Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

“The horror! The horror!” – these famous words capture succinctly the entire idea behind Joseph Conrad’s seminal piece of fiction Heart of Darkness. This classic story, now an inextricable part of the Western Canon has inspired giants of literature such as F. Scott Fitzgerald, Virginia Woolf and Albert Camus, and at its core is a chilling, yet poignant tale of the horrors of Imperial Colonialism. Indeed, Conrad was there to witness these horrors first hand - like his mouthpiece Charlie Marlow in the book, in 1889, Joseph Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski became the captain of a steamboat and went sailing up the Congo River. The journey would scar and change his life forever. A deeply introverted, philosophical man whose family was stripped of its aristocratic rank, Conrad was no stranger to tragedy. Perhaps the depth of his feeling is what we can see in the nearly “lyrical” prose of Heart of Darkness. This style, the markedly complex narrative framework (which is what makes this book one of the first books of the Modernist style) and the first hand depiction of cruelty and the conflict between the West and the “savage” world is what makes this book a thoroughly satisfying read. Yes, Conrad has his criticisms, but for me, that only makes the man and his ideas much more endearing. And his unique style of writing and description, which drew much praise (rightly so, in my humble opinion) from his eminent contemporaries (such as Ford Madox Ford) makes the book a pleasure to read. 

In the story, Conrad uses an English sailor named Charles Marlow as his mouthpiece to narrate his experiences. Yet, the person through whose eyes we view the story is not Marlow but an unnamed friend listening to his tale. Through this interesting framework Conrad creates a distance for the reader, an objectivity towards the character with whom one might identify the most.

This character, Marlow, displays all the prejudices and condescending behavior expected of a 19^th Century Englishman – calling Africans “brutes” and savages, yet he is open minded enough to accept the intelligence shown by cannibals in the story. Citing evidence in this book, Conrad has often (unfairly in my opinion) been criticized through this depiction as being a racist himself (see works by Chinua Achebe for example). I feel that perhaps it is a hasty judgment, as an examination of his other texts might prove (or as scholars such as C.P Sarvan have argued). However, this is the very problem - Conrad’s nascent stream-of-consciousness style and peculiar framework cause some haziness about his own views. For example, Marlow calls an African woman “gorgeous”, “beautiful” and at the same time openly admires the man who sticks African heads on pikes. This is ambiguity keeps me coming back for more and has been intriguing to say the least. And through these controversial viewpoints, one can witness the horror that Conrad witnessed in Africa and at the same time, understand the Western European lens and mindset through which we are being shown all this. 

Perhaps, the greatest evidence of the perceived “inferiority”, "wildness" of the continent and the gap between Africa and the colonizer is the way that it is always a suffused background – there, present, dangerous, feared, unknown and yet never fully grasped or confronted. The river is the great separator between the dark forest representing the wilderness of Africa and the Europeans who will eventually reach home through the river to the sea. Never in the story do characters venture into the jungle. Never in the story are we given any insight into the heart and mind of an African – Marlow himself never truly “converses” with one (except once, albeit shortly, with the Cannibal chieftain whom he clearly respects). Are Africans even human? Marlow clearly regards them as primitive versions of Europeans, too far back in time and in terms of progress, never as equals. Yet, there is sympathy for the African race and scorn for the brutality of Europeans. 

In a similar vein, if there is another criticism of Conrad, it must be his depiction of his female characters. There is no direct involvement of women in the story. However, they are extremely important in indirectly driving the story. Perhaps this is a reflection on Victorian ideals and traditional roles for women. The “perfect”, civilized woman is passive, virtuous, subjugated to her lover’s ego; fidelity, perseverance and faith are valued highly. But in Conrad, these women are also slightly derided – as Marlow says, women live in their own worlds, and must not be disturbed. Indeed, Marlow’s aunt, benevolent and generous, believes that the profit making pilfering that Europeans practice in Africa is actually a grand attempt at bringing civilization to brutes. Again, the questions are interesting – is Conrad making a statement? Or is he simply showing the Victorian mindset again? Or is the feminine – which is equated to that which is homely - very distant to his horrific experience? Yet, there seems to be a certain fear for the feminine – as can be seen through the depiction of Kurtz’s African mistress and the whispers of power and influence wielded by Marlow’s aunt.

Perhaps most fascinating is the fall of the character who drives the story like the mythical Holy Grail – Mr. Kurtz, a brilliant individual, the most successful ivory merchant of the Belgian company who falls from grace, living a life without rules and constraints, taking an African mistress and behaving like a savage “dictator” himself. His story is the most interesting question that Conrad asks – what happens when societal constraints that keep us in check are removed? What happens when the only way outward is through introspection? For Kurtz, what he finds within him is too much to take – he dies with the horror of his knowledge, the fact that it is perfectly capable for a man to commit cruel and barbarous acts. For all his rhetoric, his great artistic talent, his cultured and refined background, he is at the end, a common and dishonest ivory merchant who cares little for scruples. In the end, he is drunk with power. Is Conrad here, highlighting the hypocrisy of Imperialist Europe? Is the darkness within each of us, no matter how "civilized" ? This is the central question.

There is something of an absurdist quality to Heart of Darkness – the civilized Europeans are cruel and kill natives for fun while the backward, cannibalistic natives are the most reliable crew members. Ivory and wealth are  the true motives behind the idealistic claim of “civilizing” the savage land of Africa. In Africa, Marlow distrusts and abhors his European manager, yet forms a bond with his untutored, wild, black helmsman, the fascinating legend that is Mr. Kurtz is revealed to be, in reality, to be a hollow shell of a man. All this is through the pained experience of a world-weary sailor. Perhaps Conrad truly was weary of the pointless brutality that he had witnessed.

In totality, Heart of Darkness is a book that left me extremely satisfied emotionally. As an Indian especially, this book was a walk through history, both in terms of the author’s writing as an evolution from previous forms as well as the content of the story. Again, an example of the subaltern historic view, albeit in a one-sided sense, this book is a masterpiece of fiction that I would recommend to anyone.