungle" of the mind, as he watches in amazement the cannibals who have gone so long without food and yet live with it under their noses, how well they show restraint. This can be paralleled to the Freudian superego "restraining" the id when a certain temptation enters a person's mind. As Marlow travels farther and farther in, bare human instincts reveal themselves more and more, lending to the image of this colossal "heart of darkness."
In Response to Kait B.
I believe that Marlow is not indifferent to the White Mans Burden. Instead, He believes that the White Man's Burden is not applicable to Africa. I believe that Marlow's indifferent appearance is a result of him regarding the White Man's Burden as useless. Marlow's narration style heavily regards the natives as a race entirely different to his own. Through his narration style the natives become distant characters, lacking personality and character completely. They are hallow.
In response to Corey, it's human nature to be fascinated by the evil, forbidden, and mysterious. How many children have ventured into deserted houses in search of a ghost, even while their legs shook with fear? On about the tenth page of the novel Marlow describes this fear by describing "one river especially...resembling 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...it fascinated me as a snake would a bird." All people travel willingly into the mouth of danger (the snake) even though it seems unnatural to do so. The river's current towards the sea represents conventional moral reasoning that conflicts with, but does not overcome, danger's charisma.
In response to Corey:
I think it is apart of our human journey that we all feel like Marlow. However Marlow is able to maintain his morals and his sanity because his adventure was about the journey. Whereas for Kurtz it was about the prize. Marlow went into the jungle to experience something, perhaps have a life-defining moment, but Kurtz went in for glory and wealth and therefore lost sight of his morals and ended up betraying everything he had ever strived to achieve.
Our high school is simply a microcosm of this phenomenon. People who are too focused on winning or being the best often end up betraying their personal morals in order to gain what they want. I however do not feel that my values are at risk despite the overwhelming pressure to betray them. It is because I remember that life is not always about the prize (rarely is the prize worth it) instead it is about the journey. The people you meet and the experiences you have mold our minds and allow us to put our own lives into perspective.
I know this comes a bit late, however my blogger account was not working.
In the end of Part 2 and beginning of Part 3:
Who is the Russian? Why is he significant? Why does Marlow keep referring to his eyes?
Post a Comment
<< Home