http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/book-of-a-lifetime-heart-of-darkness-by-joseph-conrad-773538.html
I found this interesting book review of "Heart of Darkness" that examines the novella as one inspired by guilt. Tim Butcher, the author of the article, states that although many have different opinions about Conrad's stance on colonialism and his tone, he believes Conrad wrote "Heart of Darkness" principally out of guilt. Like we read about in the article Mrs. Quinet posted last week, Butcher describes the persecution of prisoners, whose hands were cut off when they misbehaved to set an example. The author contends that Conrad was scarred by these experiences and wrote "Heart of Darkness" to purge himself of shame and ponder how humans could be so cruel towards one another. What do you all think about this argument?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Although Butcher's argument is extremely interesting, it is difficult for me to agree with him. If the main purpose for Conrad's novella was to purge himself of guilt, I believe that he would have approached the writing process in a different manner. He probably would have made his critique of the European imperialists more blatant and humanized the indigenous people. Or, as Achebe suggested, he could have further distanced his own ideas from those of Marlow. While I do agree that the ineffable violence and human exploitation of imperialism left Conrad psychologically wounded, I would have to argue that his primary agenda for the novella was not his guilt.
I agree with Butcher when he says "no two readings prompt exactly the same reaction." I respect Butcher for experiencing the Congo River for himself and writing about his opinion. However, I, like Samantha, have a hard time agreeing that Conrad wrote Heart of Darkness purely out of guilt. Maybe he did feel some guilt for being there and contributing to the horrors of King Leopold's terror, but as we read in Mrs. Quinet's article, Conrad thought reforms were futile. If he was really that guilty, I feel as though he would have made more of an active effort in the reform movement. Although "Heart of Darkness" was inspiring to many activists, I don't think Conrad wrote it purely from guilt.
I do feel like underlying elements of guilt shaped certain aspects of Heart of Darkness; however, I don't think Conrad wrote it out of PERSONAL guilt. I think the novel was a more a critique of humanity's inaction and perhaps their residual ambivalence over the african atrocities. As Butcher said, "some believe (the novel) is a critique of the corrupting power of wilderness, while others believe it a parable of humanity's weakness no matter its setting." I feel like the novella truly encompasses both elements--corruption of wilderness AND humanity's pervasive weaknesses, no matter what the setting. There's really no correct interpretation of the novella because we, as readers, will never understand Conrad's true intentions.
I think that is an extremely interesting point. You never know what truly inspires an artist and this could very well have been one of Conrad's inspirations. As Samantha points out, it does not seem to be an argument that can be completely backed up by Conrad's writing because of the manner he wrote the novella. Samantha's point may be true, but this doesn't mean that guilt did not play a role in the writing process. Guilt has the power to make people to very strange things.
As Chrissy references, I think that one of the most interesting points of the review is that Heart of Darkness can be interpreted differently with each reading and from each reader. This view stems from the ambiguity presented within the novel. I feel like this "safe" perspective taken by Conrad makes the novel unique, where other novels usually present a specific viewpoint on a topic. There are such polar opposite reactions to Heart of Darkness. Some readers consider it a progressive novel, while others see it as the complete opposite or a racist story.
I entirely agree with Samantha. I'm very skeptical of Buther's arguement for many reasons. One being that, like Achebe suggests, Conrad distances himself almost entirely from the novel; Conrad creates a tale from the perspective of a random shipmate who is listening to Marlowe who is telling a tale of his life. Also, Conrad never once attempts to demonstrate his own opinions towards the persecution and ambiguously leaves such issues out in the air for the reader to interpret. If he trully wrote this novella out of guilt, he woudl have more blatantly developed the wrongness of the situation; a feat he never even attempts.
Post a Comment