The Frame Story

I just noticed there are two rivers in this story. One is the Congo. The other is the Thames, the setting for the frame story. I completely forgot about it. In the frame story, an unidentified narrator describes the scene on board a yacht stalled by weak winds and the tide on the “lower reaches” of the Thames within sight of London. There are four men onboard the yacht, a lawyer, an accountant, a “Director of Companies, who,” the narrator describes as, “our Captain and our host,” and Marlow, the old seaman, who is about to tell the story of his journey up the Congo River.

The Thames, according to the unidentified narrator has provided “unceasing service” to “all the men, of whom this nation is proud,” commanders of naval expeditions and sea merchants. Later he calls the Thames a “venerable stream” that carried “the dreams of men, the seed of commonwealths,” and “the germs of empires.” In addition, Marlow begins his tail, as the sun sets on the Thames which the unseen narrator describes as peaceful, immense, and “unstained.”

At the same time, the sun is setting a “brooding gloom,” lies to the west. It becomes “more somber every minute.” This foreshadows the tone of the story itself.

Marlow's descritpion of the Congo which he provides later is a stark contrast to the unidentified narrator's description of the Thames.

"Going up that river was like travelling back to the earliest beginnings of the world, when vegetation rioted on the earth and the big trees were king... You lost your way on that river as you would in the desert... till you thought yourself bewitched and cut off forever from everything you had known once -somewhere- far away- in another existence perhaps.

The way that Marlow is described in the frame story is also interesting. The unseen narrator describes him as sitting “cross-legged, with his arms dropped and the palms of his hands outward," resembling "an idol.” He is also captivating his audience with his speech. Son of Kurtz?

Thoughts on...

Thoughts on "'The horror! The horror!'"?

Why! Why!

I am lost as to the reason that Kurtz is being sent for by the company. It is stated that his methods have become unsound. But what does this matter to a company and employees driven by profits alone if Kurtz is pulling in more ivory than any of the other traders in the area?

If the novel is a comment on the evils of European conquest and colonialism then I believe the author would portray these said occurrences as undesirable and evil. They are definitely not positive, no one portrays them as positive. But, by the company sending for an unsound man don't they give themselves a positive image? Is Kurtz killing natives? If so why would the company care? Is is because he has become "one of the natives"? I don't see this as being alarming to the company as long as the money is coming in either. Maybe the heads on the posts in front of camp are heads of white men. This makes more sense but it is never made clear that Kurtz has attacked company men.

Furthermore, what exactly are Kurtz's unsound methods anyways?

Darkness in my brain...

So, my confusion with this story continues. I find that the narrators opinion of Kurtz is very transient and changes every ten pages or so. I have to ask, up to the point of the story that I am, as Marlow chases a sickly and crawling Kurtz through the grass with fires blazing and pilgrims gunfire blazing around them, why is Marlow now trying to kill Kurtz? Oh yeah why, is there fires and guns blazing?

As I understand Marlow was sent to retrieve Kurtz from the jungle. I do not remember it being dead or alive. That method seems now to be the case. Previously I was under the impression that Marlow admired Kurtz for his success in the ivory trade. Now things seem obviously to have changed. Can someone tell me why Marlow's view of Kurtz has changed? Is it because Marlow knows that Kurtz will not go peacefully and therefore the only method for his extradition is through killing him?

As I read I am not dissecting Conrad's depiction of the duality of man, I am only trying to sort through the multiplicity of changing character outlooks, attitudes and motivations. I guess the multiple personalities of Marlow can be seen as duality but it is more like a split personality.

What is going on!?

Post Script: Oh wait, they are friends again now. Marlow is admiring Kurtz's greatness as he dies on the boat.

Page 50

"The earth seemed unearthly. We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there - there you could look at a thing monstrous and free. It was unearthly, and the men were - No, they were not inhuman. Well, you know, that was the worst of it - this suspicion of their not being inhuman. It would come slowly to one. They howled and leaped, and spun, and made horrid faces; but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity - like yours - the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar. Ugly. Yes, it was ugly enough; but if you were man enough you would admit to yourself that there was in you just the faintest trace of that noise, a dim suspicion of there being a meaning in it which you - you so remote from the night of first ages - could comprehend."

Page 46

"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. I did not inquire..."

This paragraph is a turning point in the novel. The narrators tone changes here as can be seen in the lines about the animals dying and "the less valuable animals" finding what they deserve. What or who the less valuable animals are is ambiguous but I take it to mean men of the expedition, maybe slaves if you want to be specific. Taken in this light the lines have a very heavy meaning. From Marlow's unattached attitude we can see that he is or has become very unattached to humans in general. He has no faith and does not care if people die, they may actually deserve it. Death is inevitable. The jungle is patient.

Because this paragraph comes directly after Marlow's eavesdropping experience with the two expedition men who were talking in front of the boat in which he clearly expresses distaste for their selfishness it has an even more significant impact.

It is also at around this time that it becomes clear that Marlow's attitude regarding Kurtz has changed. I, however, missed the exact moment. Missing things has been a common occurrence for me in this novel because it is so condensed and major changes happen within only sentences. I have found myself lost on several occasions and had to reread pages in order to find out why certain unexpected things were happening. It is similar to the feeling of skipping a page in any other novel and becoming suddenly lost. However, in the case of Heart of Darkness the sensation arises without pages actually having been skipped. If anyone can shed some light as to what exactly made Marlow's opinion of Kurtz change that would be appreciated.

After the above quoted paragraph the novel becomes much darker in tone than in the preceding fifty or so pages. The jungle has started to corrupt them. Or are they already corrupted? In any case the descriptions of the jungle its self become evil in character. Marlow says that it affects his perspective, feelings and soul. It watches the men in their delicate tight rope dance of life. It waits to attack. The loss of optimism can be seen in the idea that the jungle watches them in their pointless temptation of death for "half a crown."

That's it for now. This book is a little harder to pull from than The Fountainhead. Its plot is simpler but I think more open to interpretation. Anyone want to add to the discussion of Heart of Darkness? Pretty weak entry here, just trying to get something going.

Darkness Redux

Second time up river: I recognize some landmarks, notice sites I’d missed before, but the jungle remains as dense and tangled as my first journey.

On the surface the story is about European exploitation of Africa, the evils of Western materialism, capitalism, and the triviality of those who choose to prosper in that environment. Ironically, they seek prosperity in a setting so hostile that just surviving ensures success. On the surface, the story is about Kurtz, who unlike his colleagues is idealistic and works to bring culture and prosperity to Africa. “Each station should be like a beacon on the road to better things, a centre for trade of course, but also for humanizing, improving, instructing,” he says.

Beneath the surface, in the murky waters of the rivers, whose heart is dark?

Heart of Darkness Introduction

Just got the book.

Here is what the inside cover of the Everyman's Library edition says: "Apparently a sailors yarn, it is in fact a grim parody of the adventure story, in which the narrator, Marlow, travels deep into the heart of the Congo where he encounters the crazed idealist Kurtz and discovers that the relative values of the civilized and the primitive are not what they seem. Heart of darkness is a model of economic storytelling, an indictment of the inner and outer turmoil caused by the European imperial misadventure, and a piercing account of the fragility of the human soul."

I will also be looking for some of these themes that I found presented in the books introduction written by Verlyn Klinkenborg:

Heart of Darkness is not a parable about the loss of one man's soul to a wilderness of evil. It is a story about what it means to share implicitly the penalty of that loss, a story about the impossibility of innocence.

Also... Torturous irresolution is apparently an abundant theme. Moral conundrums and dilemmas are raised one after another.

As well as... Kurtz being free of hypocrisy. Kurtz's demoralization is at least carried out in earnest unlike the pilgrims or other members of the expedition. Marlow admires him for this.

That is all so far. Please add the themes that you have found, preferably with no spoilers...