Facing the Dark Truth in Heart of Darkness
Conrad’s Heart of Darkness has two major components: a candid look at the reality of imperialism, particularly in the Belgian Congo, and an exploration into the darkest depths of human existence.
One symbolically dense part of the work occurs when Marlow and company are attacked on their journey into the 'heart of darkness' and towards Kurtz. The attack begins suddenly and each of the members of the company are forced to deal with this life intrusion in the way they see fit. The company-men immediately shoot their pistols into the brush.
"The pilgrims had opened with their Winchesters, and were simply squirting lead into that bush. A deuce of a lot of smoke came up and drove slowly forward. I swore at it. Now I couldn't see the ripple or the snag either." The pilgrims shooting results in Marlow not being able to see the snag, and it doesn't even stop the attack, though the pilgrims are positively proud of themselves. "'Say! We must have made a glorious slaughter of them in the bush. Eh? What do you think? Say?' He positively danced, the bloodthirsty little gingery beggar. And he had nearly fainted when he saw the wounded man! I could not help saying, 'You made a glorious lot of smoke, anyhow.' I had seen, from the way the tops of the bushes rustled and flew, that almost all the shots had gone too high. You can't hit anything unless you take aim and fire from the shoulder; but these chaps fired from the hip with their eyes shut."
I think this behavior of the pilgrims is representative of the imperialist movement as a whole. It was begun rashly from the hip with no real objectives, despite the claim that it was a movement civilizing the world. History and Heart of Darkness show that it was reckless death and destruction, flying through the trees, with no real accomplishment, except a lot of smoke.
The Africans on the boat respond in two different ways. The majority of them fall to the ground and hope for the best. The African helmsman cannot do this quite so easily. He is torn between his responsibility of piloting the boat and his need to go for cover. He stamps and gnashes his teeth and finally loses control, grabs the gun and begins firing into the woods. He then dies from a spear in the chest and is the only one on the boat to die from the attack. Marlow comments, "Poor fool! If he had only left that shutter alone. He had no restraint, no restraint--just like Kurtz--a tree swayed by the wind." Here Marlow compares the helmsman to Kurtz by his lack of restraint. But, where the helmsman's lack of restraint is physical, Kurtz's is psycological. Still, both forms of lack of restraint are seen as negative, since they both end in death. But embedded in this is some of the many parodoxes that are in Heart of Darkness as Cedric Watts has pointed out (47). Imperialism is bad because it is the rape of peoples jusitfied with lies. Kurtz embodies the honest savagery of Imperialism, but is bad because of his lack of restraint. Conrad seems to suggest throughout the book that societal restraint and lies, like the one Marlow gives Kurtz's Intended, are preferable though to the savage truth. Yet, a further contradiction is the way that Marlow envies Kurtz for his abandonment af all restraint. Conrad mystefies and somewhat glorifies the "darkness" embodied in the jungle, Kurtz, the natives, and Kurtz's mistress. There is a sense of a purity and vitality in the darkness, but still Conrad suggests, no, we should stick to society.
Interestingly though, the imperialist pilgrims are not hurt for their reckless firing, but when the Afican helmsman fights back he is killed. I wonder if this echos the state of the world where imperialists get away with murder and the oppressed peoples best chance is to lay down, but even then they may die of starvation or illness anyway. How then is Conrad suggesting one handles a river attack? While, the pilgrims don't die from their method, they create so much smoke that the ship is almost destroyed from its inability to navigate. I think the answer lies in Marlow (especially since Marlow is the alter-ego of Conrad), but Marlow at first does not even notice the attack.
"I was looking down at the sounding-pole, and feeling much annoyed to see each try a litle more of it stick out of that river, when I saw my poleman give up the busines suddenly, and stretch himself flat on the deck, without even taking the trouble to haul his pole in....Sticks, little sticks, were flying about-thick; they were whizzing before my nose, dropping below me, striking behind me against my pilot-house....Arrows, by jove! We were being shot at!"
The elipses show where I eliminated some text, because it is quite awhile before Marlow realizes what the little sticks were. I could not reconcile the meaning of this until I was reading in Daleski's book where he states it best.
"With an instinctive certainty of response, Marlow exemplifies the Conradian ideal throughout the attack. What he does, first of all, is to continue to devote himself to the job in hand, to the everyday business of piloting his craft through the river, on the watch for snags. There is enough surface-truth in this to occupy him fully and leave him no time to distinguish the nature of the 'little sticks' that are flying about. When it at length penetrates his consciousness that the sticks are arrows and that they are 'being shot at', he confronts the truth that is hidden in the dark depths..."(69-70).
This almost sounds like "mind your own business," but I do not think it is quite that simple. Conrad is merely suggesting that one complete their "task at hand," but, when one is faced with something, they must be willing to face the dark truth and show restraint, as Conrad himself did. He had been to the Congo, which is what the book is based on, and showed restraint and came back alive. Staying within the restraints of society, he faced the dark truth and wrote a book about it.Partner sites: Labrador Retriever, Study Spanish in Costa Rica, and Free Essays and Term Papers