Why should you read Heart of Darkness?

This is an edited excerpt from a paper I wrote for an upper division English course in 1998. It is a little more in-depth than most epinions. Please leave comments about what you think: is this too much for this format? or would you like to see me post more? In places it is assumed that the reader is familiar with the text. I think that if you have read the book, this epinion will give you a different way to look it. If you haven't experienced Conrad's novella, this review will hopefully entice you to pick up a copy.

Finding Truth is up to the Reader: Narrative Techniques in Heart of Darkness

When I pick up a book, especially one thought of as a part of the literary canon [someday I'll write an epinion on my thoughts on this], I ask myself "what makes this piece of literature a worthy object of study." One of the answers that I have deemed acceptable is any novel that challenges the reader to question his or her own ideals and values on an intellectual level deserves to be read, thought about, and discussed. Many others might argue that a work must also have a moral base to be considered as an addition to the literary canon. Conrad's Heart of Darkness definitely fulfills both these criteria. Through subjectivity and the function of racism in the novel, Conrad raises questions about roles of humanity, civilization, and morality that can only be answered by the reader.

The subjective structure of Heart of Darkness immediately leads to a questioning of its reliability, a questioning of its truth. The narrative is first person, but the narrator is unknown to the reader. He is telling a story he heard from a fellow named Marlow. The double filtered narrative forces the reader to inquire deeper into the text to come up with substantiation of any sort of interpretation. Because the reader does not know the narrator it impossible to know if Marlow's story has been altered-and if so, how much. Since the reader can infer no truth from the text, any opinion that is formed must needs be the reader's own. One of the few statements the reader gets directly from the narrator is at the beginning of the book when he describes how Marlow viewed the story: "to him the meaning of an episode was not inside like a kernel but outside, enveloping the tale which brought it out only as a glow brings out a haze, in the likeness of one of these misty halos that sometimes are made visible by the spectral illumination of moonshine." This passage can be seen as Conrad's instructions to his readers. The meaning behind the novel is not contained within Marlow's story, but rather hovers, and it is up to the reader to grasp what the meaning is.

This passage also introduces another technique that Conrad uses to shift the responsibility of creating moral value in the text from the writer to the reader. By creating impressions and using "foggy" language rather than realistic images, Conrad is obscuring the stark facts and making truth subjective. Through his usage of words such as "glow" and "haze" and "spectral illumination" Conrad uses "adjectives that obscure rather than describe." A critic named Leavis used this phrase derogatorily, but I find that the obscure images force a deeper understanding on the reader's part. Another critic, Guerard, makes this point in saying "if Heart of Darkness were perfectly precise in its profoundest passages, it would not be dreamlike; more important, it could not seem like our dream. To say 'murder' or 'death' or 'greed' or 'lust,' instead of using that more 'misty' phrase, 'The horror', would be to distance most readers from that horror." The idea that the reader becomes part of "the horror" indicates a symbiotic relationship between the reader and text. Both factors are necessary for "the horror" to become real.

The reality of this horror that I found in my reading is Imperialism hiding behind a mask of rhetoric-ignoring its blatant racism and its corruption of the natural world. Imperialism and racism, which are implicitly in the text, work through "the horror" to expose what was happening in King Leopold's Congo and what was happening in the hearts of white Europeans that let it happen. The moral goes beyond this, however, and becomes more universal. Conrad's experience in the Congo can be equated with any number of atrocious acts that some humans have carried out against other humans in the name of religion or proclaimed superiority. Conrad is saying that the heart of darkness lurks within us all-that it permeates civilization. This is much more apparent because the reader is forced to discern it for him or herself, not had it set on a platter before them to ignore.

This conclusion can be arrived at after looking at the mentality that permeates the text. Throughout the story nothing but admiration and awe is held for Kurtz by all of the Europeans in Africa. When Marlow (and the reader) finally meet Kurtz, it is only to find that he is akin to a demon-a Hitler-esque embodiment. Kurtz had created a veritable Auschwitz in his area, and all for the sake of ivory. Claiming the wealth of the white gold-the "dark and dirty" trade in ivory-and reaping the distinction that went along with it was all that was important to him. The overabundance of graphic manifestations of cruelty works to awaken the clouded eyes of the European community.

Conrad wants to reverse the dichotomies of light and dark, black and white. In forcing the reader to take an active part in the creation of the story, or at least forcing the reader to derive his or her own opinion of it through active participation, Conrad shows that the darkness does exist in the white places and that it isn't good. Heart of Darkness is a work with layers of complexity layered on complexity-truly a break from the realistic or traditional works that had come before. I think it is difficult, if not impossible, to come to some sort of cohesion in interpreting it. The novel is structured to bring the reader inside the story, in which meaning itself hovers outside, "enveloping the tale." Conrad has created a very slim volume, yet it contains enough questions to keep readers busy with discussion questioning its meaning, truth, and moral integrity. This book is definitely worthy of being read.