Pages

Search This Blog

Saturday, November 15, 2003

"BROTHERS UNDER THE SKIN: ACHEBE ON HEART OF DARKNESS."

Fleming, Bruce. "BROTHERS UNDER THE SKIN: ACHEBE ON HEART OF DARKNESS." College Literature, 00933139, Oct92-Feb93, Vol. 19/20, Issue 3/1

Brothers Under the Skin: Achebe on Heart of Darkness, explains the viewpoint of the author, Bruce Fleming, and his fundamental agreement with Achebe’s lecture in 1975 on the Heart of Darkness. Achebe believed the Conrad was racist, not just in his portrayal of the natives, but also in the “denial of common “humanity” to the Africans.” In other words, Conrad was focusing on the differences between the indigenous people’s and the Europeans, but he in no way portrayed the natives in the way he represented the Europeans. We never read of the thoughts and feelings or observations of the “Black forms,” they were barely characterized as humans.

Fleming disagrees with Achebe that novelists can forgo entirely this methodology of character representation and that other writers (Watts, Weeks, Naipaul, Thiong, and Brantlinger) hold opposing views with Achebe. Fleming gives a brief explanation of the stance each writer takes; however, the focus is approximately a summary of the lecture by Achebe. For readers who do not understand the connection Achebe’s writings have to Conrad’s work, Fleming’s article will clarify that relationship.

One of the strongest arguments that Achebe makes is that not even the most powerful Africans have command of speech in Heart of Darkness. “The only time Conrad allows them speech… they express themselves in a caricature of English… “Mistah Kurtz-he dead.”’ He uses this example in his lecture, using the pidgin within the confines of his formal elocution, to emphasize the difference between Conrad’s depiction and reality.

Fleming goes to deconstruct the speech (“diction and syntax”) and choice of story lines of Achebe’s lecture and his writing. He investigates Achebe’s premeditation in enabling the Europeans to comprehend Ibo concepts and customs and acknowledge them because they are contained in verbal communications the Europeans will appreciate.

"Colonizers, Cannibals, and the Horror of Good Intentions in Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness."

-- Literary Research 03f Honakerl [ Conrad Bibliography ]
Kaplin, Carola M. "Colonizers, Cannibals, and the Horror of Good Intentions in Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness." Studies in Short Fiction, Summer97, Vol. 34 Issue 3, p323, 11p;




The journal article, Colonizers, Cannibals, and the Horror of Good Intentions in Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, makes the distinction between truth and lies in the "self and the other," from Marlow's perspective. The "other," is what draws colonialism, it has an attractive power. Marlow's opinions, that there is a " clear distinction between lies and truth, turns out to be a fallacy because everything is turned upon its head. Carola M. Kaplan, the author, discusses the "other" and makes a claim that our unconscious drives us to "contain" unknown lands, and people that are terrifying by their differences to the colonizing society. Kaplan further states that this impulse is rooted in our childhood and is played out in the two types of texts in colonialist literature; the "imaginary" and the "symbolic." It suggests that that Marlow's view is "imaginary" while Conrad's view is "symbolic."

Kaplan’s examination of the text includes illumination of the “Binary Oppositions” that the character of Marlow represents. Marlow, “detest and avoids lies, yet acknowledges three separate lies in the course of the narrative- to the station manager, to Kurtz, and to the intended.” Marlow offers up his principles and values, but throughout the text, he contradicts himself. Observations he makes to the listeners reveal his true moral reality. According to Kaplan, Marlow is “self-deluding.” He tries to disconnect the actions of the natives from the actions of the Europeans, but “many of his distinctions blur.” Marlow also seeks to “denigrate women.”

He “downplays his aunt’s power,” even though Marlow could not gain employment without her. Marlow feels that the old woman with the cat is “most improper.” His “glib generalizations about women,” are his “attempts to deny the power of the “other”.” Marlow’s imagery of the natives and women are “reductive.” In the case of the “savage” woman, he “highlights her beauty, leadership, and ferocity,” but attributes her directly with the downfall of Kurtz. He views her as a threat and the force that, according to Kaplan, “ has claimed Kurtz for its harem.” His admiration of the cannibal’s restraint is embedded in the term “cannibal,” which is deliberately connotative of violence. We never see evidence of cannibalism. He uses this term to “justify intrusion, usurpation, and conversion.” Marlow’s language when applied to the natives is designated to take away their human attributes. They are “criminals,” “enemies,” and “dark forms.” Marlow’s conventional account of the women and the natives “enables him to deny both their importance for him and his affinity with them.”

Marlow’s attempts to divide the world of the Congo from the drawing room world of the “intended,” falls far short. He felt, “a sensation of panic in my heart as though I had blundered into a place of cruel and absurd mysteries not fit for a human being to behold.” We see similar sentiment when he is describing the dark clearing where the criminals had retired to die. Kaplan makes the interesting point that the world of the drawing room is a simple reflection of the madness of the Congo and of the outer world. It grows darker and more menacing, “more connected with evil.” He attempts to blur class distinction on the boat “ in which a plain seaman rubs elbows with a lawyer and director of companies,” but his narrative purposely points out the differences that exist even “in the jungle class where barriers exist between colonial officials and working men such as mechanics and boiler-makers.”

There was an error in this gadget