# Heart of Darkness



## a15haddad (Jun 10, 2005)

I didn't know too much about Conrad until I read Heart of Darkness just a few months ago.

Heart of Darkness is now likely my favorite work of literature ever.  What a masterpiece.  It was the greatest example of literary genius I have ever read, and it was all contained within a novella of about 75 pages.  Conrad's subtle writing style was so rich and so involving, and every one of Marlow's descriptions of the environment and of characters (his description of the man with the odd, uneasy smile was simply amazing, as was the Russian subordinate of Kurtz ) was beyond stellar.  The tale of savagery, the dangers of Imperialism, corruption, moral deterioration, and most of all the Heart of Darkness was something I have never seen matched.  I could go on and on about the beauty of Heart of Darkness, especially the final scene when Marlow consoles the woman who was close to Kurtz, which was so haunting; I remember reading the ending after finishing a standardized test in my middle school, completely blocking out the commotion around me, my mind focused so narrowly on the power of this sequence, and then finishing it and closing my eyes and just thinking about life for a minute or two.  

Not only is the story so powerful, but the writing style is so fresh.  Oh, wow... I'll leave the rest through the vehicle of discussion.  Does anyone else share my love of Heart of Darkness?


----------



## waylander (Jun 10, 2005)

I do. I took an English course at college just to be able to have this one teacher who was so brilliant and a specialist of Conrad's works.

He made us comment on many passages of this work of genius.
THere are so many striking moments in this novella that one would have to quote its whole length to do it justice. 

A literary genius in the English language, Conrad was not even English, now isn't that amazing !


----------



## strangedaze (Jun 10, 2005)

As a reader, I loved this. Amazing writing - Kurtz has to be one of the greatest characters ever. However, if I were to do a post-colonial critique of HOD, I wouldn't be so quick to praise its content. It definately posits some racist assumptions about the nature of Africa and the 'cultured' race that is ultimately corrupted by it.

Still love it, though.

An D


----------



## a15haddad (Jun 10, 2005)

Many condemn Heart of Darkness because of what they perceive as incredibly racist overtones.  I don't think so; I think this was more of a portrayal of how the Europeans portrayed the Africans.


----------



## evadri (Jun 10, 2005)

I agree with a15addad. Often authors can portray what is happening in reality, without condoning it themselves. 

Anyway, I also love this book. Interestingly, I had a hard time finishing it - but that's just me and my procrastination. Whenever I actually picked it up and read it, I enjoyed it emmensely. 
I love the chinese box narrative structure.


----------



## strangedaze (Jun 10, 2005)

> I agree with a15addad. Often authors can portray what is happening in reality, without condoning it themselves.





> Many condemn Heart of Darkness because of what they perceive as incredibly racist overtones. I don't think so; I think this was more of a portrayal of how the Europeans portrayed the Africans.



I disagree wholeheartedly, but I am too lazy to start any sort of meaningful discussion whatsoever   

Ah what the hell - here's a snippet from Chinua Achebe's critique of HOD:

'Africa as a setting and backdrop which eliminates the African as a human factor… Can nobody see the preposterous and perverse arrogance in thus reducing Africa to the role of props for the break up of one petty European mind?  But that is not even the point.  The real question is the dehumanization of Africa and Africans which this age-long attitude has fostered an continues to foster in the world.  And the question is whether a novel which celebrates this dehumanization… can be called a great work of art.  My answer is:  No it cannot (“Image”  257).'

More?

' It might be contended, of course, that the attitude to the African in Heart of Darkness is not Conrad's but that of his fictional narrator, Marlow, and that far from endorsing it Conrad might indeed be holding it up to irony and criticism. Certainly Conrad appears to go to considerable pains to set up layers of insulation between himself and the moral universe of his history. He has, for example, a narrator behind a narrator. The primary narrator is Marlow but his account is given to us through the filter of a second, shadowy person. But if Conrad's intention is to draw a cordon sanitaire between himself and the moral and psychological malaise of his narrator his care seems to me totally wasted because he neglects to hint however subtly or tentatively at an alternative frame of reference by which we may judge the actions and opinions of his characters. It would not have been beyond Conrad's power to make that provision if he had thought it necessary. Marlow seems to me to enjoy Conrad's complete confidence -- a feeling reinforced by the close similarities between their two careers.'

Link:

http://www.erinyes.org/hod/image.of.africa.html

Hypocrite that this may paint me, I still love the book.


Andrew[/i]


----------



## a15haddad (Jun 10, 2005)

I've read this entire thing; I have the Norton Critical Edition of the book which was 325 extra pages of various articles such as critical interpretation, letters between Conrad and others after he first wrote it, analysis of some of the themes, and comparisons to Apocalypse Now.


----------



## strangedaze (Jun 10, 2005)

What fun - they do enjoy pumping out new editions every year, don't they? Makes getting used textbooks for school a mother bitch and a half.


----------



## waylander (Jun 11, 2005)

A great work of art is not about morals or dehumanization. It 's about art. Period.
Don't mix up so-called 'ideas' with art. It's not because 'ideas' and literature use the same medium, words, that they are to be treated at the same levels. Great novels can be about , and I say about, the basest things.


----------



## strangedaze (Jun 11, 2005)

I don't think that I disagree with you. Achebe seems to think otherwise, but that's his prerogative.


----------



## a15haddad (Jun 11, 2005)

waylander said:
			
		

> A great work of art is not about morals or dehumanization. It 's about art. Period.
> Don't mix up so-called 'ideas' with art. It's not because 'ideas' and literature use the same medium, words, that they are to be treated at the same levels. Great novels can be about , and I say about, the basest things.



I agree perfectly.


----------



## waylander (Jun 15, 2005)

I followed quite well, perhaps because I am also a foreigner whose English is not quite good. I can understand this desire to write in a foreign language.

Incidently, very few people (among them reliable experts) seem to share your views about Conrad's style...
Quote :
He would have been a great novelist..

He is.


----------



## Ralizah (Jun 15, 2005)

I found it boring as hell, personally. I'm not sure if it was the rigid, occasionely incoherent narrative (I'll agree he had a horrible writing style), or the fact that not much of it I found interesting.
I might read it again someday, however.


----------



## strangedaze (Jun 15, 2005)

Bah, 

I disagree with you - I think it's brilliant, but your opinion is as good as mine. 

andrew


----------



## a15haddad (Jun 19, 2005)

The writing style is one of the most beautiful aspects of Heart of Darkness.  It is so wonderfully off-hand and subtle while still describing everything so richly and hauntingly that it compels you beyond imagination.  The reason why some may not follow is because they tried to read through it quickly.  With a book such as this you must read slowly to fully comprehend everything.  But honestly, I absolutely adore the writing style present in Heart of Darkness.


----------



## a15haddad (Jun 20, 2005)

starrwriter said:
			
		

> "A revolution only evaporates into another slimy bureaucracy."
> 
> An alternative view from Edward Abbey:
> 
> "All revolutions have failed? Perhaps. But rebellion for good cause is self- justifying -- a good in itself. Rebellion transforms slaves into human beings, if only for an hour. There never was a good war or a bad revolution."



That's somewhat ironically coincidental.  Just last week I was discussing this quote with my friend.  But in the end, rebellion shouldn't exist just to "transform slaves into human beings."  That makes it into a sort of drug.  Sure, it may have a righteous idea driving it, but that is simply a farce if you do it for the good feeling.  A rebellion must be selfless and done for the good of the whole.


----------



## mbolton29@mac.com (Jun 13, 2007)

I can never understand why people like Heart of Darkness, Conrad is the most boring author to ever put pen to paper.

Regardless, Apocalypese Now was still amazing.


----------



## J.S.S (Jun 14, 2007)

I tried to read it but it became a mental strain so now it just sits on my shelf.


----------



## archer88iv (Jun 17, 2007)

Having read Achebe and Conrad, I'ma have to cast my vote with Conrad for "better read." Took a postcolonial lit course and--of course--spent a few years talking about the racial aspect of everything. But none of that really matters, because the next semester I had _Heart of Darkness_ again in a short fiction course.

Question 1 for the final exam of the short fiction course was, I swear to God, "Kurtz." 

That was it. Not even a damn question mark. Just the name "Kurtz." Argh.


----------



## TWariner (Sep 22, 2007)

I read it a long time ago and it was a very impressive book.  Very difficult for a young teenager to read, but I could tell it was very intelligent and one of those essential classics, so I pushed through it.  It was a dark book.  I'll have to reread it.


----------



## Garden of Kadesh (Oct 2, 2007)

Heart of Darkness is my favorite novella. It's amazing how somebody can command words so well and not even think in that language.

I have the book with me now:

"_I tried to break the spell - the heavy, mute spell of the wilderness - that seemed to draw him to its pitiless breast by the awakening of forgotten and brutal instincts, by the memory of gratified and monstrous passions._"


----------



## Mishki (Feb 21, 2008)

Wanted to show this thread a bit of love.

Maybe it's because I enjoyed _Lord Jim_ so much more than _Heart of Darkness_, and because I followed Marlow's progress through three books, but I always found Marlow far more interesting as a character than Kurtz.  But for some reason, no one got to me like Stein did.  I think I've re-read Stein's chapters a dozen times in maybe three years.  

Also, Stein talks like Yoda, and how can you not love that?


----------



## Matt3483 (Feb 22, 2008)

Conrad gives me headaches. I find it hard to believe that anyone actually enjoyed reading _Heart of Darkness_--maybe Conrad himself. I think the people who claim to have liked it are just pretentious.



Mishki said:


> Also, Stein talks like Yoda, and how can you not love that?



Yoda talks like Stein. Stein did come first ...


----------



## Garden of Kadesh (Feb 23, 2008)

Well Matt, it certainly isn't a beach book. 

I'll admit the plot is a little muddled due the slow narrative pace, but the long-winded descriptions that cause the torpidity are worth it. They are vivid and unique. Look at that sentence I posted above. That's totally Conrad.


----------



## Truth-Teller (Feb 24, 2008)

Conrad is shit writing.


----------



## Dr. Malone (Feb 24, 2008)

It bored me more than anything.  I never finished Lord Jim either.


----------



## Edgewise (Feb 24, 2008)

Was it my reading of the book, or was there a huge unexplained gap between when Marlow arrives at Kurtz' post and when Kurtz dies?  

I thought the book sucked.


----------



## Tom88 (Oct 8, 2008)

If I'm being honest I think his style was way over my head.

I appreciate his attention to detail, and respect how influential he was to his contemporaries, but I really couldn't get into it. A few here mention how subtle his style was, I didn't get that at all - I felt as though I was drowning in his convoluted droning.

Having said that, there were a few memorable moments. I haven't read it for some time, but I recall reading something and being somewhat gob-smacked at his thought-process. I also disagree with the "racist undertones", I guess that's a potential interpretation, but I think it was more an accurate depiction of the time, and the situation, rather than Conrad force-feeding his views on his audience.

Could be wrong though, lol.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Oct 9, 2008)

Two things stand out about this book, to me:

English was not Conrad's native language, he acquired it as an adult.  Yet many consider him of the really fine prose stylists writin in English.

And--the Coppola film "Apocalypse Now" is, if not exactly an adaptation of the novel, at least a reworking of it into modern terms.  In fact, the Brando character is named Kurtz.

I think that's an interesting sidelight on the book.


----------

