The Idea and the Reality of Efficiency

So Marlow says “What saves us is efficiency – devotion to efficiency.” Unlike the Romans who conquered weaker societies, Europeans colonize them. This, of course, is more acceptable. He explains by saying, “The conquest of the earth…is not a pretty thing. What redeems it is the idea only…something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer sacrifice to.”

In reality, the Company is a model of inefficiency conveyed through descriptions of the employees of the Company, and their work and the conditions at the stations. Inefficiency is suggested by Marlow’s first encounters with company employees as he’s inquiring about a job.

“The men said ‘My dear fellow’ and did nothing.”

Later, he describes his visit to the Company offices for an interview. As he enters the office he is greeted by “Two women, one fat and the other slim, sat on straw-bottomed chairs, knitting black wool.”

Upon his arrival at the Central Station, Marlow observes the meaningless activity of the workers. “A heavy dull detonation shook the ground, a puff of smoke came out of the cliff, and that was all. No change appeared on the face of the rock. They were building a railway. The cliff was not in the way or anything; but this objectless blasting was all the work that was going on.”

Continuing toward the Managers office, Marlow states, “I avoided a vast artificial hole somebody had been digging on the slope, the purpose of which I found impossible to divine…. Then I nearly fell into a narrow ravine, almost no more than a scar in the hillside. I discovered that a lot of imported drainage pipe for the settlement had been tumbled in there. There wasn’t one that was not broken…Everything in the station was a muddle, - heads, things, buildings.”

Regarding the station manager, Marlow says, “He had no genius for organizing, initiative, or for order even. That was evident in such things as the deplorable state of the station.”

After being stranded at the station for some time, Marlow says, “I lived in a hut in the yard, but to get out of the chaos, I would sometimes get into the accountants officer.”

In addition, according to Marlow, his steamer was sunk as a result of poor preparation and general incompetence. “The steamer was sunk. They had started two days before in a sudden hurry up river, with the manager on board in charge of some volunteer captain and before they had been out for three hours they tore the bottom out of her on stones, and she sank near the south bank.”

And finally, there is Marlow’s problem with acquiring the rivets necessary to repair the ship. “Rivets I wanted. There were down at the coast – cases – piled up – burst split…. And there wasn’t one rivet where it was wanted.” Numerous individuals go to the coast some two hundred miles away, expeditions pass through the Station, but somehow no one can provide Marlow with the minimum materials he needs to repair the boat.

This hardly seems like the perfect implementation of an Idea so noble that it justifies incredible human suffering and the exploitation of a country for its material resources.

The question I have is, does Conrad level this indictment at all European nations colonizing Africa or just the Belgian. The operations conducted in the story are conducted by a Belgian trading company which, I think, is a symbol for the Belgian government. Apparently Belgian practices in Africa were particularly harsh.

Yet Marlow describes the absurd behavior of other nations. He travels down the coast of Africa on a French sailing ship. French transportation is far from efficient as well

“We pounded along, stopped, landed soldiers, went on landed custom house clerks to levy toll in what looked like a God-forsaken wilderness, with a tin shed and a flag-pole lost in it; landed more soldiers – to take care of the custom-house clerks, presumably. Some I heard got drowned in the surf; but whether they did or not, nobody seemed particularly to care.” During the voyage down the coast, they encounter a French war ship. Marlow reports, “In the emptiness of earth, sky, and water, there she was, incomprehensible, firing into a continent.”

The English are given passing credit for their work in Africa. When looking at the color-coded map of Africa in the officer of the Company. Marlow notes, “There was a vast amount of red – good to see at anytime, because one knows some real work is done in there.” Colonies established by the British in Africa were generally colored red.

According to the Endnotes in my edition, “maps during this era often represented imperial territories according to a color-coded system. Red for British, blue for French, green for Italian, orange for Portuguese, purple for German, and yellow for Belgian.”

So is Conrad condemning all European colonialism in Africa or just Belgian colonialism? He generally portrays the British in a good light and the Introduction to my edition says he intentionally excludes the British from his indictment of Imperialism. Is he serious or is he just being a polite guest?

The Coen Brother's Barton Fink

Just a side note suggestion here for an interesting Coen Brothers film, Barton Fink (1991) if you haven't seen it already. A little lighter than what we are discussing now so hopefully refreshing to those who choose to take a look at it.

The symbolism and metaphor are great and, just like Heart of Darkness, can be looked at as deeply as you'd like to dive. It isn't gonna put your brain in a knot though, thankfully.

After you have viewed it and questioned and contemplated to you hearts content you can take a listen to one of my favorite podcasts, Watching Theology, that discusses Barton Fink here:

http://stevebrownetc.com/2007/09/podcasts/watching-theology/barton-fink-1991/

Also a decent article deconstructing the film on the web:

http://www.coenbrothers.net/viewer.html

Here's the Netflix link to the film:

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Barton_Fink/60000822?trkid=226870

Enjoy!

Heart of Darkness.mp3

A professional reading of the Heart of Darkness

loudlit.org

The Light, The Dark, The Dialectic

The Hegelian dialectic consists of three stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. It asserts that reality beyond one's perception is interconnected, contradictory, and dynamic. It also refers to a method for presenting of ideas and conclusions. I think this is fundamental to understanding the structure of The Heart of Darkness. I just don’t know exactly how.

In the Heart of Darkness, Conrad creates numerous literary parallels; the light and the dark, land and water, Rome and England, Europe and Africa, whites and blacks, jungles and forests. These are more than literary parallels; these are dualities in what appears to be a dualistic world. The reader attempts to define and sort these dualities and in doing so reveals endless connections and contradictions. Conrad creates a surface reality that invites this exploration in the same way that the jungle or the wilderness invites exploration. The results may be similar as well.

Beyond the dualistic surface reality, true reality is interconnected, contradictory and dynamic. It is dialectical. The development of civilizations, nations, or a people is dialectical. It moves from dark, to light, and then on to darkness again. It’s unclear whether this motion is a spiral or a vortex, whether it moves up or down, whether it ends in darkness or spawns another instance of The Light. On the surface, Conrad seems to say that it all ends in The Dark, but maybe that’s only on the surface.

Early civilizations are dark. England before the Romans was dark. Marlow describes it as “cold, fog, tempests, disease, exile, and death – death skulking in the air, in the water, in the bush,” nothing more than “sandbanks, marshes, and savages. To the civilized Romans, England is incomprehensible and detestable. In the same way, Africa is dark to the civilized European. Conrad describes the journey up the Congo as “travelling in the night of first ages….” The atmosphere of the jungle is an implacable, brooding force with a vengeful aspect.

Rome and England are essentially the same. Notice Marlow says “Mind, none of us would feel exactly like this,” when speaking of the Romans. Not “exactly like this” but close. The Romans and later the English are the antithesis of The Dark. On the surface both represent The Light. I think Marlow is being ironic in his description of the Romans. He says, “They were no colonists, their administration was merely a squeeze, nothing more… they grabbed what they could get for the sake of what could be got.” This considerably understates the influence of the Roman Empire on the English. As a result of the Roman conquest civilization spread across Europe. Light came out of the Thames. England became civilized. It built a tradition based upon Roman law.

I also think Marlow is being facetious when he claims that, unlike the Romans, Europeans are justified in exploiting Africa because they have a motive higher than just making a profit. They have an Idea. I think the Romans had a number of Ideas that they spread through Europe: engineering, architecture, art, literature, government, etc. The Europeans have Efficiency. In the political and business circles of industrial age Britain the prevailing Idea was Efficiency, efficiency in government, manufacturing, and commerce. Spreading efficiency was a religion for those who participated in the exploitation of an entire continent. It was unselfish and something they could “set up and bow down to and offer sacrifice to….” Even if it was hypocritical.

The Synthesis is represented by Marlow, drifting with his colleagues on a yacht in the Thames. He combines the characteristic of the savage and the civilized. Only Marlow, and Kurtz, recognize that civilized men are, at heart, the same as savages, cannibals in their own right. They become fascinated by the conquered, fascinated by “the mysterious life of the wilderness that stirs in the forest, in the jungle, in the hearts of wild men.”

Or something like that. Maybe Chaos Theory would be a better explanation.

Notes on the Making of Apocalypse Now

I have been spending a lot of time re-reading Heart of Darkness, or actually a lot of time thinking about Heart of Darkness and Marlow's Romans narrative. It's been about a week and I am only eight pages though. In an effort to get back to the satisfaction that I get from actually turning pages in a book I picked up Notes By Eleanor Coppola. It is her journal from the three years when her husband was making Apocalypse now in the Philippines.

So far it is pretty good although the Amazon reviews are low. I think it'll be interesting to read along with Heart of Darkness for no other reason than the appeal of knowing that Francis Ford Coppola probably thought about the book about a billion times more than anyone on this blog combined ever will. I wonder with all of that thinking if he is still as conflicted and confused as me? Oh well, back to staring at page eight.

The Romans are Coming! The Romans are Coming!

It is said that the Romans were the greatest conquerors of modern history. They are therefore an obvious and convenient subject for comparison in The Heart of Darkness to the modern conquering English. The main character, Marlow, does just this in the first few pages of the novel in his “yarn” told to the crew of the Nellie. His comparison is interesting and also slightly nebulous. Because of the certain ambiguity that seems to be characteristic of the novel the reason for and meaning of the comparison can be looked upon with some objective interpretation both for its face value as well as on a deeper level. It is interesting to look beyond Marlow’s perspectives on Roman conquest and to consider what message the books author, Joseph Conrad, is voicing through his narrators story. The words are the same but the messages are different.

I was at first perplexed by the comparison. Actually, I should say that I was at second perplexed, having only looked deeper into the comparison upon my second reading of the novel. Because it was my second pass I had already established firmly in my mind that the author of the novel saw conquest as something that darkens the land and is in general negative, yet his main character speaks of it as something noble both when done by the simple Romans as well as by the English who elevated conquest to “more humane” colonialism. This positive perspective on conquest was, to me, a contradiction to the main themes and messages of the novel, i.e. any form of European expansion as negative.

Let me first quickly justify what led me to believe that Marlow saw conquest in general as positive before discussion of the purpose of the Romans comparison in general. I have come to this conclusion from Marlow’s statement that the land around the Thames was dark before the Romans conquered. And, “Light came out of this river since.” The idea that light is classically thought of as something positive in narrative fiction is what solidifies this viewpoint. Themes of light and dark in Les Miserables is a good example of such thought.

As said, conquest as positive conflicts with one of the largest themes of the novel. I could not understand why the main character would have “the wrong” ideas. It wasn’t until I stepped back and looked through and past Marlow’s opinion to the underling perspective of Conrad himself that things began, I say began, they haven’t fully yet, became clear.

Conrad’s storytelling technique is interesting in the dialogue. His deceptive method of making one thing seem obvious while really meaning the opposite is what makes his writing stimulating. The comparison between the Romans and the English is at first set up to make the reader form a connection between the Romans and the English as being very similar to each other. It is easy to see that their similarities are abundant. Both stories, that of the Romans and that of the narrator’s journey up the Congo appeal to the sailor’s life as romantic. Both the Romans and Marlow’s journey travel through hostile environments. The drive for promotion and financial gain are motivations of both the Romans and the Eldorado Expedition. Somewhat more deeply entwined in the story is a fascination that the Romans as well as Marlow have with abomination. Marlow states this as true of the Romans, the reader will glean it from Marlow. The description of the Roman journey up the Thames is a mirror to Marlow’s journey up the Congo. This is what makes Marlow’s description and in the end his statement that the Romans are dissimilar to the English slightly disorienting. He says, in reference to a decent young Romans emotions on such a journey, “Mind, none of us would feel exactly like this.” All of the savagery of conquest that the reader thinks that Marlow is saying all Europeans have been participating in is shot down. This is only deception by the author used for effect. Things get interesting when Marlow participates in “colonialism.”

Yes, the similarities are seemingly obvious. What makes the comparison interesting is the narrators own perceived dissimilarities. The best way to go about dissecting the true meanings and reasons for the inclusion of Marlow’s Romans dialogue is to discuss the mentioned dissimilarities that Marlow sees. Through this we will see Conrad’s perspectives, and solve our contradiction problem.

To Marlow what makes the English different from the Romans is that modern Europeans are more “efficient” than the less refined Romans, who Marlow calls conquerors. Marlow calls himself and the others on the boat colonists, a much more eloquent designation. As a colonist they have more than just the “brute force” of the Romans and the English’s strength is more than just “an accident arising from the weakness of others.” It is evolved and refined. The ways of the English are superior to the Romans because they can think about what they are doing. They use their minds and strategy. They are right, most noble, the chosen ones, that it is their God given right to take what they want form the earth. God is on the side of the English because they are smarter, more deserving and also whiter than those they conquer. The single designation of efficiency is what Marlow proposes makes them different or better than the Romans. It seems like a weak and vague argument, perhaps posed purposefully by Conrad. Marlow ends rather vaguely and inconclusively with “the idea,” which I do not fully understand but gather that he is pointing to the fact that being a conqueror sounds good in theory as long as you think of it as the idea of conquering only and try as much as possible to shy away from looking deeper into what the act of conquering actually entails. Is this what he means by English efficiency, ignoring or not noticing the process of colonialism? Is he too blind to see?

Now with all this justification from our stories main character of colonialism I as the reader naturally side with Marlow at first. What the English are doing is not violent conquering but more gentle and noble colonialism. Marlow is the main character and therefore a sympathetic person to identify with. But when you step back and consider The Heart of Darkness not as a hero story but as a spoof on the modern adventure tale the comparisons takes on a new light. This is the heart of my argument. The idea that The Heart of Darkness is parody is central to seeing the true meaning of Marlow’s comparison. It becomes ironic when all of the greed, killing, and violence that goes on in the jungle of the expedition that makes up the remainder of Marlow’s story is considered. Conrad intends Marlow’s dialogue to be paradoxical. Marlow and, more to the extreme, the others who went into the jungle with Marlow are EXACTLY EVERYTHING that Marlow says they are not. This is the point of the Romans dialogue in The Heart of Darkness. It is included so that Marlow can denounce the ways of societies that conquer weaker societies. With the criticism of the Roman ways he is ironically commenting on and denouncing himself. The English cannot see their ways and therefore look stupid for not recognizing their own similarities to simple brutes.

Hopes of further discussion and clarification is the reason that I post. Feel free to comment, critique and tell me that I am wrong. I am interested in the discussion.