Ok, to clarify a little on my ramblings in class, I think that, despite his ultimate reveal, Kurtz is still remarkable. When Marlow finally meets him, he is a skeletal, dying, broken man who, at first glance, doesn’t resemble the cult of personality surrounding him. However, I think his physical form is degraded not in spite of his mythical accomplishments and prowess, but directly because of them. He is extremely successful in the ivory trade, and, in order to thrive in this insane environment, he had to adapt to it. He became more a part of this world than a human being should be able to. He sold his soul, his humanity for success in this world. When the reader is introduced to the man in the flesh, we are not being shown that his accomplishments were a lie, but the price of those accomplishments. That is why the myth of Kurtz is more significant than the man: he consciously destroyed one to fuel the other.
Also, when Marlow returns to European society, he looks down on those around him for their delusions of grandeur. On his journey, he has been shown how fragile the human spirit is. Marlow himself almost died from what doctors later stated was more of an emotional than physical malady. Also, it is possible that, after experiencing the myths and such of Kurtz in such a maddened environment, he sees the self-aggrandizing of these Europeans as paling in comparison. They don’t know what it is to have a real reputation, real power over the hearts of those who don’t know you. Kurtz seemed to be everything to all people; this is further supported by the descriptions of him by his relatives contradicting Marlow’s personal experience with the man.
I guess you could say that Kurtz was a remarkable man. That he was a symbol of imperialism, and that it's not the words themselves, but the fact that he had a voice (a voice that shaped him as a legend and earned the respect of so many) that was profound. In his dying moments, even as a frail and dilapidated rack of bones, he was able to speak of something larger than himself. But, I still think that "The horror! The horror!" are pretty lame last words. Also, the death of such a great man isn't done much justice. It's proclaimed simply with "Mister Kurtz- he dead." I think it's important to remember, as we keep saying in class, that our perspective of Kurtz is biased. Everything we know is coming from Marlow, a man driven by obsession.
I agree with the in-class discussion concerning whose story this is. It's the story of the internal and external struggle of the imperialist. It's his position on a pedestal and his degradation onto all fours. It's his image as a mighty legend and his final moments as a sack of bones. Marlow is merely the vessel, the man left behind to pass on his story. But, part of me still saw this as Marlow's story. Although he's speaking, it's still a retelling of his exposure and obsession with the darkness he walks in on.
There are many times when Marlow "enlightens" us about how meaningless the world is. A few people today, in response, said that he could not have been entirely invested in that theory if he told Kurtz's wife a lie. Personally, I do not understand this line of thought. I mean, Joseph Conrad was a modernist, not a nihilist. He didn't believe that there were no morals or values and that life had no purpose whatsoever. He just believed that the significance of life versus death is made out to be something more than it is. Trying to make something out of your life just so you can say it was well-lived is a meaningless venture. So, how could making Kurtz's devastated wife feel better about her driven-insane husband be an explanation for him finding meaning? He just did not want her to feel bad! It wasn't like he was trying to find meaning in his own life or in Kurtz's.
I agree with what Ariel said in class today about remarkable not necessarily being a positive term. And you could definitely argue that Kurtz was remarkable either way. However, I thought that Kurtz was remarkable in the negative sense. I mean he hasn't done anything earth shattering/ground breaking/AMAZING. Instead, he has this huge power over the natives and his use of them for ivory.
Marlow says that Kurtz is remarkable because of his voice. I just wanted to talk more about Kurtz’s voice. Marlow becomes not only obsessed with Kurtz but the idea of hearing Kurtz’s voice. He doesn’t care to see the man…he only wants to hear him. Marlow says, “The man presented himself as a voice.”
To the natives, Kurtz is godlike (remarkable perhaps?). They worship Kurtz like a god. For example, they attack the white men to prevent them from taking Kurtz with them. Also, the symbolic meaning of Kurtz’s name is that in German it means “short.” This is ironic because Kurtz is seven feet tall-ish. So he has this godlike height but not some godlike name.
I agree with "T-Pain" with the idea that the Kurtz, the myth, is greater than Kurtz, the man. However, I don't consider Kurtz to be a remarkable person. I feel that people's perceptions of him were greater than what he actually amounted to be when Marlow finally met him. With all the hype surrounding Kurtz (i.e. people being fearful of him, his reputation out in the jungle), I was expecting more of an authoritative figure; instead, Kurtz turns out to have gone insane from the surroundings, persona, etc. Insanity is not a quality that I deem to be remarkable.
In reference to what Lauren brought up in class today, I have to question the reliabilty of the narrator, Marlow. I feel that Marlow's expectations/perceptions were projected upon the reader; it wasn't objective at all. I feel that Marlow's obsession with Kurtz grew as the journey progressed; I feel that it's Marlow that has deemed Kurtz to be remarkable. When he finally meets Kurtz, Marlow has become enraptured with him to the point of an interest more than scholary (cue the "overt/covert/repressed homoeroticism, if you must) I'm not the one who has made that decision.
One aspect that I feel correlates to Kurtz's remarkability is how he takes over the "savages", getting them to wage war. In terms of colonialism, the Europeans considered themselves superior over the people that they were conquering. Because of this sense of inferiority, the Europeans/Marlow would naturally expect that a man who conquers the indigenous, ruthless population would be heroic/remarkable. I feel that this perspective weighs heavily on Marlow's perspective of Kurtz, which I don't find to be reliable to begin with.
Even though we consider it to mean outstanding, unbelievable, or some sort of exception to a rule, if you take apart the word remarkable, it literally means "worthy of remark," right? So in that sense, I think Kurtz is without a doubt remarkable. Not only was he an obsession in Part Two, but he allows Marlow to learn the truth about imperialism, the jungle, and the "heart of darkness" in Part Three so we would be crazy not to remark on his significance to the text, to the themes, and to our agreement that the story is "imperialism's". In the outstanding or unbelievable sense, I still think Kurtz is remarkable. When Marlow "understands" Kurtz, shown by his affinity toward him but also when he tells the Kurtz's European girlfriend that her name was his last word, he realizes that Kurtz had no choice but to surrender to the heart of darkness. To Marlow, Kurtz is certainly remarkable, and though he's not necessarily a credible source, he's the source of emotion in the story. I also agree with Zoe that Kurtz is remarkable in a negative sense; it is note-worthy that his last words were not courageous, accepting, or inspiring, They were human, and they were cowardly, which is surprising, coming from a character the reader is expected to respect for most of the novel.
Thinking about my comment in class, I can now see how the word remarkable could work. I liked Elyse's way of looking at it because when rephrased as, 'worthy of mark', that is a total apt description of Kurtz. The novel's main purpose is to look at imperialism and how the congo and Africa impacted imperialists by changing them completely. Kurtz is a perfect example of this occurring, which also supports the argument of him being called remarkable. Before his death, we see Kurtz's change because he wants to return to the world he left and he wanted to change the world and be famous.
I believe that Kurtz's final words are very revealing of how Kurtz realized that his life was misguided towards the end. When Marlow tells his sister that the last word he spoke was her name, we see the influence of the congo on imperialism and the difference between the worlds.
I also thought it was interesting how Marlow and Kurtz were connected. Obviously, Marlow has the obsession with Kurtz that develops in the second part, but then in the third part, as soon as Kurtz becomes ill and dies, Marlow becomes sick. I think that ties into Marlow's psychological fixation on Kurtz and when he died, maybe Marlow subconsciously became ill.
Alright so I wasn't in class today, but I'm guessing the discussion was whether or not Kurtz is remarkable? Well, when the idea of Kurtz is initially introduced, everyone else in the novel definitely thought he was remarkable, resulting in high expectations. In relation to what Tommy was saying, Marlow's description of him in Part II seemingly depicts him as pathetic: "...I seemed to see Kurtz for the first time. It was a distinct glimpse: the dugout, four paddling savages, and one lone white man turning his back suddenly on the headquarters, on relief, on thoughts of home perhaps, setting his face towards the depth of the wilderness, towards his empty and desolate station." However, I also totally agree with Elyse, in that if you think about the word remarkable in its most technical sense, then Kurtz is definitely remarkable. He leaves a mark on Marlow, who is utterly intrigued by him from the first mention of him, and Heart of Darkness as a whole as a representation of imperialism, which a couple of people have said already. However, as a character I do not find him particularly remarkable in a good or bad sense. He was to the natives, he was to Marlow, and he was to most characters of the story, yet possibly because of these opinions, he does not truly stand out as remarkable. He is simply a man whose mistaken reputation has made him seem better than he actually is.
About Kurtz... I agree that he's remarkable. I think more than anything, it's the idea of him, not him as a person that affects everyone in the book so strongly. Also, Marlow specifically looks at the two version of Kurtz (myth and reality) and chooses myth, by deciding to lie about Kurtz's last words. I believe readers are meant to see Kurtz as remarkable as a character in this book, but not as a person. But byy making him "remarkable" and uncommon/extraordinary in a negative light, Conrad places emphasis on his experience and how he became "remarkable." This goes back to imperialism and the entire concept of darkness and the futility of existence that's the basis of modernism.
And I think the story belongs to Kurtz. He is the one who represents postcolonialism and the madness that results from imperialism. He is also the one around which the myths are based, and the metafiction and storytelling emphasize this remarkable side of him. I think that although Marlow is obviously important, the focus is meant to be on Kurtz in order to highlight the main themes (imperialism, madness, "darkness", role of women, and civilized vs savage etc).
I agree with James that Krutz the myth is bigger than Krutz the actual person. Kruts himself is not so remarkable. He has so many flaws to be considered so. However, the lengend of him IS remarkable. Because Krutz is a lengendary character in Marlow's mind Krutz is only a remarkable character to him. Krutz the man is not remarkable but Krutz as this wonderful and powerful character, just the idea maybe, is amazing.
I believe it is possible to tie the significance of Krutz's remarkability and our class's next question which was about Marlow's epiphany. I define Marlow's epiphany to be about realizing that life is meaningless. Krutz, this incredible man, in real life, is not wonderful. If life is given to this Krutz's character he suddenly becomes too imperfect, even to the point of being just a regular, meaningless person who cannot conquer the influence of his environment.
I would agree that Kurtz the myth is much greater than Kurtz the man. But doesn't becoming a myth make someone remarkable to begin with? I mean that sort of notariety comes from the mystery and persona that Kurtz has. So maybe his true self isn't some enlightened person holding the secrets of life, and maybe he doesn't have some dark story to tell that will change the world, or last words that when uttered will forever alter the listeners view of the world. But he has reached the status of myth through his life, and that makes him remarkable. Marlow sees something within him the the listeners on the ship cannot understand, that we cannot fully understnad, but that he tries desperately to convey. It is for that reason that his story is retold.
Wow I didn't see Jenny's comment before I posted. I feel unoriginal. Sorry.
I guess just to add on, as for whose story it is I'd say it's Conrad's opinion of imperialism, told by Marlow, but conveyed by the remarkable Mistah Kurtz!
Mr. Kurtz : Going on the premise that Kurtz is a symbol of imperialism, he must be remarkable for the way imperialism changed and shaped the world. I think Conrad was really clever to personify imperialism because he could show its dual nature through the simultaneous strength and frailty of man. Conrad shows that abusing others eventually becomes an unconscious form of self-abuse, signified by Kurtz's descent into madness.
Marlow: To me this entire book, like Power and the Glory, is an internal meditation. All of the exterior elements (the jungle, Mr. Kurtz, etc.) are components of Marlow's path to enlightenment (though i would say the enlightenment is totally a relief from suffering, more of a descent into suffering.)
This book, like many of the books we read this year, should be looked at from the point of view of the writer rather than just looking at the story itself. This is a novella, only 77 pages-- so every character, description, piece of dialogue, is symbolic of something. Characters are not explored for the sake of creating a new human being. Rather, these characters are just ideas with hands and legs and a face.
All the dialogue has a symbolic connotation. If you actually think of saying some of this dialogue out loud, it's actually pretty funny because it sounds so melodramatic. But you have to remember that the dialogue isn't between two people, it's between two parts of society, one's desires and one's conscience, two philosophies. I feel like if you just look at the surface of Marlow's story, you'll find very little meaning in it. You have to know that the author casts his/her shadow on every part of their work.
Crime and Punishment, Jane Eyre, and Native Son were highly symbolic, but they also explored characters for the sake of creating a human being. These books to me were like books I could picture in my head as movies. We know Bigger, Raskolnikov, and Jane Eyre, we'd recognize them walking down the street. We don't know Marlow. We only know him through whatever idea he represents, which exists in all of us.
I originally thought that Kurtz was not really remarkable but now i think he is. All someone has to do to be remarkable is do something differently or so well that other people talk about what they did. This is definitely the case for Kurtz as the whole story is told by Marlow, an outside admirer who definitely believes that Kurtz is remarkable. I think the book as a whole is the story of Imperialism and Colonialism rather than the story of any individual character. The reason for this is that Marlow is the narrator but he doesn't really focus the story on himself which means it can't be his story. Kurtz is a main focus of the novel but Marlow is an unreliable narrator so im not sure he can be counted as the central character of the novel. However, colonialism is an overarching theme that appears everywhere in the book and unifies the story, which is why i think it is what the story is about.
14 comments:
Ok, to clarify a little on my ramblings in class, I think that, despite his ultimate reveal, Kurtz is still remarkable. When Marlow finally meets him, he is a skeletal, dying, broken man who, at first glance, doesn’t resemble the cult of personality surrounding him. However, I think his physical form is degraded not in spite of his mythical accomplishments and prowess, but directly because of them. He is extremely successful in the ivory trade, and, in order to thrive in this insane environment, he had to adapt to it. He became more a part of this world than a human being should be able to. He sold his soul, his humanity for success in this world. When the reader is introduced to the man in the flesh, we are not being shown that his accomplishments were a lie, but the price of those accomplishments. That is why the myth of Kurtz is more significant than the man: he consciously destroyed one to fuel the other.
Also, when Marlow returns to European society, he looks down on those around him for their delusions of grandeur. On his journey, he has been shown how fragile the human spirit is. Marlow himself almost died from what doctors later stated was more of an emotional than physical malady. Also, it is possible that, after experiencing the myths and such of Kurtz in such a maddened environment, he sees the self-aggrandizing of these Europeans as paling in comparison. They don’t know what it is to have a real reputation, real power over the hearts of those who don’t know you. Kurtz seemed to be everything to all people; this is further supported by the descriptions of him by his relatives contradicting Marlow’s personal experience with the man.
I guess you could say that Kurtz was a remarkable man. That he was a symbol of imperialism, and that it's not the words themselves, but the fact that he had a voice (a voice that shaped him as a legend and earned the respect of so many) that was profound. In his dying moments, even as a frail and dilapidated rack of bones, he was able to speak of something larger than himself. But, I still think that "The horror! The horror!" are pretty lame last words. Also, the death of such a great man isn't done much justice. It's proclaimed simply with "Mister Kurtz- he dead." I think it's important to remember, as we keep saying in class, that our perspective of Kurtz is biased. Everything we know is coming from Marlow, a man driven by obsession.
I agree with the in-class discussion concerning whose story this is. It's the story of the internal and external struggle of the imperialist. It's his position on a pedestal and his degradation onto all fours. It's his image as a mighty legend and his final moments as a sack of bones. Marlow is merely the vessel, the man left behind to pass on his story. But, part of me still saw this as Marlow's story. Although he's speaking, it's still a retelling of his exposure and obsession with the darkness he walks in on.
There are many times when Marlow "enlightens" us about how meaningless the world is. A few people today, in response, said that he could not have been entirely invested in that theory if he told Kurtz's wife a lie. Personally, I do not understand this line of thought. I mean, Joseph Conrad was a modernist, not a nihilist. He didn't believe that there were no morals or values and that life had no purpose whatsoever. He just believed that the significance of life versus death is made out to be something more than it is. Trying to make something out of your life just so you can say it was well-lived is a meaningless venture. So, how could making Kurtz's devastated wife feel better about her driven-insane husband be an explanation for him finding meaning? He just did not want her to feel bad! It wasn't like he was trying to find meaning in his own life or in Kurtz's.
I agree with what Ariel said in class today about remarkable not necessarily being a positive term. And you could definitely argue that Kurtz was remarkable either way. However, I thought that Kurtz was remarkable in the negative sense. I mean he hasn't done anything earth shattering/ground breaking/AMAZING. Instead, he has this huge power over the natives and his use of them for ivory.
Marlow says that Kurtz is remarkable because of his voice. I just wanted to talk more about Kurtz’s voice. Marlow becomes not only obsessed with Kurtz but the idea of hearing Kurtz’s voice. He doesn’t care to see the man…he only wants to hear him. Marlow says, “The man presented himself as a voice.”
To the natives, Kurtz is godlike (remarkable perhaps?). They worship Kurtz like a god. For example, they attack the white men to prevent them from taking Kurtz with them. Also, the symbolic meaning of Kurtz’s name is that in German it means “short.” This is ironic because Kurtz is seven feet tall-ish. So he has this godlike height but not some godlike name.
I agree with "T-Pain" with the idea that the Kurtz, the myth, is greater than Kurtz, the man. However, I don't consider Kurtz to be a remarkable person. I feel that people's perceptions of him were greater than what he actually amounted to be when Marlow finally met him. With all the hype surrounding Kurtz (i.e. people being fearful of him, his reputation out in the jungle), I was expecting more of an authoritative figure; instead, Kurtz turns out to have gone insane from the surroundings, persona, etc. Insanity is not a quality that I deem to be remarkable.
In reference to what Lauren brought up in class today, I have to question the reliabilty of the narrator, Marlow. I feel that Marlow's expectations/perceptions were projected upon the reader; it wasn't objective at all. I feel that Marlow's obsession with Kurtz grew as the journey progressed; I feel that it's Marlow that has deemed Kurtz to be remarkable. When he finally meets Kurtz, Marlow has become enraptured with him to the point of an interest more than scholary (cue the "overt/covert/repressed homoeroticism, if you must) I'm not the one who has made that decision.
One aspect that I feel correlates to Kurtz's remarkability is how he takes over the "savages", getting them to wage war. In terms of colonialism, the Europeans considered themselves superior over the people that they were conquering. Because of this sense of inferiority, the Europeans/Marlow would naturally expect that a man who conquers the indigenous, ruthless population would be heroic/remarkable. I feel that this perspective weighs heavily on Marlow's perspective of Kurtz, which I don't find to be reliable to begin with.
Even though we consider it to mean outstanding, unbelievable, or some sort of exception to a rule, if you take apart the word remarkable, it literally means "worthy of remark," right? So in that sense, I think Kurtz is without a doubt remarkable. Not only was he an obsession in Part Two, but he allows Marlow to learn the truth about imperialism, the jungle, and the "heart of darkness" in Part Three so we would be crazy not to remark on his significance to the text, to the themes, and to our agreement that the story is "imperialism's". In the outstanding or unbelievable sense, I still think Kurtz is remarkable. When Marlow "understands" Kurtz, shown by his affinity toward him but also when he tells the Kurtz's European girlfriend that her name was his last word, he realizes that Kurtz had no choice but to surrender to the heart of darkness. To Marlow, Kurtz is certainly remarkable, and though he's not necessarily a credible source, he's the source of emotion in the story. I also agree with Zoe that Kurtz is remarkable in a negative sense; it is note-worthy that his last words were not courageous, accepting, or inspiring, They were human, and they were cowardly, which is surprising, coming from a character the reader is expected to respect for most of the novel.
Thinking about my comment in class, I can now see how the word remarkable could work. I liked Elyse's way of looking at it because when rephrased as, 'worthy of mark', that is a total apt description of Kurtz. The novel's main purpose is to look at imperialism and how the congo and Africa impacted imperialists by changing them completely. Kurtz is a perfect example of this occurring, which also supports the argument of him being called remarkable. Before his death, we see Kurtz's change because he wants to return to the world he left and he wanted to change the world and be famous.
I believe that Kurtz's final words are very revealing of how Kurtz realized that his life was misguided towards the end. When Marlow tells his sister that the last word he spoke was her name, we see the influence of the congo on imperialism and the difference between the worlds.
I also thought it was interesting how Marlow and Kurtz were connected. Obviously, Marlow has the obsession with Kurtz that develops in the second part, but then in the third part, as soon as Kurtz becomes ill and dies, Marlow becomes sick. I think that ties into Marlow's psychological fixation on Kurtz and when he died, maybe Marlow subconsciously became ill.
Alright so I wasn't in class today, but I'm guessing the discussion was whether or not Kurtz is remarkable? Well, when the idea of Kurtz is initially introduced, everyone else in the novel definitely thought he was remarkable, resulting in high expectations. In relation to what Tommy was saying, Marlow's description of him in Part II seemingly depicts him as pathetic: "...I seemed to see Kurtz for the first time. It was a distinct glimpse: the dugout, four paddling savages, and one lone white man turning his back suddenly on the headquarters, on relief, on thoughts of home perhaps, setting his face towards the depth of the wilderness, towards his empty and desolate station." However, I also totally agree with Elyse, in that if you think about the word remarkable in its most technical sense, then Kurtz is definitely remarkable. He leaves a mark on Marlow, who is utterly intrigued by him from the first mention of him, and Heart of Darkness as a whole as a representation of imperialism, which a couple of people have said already. However, as a character I do not find him particularly remarkable in a good or bad sense. He was to the natives, he was to Marlow, and he was to most characters of the story, yet possibly because of these opinions, he does not truly stand out as remarkable. He is simply a man whose mistaken reputation has made him seem better than he actually is.
About Kurtz... I agree that he's remarkable. I think more than anything, it's the idea of him, not him as a person that affects everyone in the book so strongly. Also, Marlow specifically looks at the two version of Kurtz (myth and reality) and chooses myth, by deciding to lie about Kurtz's last words. I believe readers are meant to see Kurtz as remarkable as a character in this book, but not as a person. But byy making him "remarkable" and uncommon/extraordinary in a negative light, Conrad places emphasis on his experience and how he became "remarkable." This goes back to imperialism and the entire concept of darkness and the futility of existence that's the basis of modernism.
And I think the story belongs to Kurtz. He is the one who represents postcolonialism and the madness that results from imperialism. He is also the one around which the myths are based, and the metafiction and storytelling emphasize this remarkable side of him. I think that although Marlow is obviously important, the focus is meant to be on Kurtz in order to highlight the main themes (imperialism, madness, "darkness", role of women, and civilized vs savage etc).
I agree with James that Krutz the myth is bigger than Krutz the actual person. Kruts himself is not so remarkable. He has so many flaws to be considered so. However, the lengend of him IS remarkable. Because Krutz is a lengendary character in Marlow's mind Krutz is only a remarkable character to him. Krutz the man is not remarkable but Krutz as this wonderful and powerful character, just the idea maybe, is amazing.
I believe it is possible to tie the significance of Krutz's remarkability and our class's next question which was about Marlow's epiphany. I define Marlow's epiphany to be about realizing that life is meaningless. Krutz, this incredible man, in real life, is not wonderful. If life is given to this Krutz's character he suddenly becomes too imperfect, even to the point of being just a regular, meaningless person who cannot conquer the influence of his environment.
I would agree that Kurtz the myth is much greater than Kurtz the man. But doesn't becoming a myth make someone remarkable to begin with? I mean that sort of notariety comes from the mystery and persona that Kurtz has. So maybe his true self isn't some enlightened person holding the secrets of life, and maybe he doesn't have some dark story to tell that will change the world, or last words that when uttered will forever alter the listeners view of the world. But he has reached the status of myth through his life, and that makes him remarkable. Marlow sees something within him the the listeners on the ship cannot understand, that we cannot fully understnad, but that he tries desperately to convey. It is for that reason that his story is retold.
Wow I didn't see Jenny's comment before I posted. I feel unoriginal. Sorry.
I guess just to add on, as for whose story it is I'd say it's Conrad's opinion of imperialism, told by Marlow, but conveyed by the remarkable Mistah Kurtz!
The Hollow Men tomorrow ... woot!
Mr. Kurtz : Going on the premise that Kurtz is a symbol of imperialism, he must be remarkable for the way imperialism changed and shaped the world. I think Conrad was really clever to personify imperialism because he could show its dual nature through the simultaneous strength and frailty of man. Conrad shows that abusing others eventually becomes an unconscious form of self-abuse, signified by Kurtz's descent into madness.
Marlow: To me this entire book, like Power and the Glory, is an internal meditation. All of the exterior elements (the jungle, Mr. Kurtz, etc.) are components of Marlow's path to enlightenment (though i would say the enlightenment is totally a relief from suffering, more of a descent into suffering.)
This book, like many of the books we read this year, should be looked at from the point of view of the writer rather than just looking at the story itself. This is a novella, only 77 pages-- so every character, description, piece of dialogue, is symbolic of something. Characters are not explored for the sake of creating a new human being. Rather, these characters are just ideas with hands and legs and a face.
All the dialogue has a symbolic connotation. If you actually think of saying some of this dialogue out loud, it's actually pretty funny because it sounds so melodramatic. But you have to remember that the dialogue isn't between two people, it's between two parts of society, one's desires and one's conscience, two philosophies. I feel like if you just look at the surface of Marlow's story, you'll find very little meaning in it. You have to know that the author casts his/her shadow on every part of their work.
Crime and Punishment, Jane Eyre, and Native Son were highly symbolic, but they also explored characters for the sake of creating a human being. These books to me were like books I could picture in my head as movies. We know Bigger, Raskolnikov, and Jane Eyre, we'd recognize them walking down the street. We don't know Marlow. We only know him through whatever idea he represents, which exists in all of us.
I originally thought that Kurtz was not really remarkable but now i think he is. All someone has to do to be remarkable is do something differently or so well that other people talk about what they did. This is definitely the case for Kurtz as the whole story is told by Marlow, an outside admirer who definitely believes that Kurtz is remarkable.
I think the book as a whole is the story of Imperialism and Colonialism rather than the story of any individual character. The reason for this is that Marlow is the narrator but he doesn't really focus the story on himself which means it can't be his story. Kurtz is a main focus of the novel but Marlow is an unreliable narrator so im not sure he can be counted as the central character of the novel. However, colonialism is an overarching theme that appears everywhere in the book and unifies the story, which is why i think it is what the story is about.
Post a Comment