Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

Sounds like a fair and well worded question to me, and doesn't require any knowledge of Conrad understand.

Oh, gads, there are so many "contradictions" in this work that it's hard to know just where to begin. Heart of Darkness may well be Conrad's most ambiguous work as far as any coherent theme is concerned.

Right from the opening paragraphs, the principal character (Marlowe) feels he must comment on the fact that this (England), too, was once "one of the dark places" when the Roman legions invaded. That little comment is disguised as just idle chatter aboard the yacht in the harbor near Gravesend, but it is there for a reason. Conrad was a very careful writer who did not waste words; he is juxtaposing the current "civilized" England with the historical "dark" reality as a lead-in to his narrative of the journey into "the heart of darkness' in the Belgian Congo.

Kurtz himself, later on, is presented as a contradiction in terms. Think of the pamphlet he has written for the "Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs," (an inspired name for any society, I believe!) which ends with a hand-written scrawl urging "Exterminate all the brutes." This, after pages and pages of altruistic sentiment on how to treat the natives. Kurtz urges fair play for the natives while edging his flower-beds with the skulls of those killed.

It is never quite clear where Conrad's own sympathies lie. He has presented all the white men that Marlowe, his alter-ego, meets as lazy, incompetent and/or corrupt. Yet one does not sense a great deal of sympathy for the natives here either. It is almost as though he is advocating the white man's withdrawal from Africa but holding out no hope that native Africans can actually govern themselves. It is not an atypical attitude of late 19th Century colonial powers.

I'm not going to write your essay for you, but perhaps this gives you some incentive to probe a little more deeply into a very great novella and come up with some answers of your own.

OK so what are the contradictions in the Congo project in your view.

Harper, you asked if it were a poorly worded question. I said it was not. As a matter of fact, I haven't read the thing. Do you think it's worth reading?

Actually, I'll ask Andy. Andy, do you think it's worth reading, or would you suggest something else by Conrad. If you think it's not worth my time, I'll take it to heart.

Thanks, LA, you've made me want to read that book again. I remember reading it in college, and enjoying it, but that was a veddy veddy long time ago. It's time to re-visit it.

I had to read Conrad in the 11 and 12 at school in English classes (because we started with some of his short stories in the 7) ... and haven't read anything by him later again

That was great!

Thanks for the refresher!

These issues are still relevant in todays world, e.g. the Middle East.

Rivets spring to mind, there's one point where he talks about one station not having enough rivets to patch every day things up, and at another station, they've got so many, they're rolling about on the floor.

It's supposed to be based on something that happened to Conrad, so the narrative is as important as any message.

And lets not forget the vaginal image of the boat penetrating deeper up the river and the resultant loss of innocence.

I do recommend it, Roger. With all its ambiguities, it's a haunting kind of work that grows on you as you read and get deeper and deeper into the rain-forest -- the heart of Darkness.

It's also half of the inspiration for Apocalypse Now, if that's not stating the obvious.

Yeah, I didn't mention it because I thought everyone knew that.

The horror, the horror . . .

Erudite and succinct...enjoyed that post.

Excellent points, Izzy. I agree with all you've said.

Thank you Andy. I thought 'the horror,the horror,' was delivered quite well by Brando, but given the 19th century backdrop to the original it can take on an almost vaudevillean/melodramatic dimension. Especially the final scene which has a lot of black humour.

Great insights on the novel itself which is a must read. I wish I was writing a paper on the novel but that is not the case. This is just one of many WEEKLY readings for a Human Rights course. (I also read the Damnation of Theron Ware and read The Great Gatsby due in a couple weeks.) The week before I read Samantha Powers "The Problem with Hell" (over 300 pages)

I tutor English comp and do not need help writing essays. The GSI who writes these study questions is not a native speaker. She is brilliant--as virtually any Cal Berkeley PhD candidate would be--- but sometimes her questions lack clarity.
The question does not ask what the contradictions in the novel are...

What are the contradictions of the colonial project in the Congo that Conrad notices, as seen through Heart of Darkness?

What does the question asker mean by "the colonial project." I think I can guess but I would prefer to know more clearly. Also I can't wrap my head around by what she means by "through the Heart of Darkness." I know I am picky but I get very pick when it comes to clarity in writing. That is one of the reasons I got into UC Berkeley.

Anyway, this question was one of three we could respond to for my discussion group. I chose question 2:

What is the basis for the claims that Morel and Williams make on behalf of the Congolese people (and to whom do they make them)? What do they say must be done and why?
The basis for the claim is the genocide committed against the Congolese People : “Killing members of the group…” Article A 1948 UN Convention, (Power 27) the group being the native people of the Congo. Both Morel and Williams appeal to the world community in general and to the government of Belgium in particular. In addition, Williams appeals to God! They say the genocide (of course, they do not use the word) must stop. Both writers articulate the horrors of the genocide. Why they want it stopped is self-evident. It is genocide.
I found it interesting that the area then known as Belgium coincides with the Spanish Netherlands and the Belgi were once colonized and brutalized by Spain in the 16th Century and according to Morel, genocide occurred then to the Belgi claiming that the victims of Phillip’s II despicable acts number 30,000. (119)
It behooves us to list some of the specific actions perpetrated by King Leopold’s “agents of civilization” as Morel sarcastically calls them. Here he compares the atrocities to those of King Phillip. “You will find nothing worse in the pages of Motley, ” such as “depopulation, slaughter, mutilation…cruel and systematic oppression…positive starvation…” (120) Morel states the oppressors engaged in the “slave trade.” (130) Morel calls the atrocities a “crime against humanity” (are you listening, Professor Moyn?) Morel concludes that it is time to take off the kid’s gloves (referring to inadequate measures proposed eight years prior) and end the atrocities.

If that's what passes for academic history these days, it's a sad case--it sounds like ideological propaganda to me. There was no "Spain" then. Philip the Fair, an Austrian and son of the Holy Roman Emperor, was the son of Mary of Burgundy, and when his grandfather, Charles the Bold of Burgundy died, his mother Mary became the de jure ruler of all the Burgundian holdings which included the Netherlands. Philip married Juana la loca (Mad Joanna), the Queen of Castile and heir presumptive of Aragon--the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella. They produced a son, Carlos, who became King Carlos I of Castile and Aragon (roughly, what we call Spain). He also became (through generous bribery), the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. He was the emperor who opposed Martin Luther and who fought the wars of the Reformation. In 1555, he abdicated in favor of his son Philip II, but the German electors were once bitten, twice shy, and they did not elect Philip as HRE. So "Spain" did not exist, much less conquer the Netherlands. There was no genocide and there were no "Belgi." There Flamands and Waloons, and there were the Dutch. Shortly after Philip II came to the throne, they fought a war with the French, lost, and went to Paris for a big party for everyone who had been heroes in the war. One of them was William of Nassau, and as he rode out hunting with King Henri of France, Henri, assuming William was in the know, spoke to him of the massacre of Protestants which he (Henri) and Philip were planning. Willim kept his peace, saying nothing, but when he got back to the Netherlands, he spread the word among the Protestants there. The French thereafter called him Guillaume le taciturne--William the Silent. Although raised as a Catholic, William may have become a Protestant eventually, although no one really knows. He was to become the leader of the Dutch rebellion against the Spanish, and was assassinated by a mentally unstable Catholic boy in 1584.

The Dutch Rebellion is also known as the Eighty Years War, and they fought the Spanish off and on until 1648, when their independence was recognized in the Peace of Westphalia. There was no conquest, there was no genocide.

Really, it's an appalling thought that this sort of drivel might be being taught as history these days. But i guess that's easier than doing the difficult work of actually learning and understanding what truly happened.

That's true. I remind myself, and struggle to keep it in mind, but it's well imprinted that this is "Spain", that is "Italy", etc.

It is hard. When i write here, i often say things such as "what we call France today," or "we could call them Germans." History is hardly as static as simple-minded crap like that suggests.