Evans

Shannon Evans Criticism Short Paper: Heart of Darkness

“He had the power to charm or frighten rudimentary souls into an aggravated witch-dance in his
honor.”

How Conrad's Use of Language Becomes the Antithesis for His Intentions.

It has been proven time and time again throughout history that humans can lack

sensitivity when there is an absence of commonality between different individuals, and their

familial groups. When one encounters words such as savage, monstrous, grotesque, ugly, and

uncivilized in a story to describe people with no relation to them one might gloss over these

terms in lieu of seeing the bigger picture. In this instance, I am referencing a phenomenon that is

present when many encounter Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. Throughout the novella there

is much use of racial slang, and unflattering depictions of Africans are in abundance. Yet the

irony here is shown in Joseph Conrad’s rise to fame for his anti-imperialist depiction of the

Europeans in the fight for Africa. To be fair the short novel had many reasons for being regarded

as a classic, but it seems strange to imagine that with its controversial language and context of

perceived African behavior it is allowed to remain as praiseworthy. Chinua Achebe, one of

Conrad’s noted critics, was one of the first to debunk Conrad’s universally accepted good

intentions. About 75 years had passed since Heart of Darkness was published, when An Image

of Africa slowly but surely started a new rise in the criticism world. Why did it take a great

amount of time to come to some fairly obvious conclusions? It is hard to give a direct answer,

but it is plausible to assume that readers only see what they want to see, so for many non

Africans dissecting Conrad’s work it is hard to put one’s self in the shoes of Chinua Achebe.

Therefore he becomes the one easily criticized, and Conrad is ultimately and somewhat

unreasonably defended.
 Evans

This notion of unfairness is acknowledged by Caryl Phillips in his 2007 interview with

Achebe. He realizes

I feel momentarily ashamed that I might have become caught up with this theme and

subsequently overlooked how offensive this novel might be to a man like Chinua Achebe

and to millions of other Africans. Achebe is right; to the African reader, the price of

Conrad’s eloquent denunciation of colonization is the recycling of racist notions of the

“dark” continent and her people (Phillips 134).

Thus bringing us full circle back to the question of what makes the story so arrogant; so

insulting? The most apparently striking is the language. One of the words Conrad uses to

describe the African natives is rudimentary, which is commonly defined as elementary, primitive,

and even incompletely developed. One of the most insulting lines is when Marlow utters that the

Africans are “rudimentary souls.” It is conceivable that Marlow is claiming the Europeans

superiority, their exceptional, developed, and civilized souls in comparison to the natives. It is

not only Conrad’s adjectives that get him into trouble; it is also his lack of acknowledging

humanity in the Africans. The combination of these is what ultimately condemns him. To

understand how Conrad insults the native’s humanity, one must elaborate on the context of his

depictions of Africans. When describing he is obsessed with blackness, Marlow uses the

obscenity nigger profusely, and contrasts the darkness of the natives with pure ivory skin of the

Europeans. His imagery often shows the Africans as masses not worthy of faces or individual

characteristics. When describing a native Marlow says “A black figure stood up, strode on long

black legs, waving long black arms" (Conrad 77). In addition to the theft of individuality the

Africans are also deprived of speech. There are only a few instances in the story in which an
 Evans

African speaks. It is beneficial to examine Conrad’s similar nature toward women in Heart of

Darkness in order to see the dehumanizing qualities his writing possesses.

Women are also only figures in the novel, without possessing names, or any intelligent

characteristics, they come across as less human. The superiority of the white European male is

insurmountable. Kurtz’s African mistress is described as a “Wild and gorgeous apparition of a

woman” (72). She is demeaned to the point of an apparition; a ghost of a woman. Her sole

purpose being a sexual object. Sex is often referred to as dark, tainted, uncivilized. The European

women are still very neglected but they are not apparitions, they are not seen as just sex objects.

The Intended does not have the courtesy of having a full persona or name, but she still has a title,

and an unabashed relationship/ claim to Kurtz. These are things the African mistress will never

possess. A gender critic Johanna M. Smith explains Marlow’s attitude towards femininity in an

interesting light she says Marlow possesses the ideology that woman and men live in “separate

spheres.” This separation is the catalyst for the “Masculine Imperialism” (Smith 196). Marlow’s

treatment of women and Africans contradicts his anti-imperialist views because he has

imperialist/ patriarchal influence in his actions towards these two groups.

It would be naïve to believe one has read these past few paragraphs without finding

multiple arguments in defense of Conrad’s work. In fairness, Conrad deserves some credit for

criticizing imperialism/ Europeans at all. In order to strengthen ones realization of his flaws one

must acknowledge his strengths and successes. There are a few parts in Heart of Darkness where

Marlow does come off as sympathetic, and understanding. One of the most enlightening passages

happens early in the novella. Marlow states

They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got. It was just robbery

with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind - as is very
 Evans

proper for those who tackle darkness. The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the

taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than

ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much” (Conrad 9).

Marlow again shows depth when he compares the African drums to the church bells for

European Christians. These excerpts are important to note because they shows the complexity of

Marlow and his ability to see beyond his shallow comprehension. There are a few lines in the

story where one can see how Marlow contradicts himself. When Marlow reflects “They were

dying slowly—it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were

nothing earthly now—nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in

the greenish gloom” (20). It is easier to see the challenge of Conrad’s contradicting language. In

this quote Marlow seems to have good intentions by declaring the natives innocence, but then

goes on to call them black shadows. Marlow never has a problem with judging the Europeans

but that does not mean he wholeheartedly sympathizes with the Africans.

Since Heart of Darkness is a work of fiction it is easy to dispute that Conrad was not a

racist by stating that Conrad is not Marlow. Of course writers have characters that reflect

different opinions from their own, and it could be true that Marlow’s views are solely his

character but Achebe is not going to blindly accept this argument. Achebe states that the use of

narrative within a narrative could act as safeguard for Conrad. Phillips explains Achebe’s logic

further by saying “The complex polyphony of the storytelling is Conrad’s way of trying to

deliberately distance himself from the views of his characters.” This is harder to prove than

whether the novel itself comes off as racist. Since Conrad is dead we will never be able to

analyze him more as a person, so one finds his work the only way to judge him. Just as it takes a
 Evans

personal interpretation to decipher your beliefs on Heart of Darkness, it takes that same

individual interpretation to decide ones overall opinion of Conrad.

To Alienate Conrad in the way Achebe wishes society would seems unrealistic. There

will always be an ongoing debate on each side, the real question is if one can acknowledge and

understand Achebe’s struggle with Conrad’s book. Even if one does not believe Conrad was a

racist, there is no reason not to find middle ground and realize how the story can be offensive to

Africans. A critic, Patrick Bratlinger, offers interesting incite when he says “Heart of Darkness

offers a powerful critique of at least some manifestations of imperialism and racism, as it

simultaneously presents that critique in ways that can be characterized only as imperialist and

racist… the novel itself…cancels its own best intentions” (Rabinowitz 132). To deny that the

novella is either anti- imperialist or racist would be equally invalid, it is easily both. The fight

mainly consists of which is it more. It is important to consider the distinctions between Marlow

and Conrad, the use of contradictory language, and the treatment of women and Africans to come

to a conclusion of what one believes. Raising these questions is an important part in taking a

side intelligently and learning to debate sympathetically in this ongoing discussion.

 Evans

Works Cited

Achebe, Chinua. "An Image of Africa." The Massachuesetts Review 18.4 (1977): 782-94.

JSTOR.

Conrad, Joseph, and Ross C. Murfin. Heart of Darkness: a Case Study in Contemporary

Criticism. New York: St. Martin's, 1989.

Murfin, Ross C., and Kayla Walker Edin. "A Critical History of Heart of Darkness." 137.

Phillips, Caryl. "Was Joseph Conrad Really a Racist?" (2007): An Interview with Chinua

Achebe." 129-34.

Rabinowitz, Peter J. "Reader Response, Reader Responsibility: Heart of Darkness and the

Politics of Displacement." (1996): 131.