Heart of Darkness

[timbaly]

At the time it was published heart of darkness was considered controversial. It painted the European intervention in Africa as not all that holy. In the present day it gets a lot more ciriticism, but for a different reason. The book is said to be racist and said not be condemning imperialism, but rather arguing for a better way to go about doing it. I have to whole heartedly agree with the modern perspective. Noted professor Chinua Achebe wrote an article on the subject that can be read here:

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr.../achebehod.html (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pursuits/achebehod.html)

My question is despite the evident bias in the book would you still consider it a great book like many still do? Can a book be considered great even though it has many racist elements in it? Can it be great if it argues in favor of imperialism?

[encephalon]

That book put me to sleep so many times I think I may have become dependent upon it for melanin release into my bloodstream. It's damned boring.

[tambourine_man]

At the time it was published heart of darkness was considered controversial. It painted the European intervention in Africa as not all that holy. In the present day it gets a lot more ciriticism, but for a different reason. The book is said to be racist and said not be condemning imperialism, but rather arguing for a better way to go about doing it. I have to whole heartedly agree with the modern perspective. Noted professor Chinua Achebe wrote an article on the subject that can be read here:

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr.../achebehod.html

My question is despite the evident bias in the book would you still consider it a great book like many still do? Can a book be considered great even though it has many racist elements in it? Can it be great if it argues in favor of imperialism?

i see no real evidence of racism in 'heart of darkness' even after reading that essay.
certainly 'heart of darkness,' written during the late 19th century/early 20th century, depicts african society as primitive and steeped in mystical ritualism, especially as compared to european society. and it was. and, one could argue, it still is. obviously, that isn't due to any inherent inferiority of the "african people" and conrad never suggests that it is. instead, it is the result of specific circumstances concerning the progression and development of material relations within africa; european imperialism is certainly the most obvious impediment to such material development.

conrad merely paints a picture of africa as it was, and details the horrors of imperialism.

achebe's criticisms, at least from what i have read, often glorify "traditional culture" and present its replacement with bourgeois commericalism as a purely "western" phenomenon, rather than as a universal, inevitable, material necessity and fact. now that is ignorant, and, if you'd like, racist.

[Body Count]

I think you should be careful who you are painting as "more primitive"...one could make the argument, only animals would enslave, rape, pillage, and committ genocide on people and then hide behind the term "colonialism". And its not like the Europeans didn't try to use christianity (Or, "mystical ritualism") to try and justify their racist actions.

The belief in biological determinism is the reason for Africa being cut up into colonies...the people who did it weren't thinking about material necessities.

[Body Count]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:10 PM
My question is despite the evident bias in the book would you still consider it a great book like many still do? Can a book be considered great even though it has many racist elements in it? Can it be great if it argues in favor of imperialism?
Even Marx was said to be racist.

Darwin was racist as well.

I don't reject science and knowledge.

Fiction that is not politically correct is trash to me however.

[Body Count]

For the record, this is the first time I have heard this criticism of Conrad.

I've always believed that his book was meant to expose colonialism.

[redstar2000]

I think part of the problem lies in the conceit that there "is" such a thing as "immortal" literature.

And I think that, in turn, is based on the proposition that humans are "the same" at "all" times in "all" places. The literature that "best captures" what it "means to be human" is "immortal".

When I was in high school, for example, I was solemnly informed that Shakespeare portrayed the "truth" of what it really "meant" to "be human" better than "anyone else ever had."

I found this assertion enormously bewildering...because most of the characters in his plays seemed to me to be either assholes or crazies!

It was quite a bit later that I realized the truth of the matter...that Shakespeare was writing about what it meant to be a human of a certain class in the England of Elizabeth I. Once you grasp that, then all the "wacko" things his characters say and do start to make sense.

He wrote about what he saw in the human behavior around him.

So did Balzac. So did Mark Twain. So did Dostoevsky. So did Conrad.

If we read some piece of "immortal literature" and find its expressed or implied views repugnant...it's because we're not like that any more.

Chinuah Achebe is not an early 20th century westerner but instead a thoroughly modern professor...perhaps even "post-modern". By modern standards, Conrad did hold racist views. So did probably every 19th century writer you ever heard of.

"Race" enjoyed an intellectual "respectability" in the 19th and early 20th centuries that we cannot even imagine in our time. Preachers preached on it. Social reformers talked about it. Scientists investigated it. Politicians appealed on it. Novelists just assumed that there was "something to it".

And now, we read such writing with astonishment mixed with disgust.

And some go so far as to propose "demotion" from the "ranks of the immortals" on the basis of pre-modern views.

I have a different idea: let's just dispense with the whole idea of "literary immortals" altogether.

Read Conrad only if you want to see the world through the eyes of an early 20th century western novelist.

Because that's all there is there!

No "grand vision" of the abstract human is possible. All we ever get is "how things looked" at that time in that place to that particular writer.

And it does require, I think, a particular literary interest to even be interested in how people in the distant past "looked at things".

For example, I've read some early 20th century (1915-30) American fiction...and found it rather boring on the whole. My impression is that people back then were "rather boring". They didn't do very interesting things and their ideas were rather...well, primitive.

Fiction starts to get interesting to me in the 60s...when I can clearly see the roots of what exists now and what may come to exist in the future.

A modern writer especially gifted can, on occasion, "re-create" the past so vividly (using modern language) that you have the feeling that you are really getting a glimpse of "what it meant to be human" back then.

But I think that's more "art" than it is real insight.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[timbaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 04:01 PM
That book put me to sleep so many times I think I may have become dependent upon it for melanin release into my bloodstream. It's damned boring.
I must concour with you there. I don't think the book is great at all, I find it tedious at certain points. If it were not boring to me I would not hesitate to call it good despite the negative and unjust portrayal of Africans. Political corectness is not needed for a book ot be entertaining or well written, however without the political correctness it is hard not to detract from the book at least a little.

[timbaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 04:34 PM
i see no real evidence of racism in 'heart of darkness' even after reading that essay.
certainly 'heart of darkness,' written during the late 19th century/early 20th century, depicts african society as primitive and steeped in mystical ritualism, especially as compared to european society. and it was. and, one could argue, it still is. obviously, that isn't due to any inherent inferiority of the "african people" and conrad never suggests that it is. instead, it is the result of specific circumstances concerning the progression and development of material relations within africa; european imperialism is certainly the most obvious impediment to such material development.

conrad merely paints a picture of africa as it was, and details the horrors of imperialism.

achebe's criticisms, at least from what i have read, often glorify "traditional culture" and present its replacement with bourgeois commericalism as a purely "western" phenomenon, rather than as a universal, inevitable, material necessity and fact. now that is ignorant, and, if you'd like, racist.
I think the main racist elements of the book can be seen when you realize that the Africans in the book were not given the power of speech. Whenever they communiocate with each other Conrad describes their words as terrible noises and he does not give them much dialouge other than two lines I believe. Another theme in the book that shows racism is the description of Africans as being cannibals. One of the few lines of dialogue that is given to the Africans is one about eating a person. In reality there were no such incidents, and no proof that cannibalism existed in the region. Conrad did not do any ionvestigating in the matter and simply prepetuated a sterotype. At the time these things were written they were not considered racist, and they were assumed to be true, but to me that means that they are racist anyway.

[timbaly]

Originally posted by Body [email protected] 9 2006, 05:44 PM
For the record, this is the first time I have heard this criticism of Conrad.

I've always believed that his book was meant to expose colonialism.
Many people also see the book only as a critc of imperialism. I defientely believe that it's a critic of the style of imperialism that was in action in the Congo. However never does the book condemn imperialism outright. The mian character, Marlow believes that Britian should help educate and bring civilization to Africa. This to me is advoacting imperialism in a more tame form.