In my early quest to attempt to read the great books of history, I saw “Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad on many top 100 lists. Sitting at little more than 100 pages long, and eager to notch a book on my list quickly, I decided to take a crack at it. And with a recent popular thread for many declaring their dislike for the book, I figured this might be a good start for my first review.
I regretted the choice almost immediately. Conrad has brilliant literary prose in many of his books (see my upcoming review of my favorite of his, The Secret Agent!) but it was not to be found here. I compared it often to Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” and found it, in many ways, lacking. Sinclair’s prose was more striking, his characters more sympathetic, and his plot more entertaining and interesting. As I read Conrad’s description of the atrocities in the Congo, how long and detailed he went, I found it out of place for a novella and more for an investigative journal article.
And in Conrad’s defense, that was, essentially, what it was supposed to be. My job here then is not to convince you to love Heart of Darkness, but rather to say why it remains in the public conscious as one of history’s most discussed books.
Its historical significance as a novel comes in its exposure of the brutality of African colonialism. Today, any reader who picks up HoD knows going in about the brutality of the imperial project in Africa, and the atrocities committed in the Congo Free State. Its patron, King Leopold II, was not known as one of history’s most vile creatures; his Congo project was thought to be a **charity** and he was widely respected, which is how in part he secured the Congo for his own personal use.
As modern readers, we have read horrifying exposes on the brutality man has commuted against other men. Horrifying stories of what happened in forced labor camps, or even modern slavery that occurs in the Gulf States. We know these things occur, and as Conrad describes the conditions of the Congo, we might find it repetitive; yes, we KNOW the Congo is bad, and its descriptions of the forced labor is something we have studied and condemned. But if you were an average reader, you would not know this. You would not know that Leopold was using charitable purposes to mask one of the most brutal slaver regimes the world had ever seen.
After the release of the Heart of Darkness, the world mobilized in greater support for reform in the Congo; the British sent a consul to confirm the atrocities detailed in the book. The Belgian Parliament eventually “forced” (along with a generous payout) Leopold to relinquish his colony to Belgian authority. It did not end the colonial project by any means. Forced labor would continue in the colonies of Germany, France, and Britain. Atrocities would continue to be committed. However, the worst of the atrocities, which had no end in sight, were ended, in part because of HoD. And for that, we should acknowledge that Conrad’s novella helped change the world in a concrete, immediately recognizable way; few journal articles or books can claim the same.
So how should we receive HoD today? Many find the main character, Marlow, and the broader novel’s plot to be so racist that it’s difficult to read. I will point out that Conrad’s views are markedly different than Marlow’s, and he is trying to point out how absurd the imperial project is. Others find the prose to be too difficult or tedious to read, which all I can say is “Fair enough”.
It is not a timeless masterpiece of literature that can be read at any time and any country and still resonate with readers. But when we say “Books can change the world”, the first book we can point to is Heart of Darkness.
Normally with these reviews, I will put a rating out of 10, however in the spirit of what Heart of Darkness was and what it has become, I feel like it wouldn’t quite be fair to rank it in a traditional way. Since it’s also my first long-form review here, I’ll beg forgiveness this time ^^;
I agree. Heart of Darkness is required reading in many schools not because of quality, but historic importance. I remember the first time I read it in high school I had a visceral reaction in my soul. Historical fiction certainly has its place in education.
I do think an excellent, albeit dense history book on the atrocities in the Congo is King Leopold’s Ghost. Adam Hochschild does an excellent job detailing every aspect of Belgium’s monarch’s role in the Congo.
It is not a timeless masterpiece of literature that can be read at any time and any country and still resonate with readers. But when we say “Books can change the world”, the first book we can point to is Heart of Darkness.
I mostly agree. There’s a lot of books whose significance is more in their status as artifacts, a window into a certain time and place–I’d go so far as to say that I find these more rewarding than many of the “timeless” ones, since you have to put more work into understanding a different worldview and time, and reap a different understanding as a result.
But I think there’s also a specific personal context that ought to be applied as well. Conrad tried to use basic analogies to make his (white) readers sympathize with the plight of the Congolese–especially that one line about how, if a gang of armed blacks showed up in England to rape and pillage, he’d expect the villages there to become deserted quite fast too. But this was what had happened to his own people when he was a child–their language and religion persecuted, his own family dragged into slavery in a distant land, and the colonizers had the audacity to claim they were uplifting them. If there is one lesson we should take away from “Heart of Darkness” at any time, it is to never take at face value any claim from an imperialist that he does what he does out of altruism. Because there are still Kurtzes among us, who will write their pamphlet about bringing civilization to the natives, and then end it with “exterminate all the brutes!” in deed if not in word.
There truly is no arguing about taste I guess. I adore this novella. I love its dense usage of language. This makes it similar to an ancient rainforest where the foliage is too thick for the sun to reach the floor. I love the Romantic horror, abstract and indefinable, yet undeniably present. I love its brutishness. Marlowe is a rough and unlikeable narrator, Kurtz is Kurtz. Marlowe’s imagination of Kurtz is a character in and of itself, rough, wild, yet intriguing.
It has its issues, such as the characterisation of the natives in the Congolese jungle, but these are thematically still relevant to the novella. Its lack of beautiful prose makes it unapproachable, similar to the unapproachability of the unknown. Its roughness makes it beautiful
I like other Conrad’s novels, especially “Nostromo”, but I find this one impenetrable. The language is beautiful, but Conrad uses many characters and events as metaphors of countries and attitudes, and I have the feeling I’m not understanding half of it. I guess it would have been different for contemporary readers, but…
For instance, the “harlequin” Marlowe meets at Kurtz’s camp is Russian because Russia did not have African colonies at the time. That and his rags are supposed to tell us he’s a metaphor for the international community, but I failed to grasp that. And likely so many other things.