Heart of Darkness

Note that the descriptions, while lush, are often maddeningly incomplete. It’s impressionist writing, designed more to give you the feeling of a place rather than an exact picture. Is this effective? If so, why? If not, why not? An unnamed Narrator sets up Marlow, who speaks the rest of the story, all in quotes. Marlow is limited, fallible — an active witness, but a confused one. Do you think you’d be equally confused, given the odd circumstances around you? Much has been written about the “glow brings out the haze” in terms of his obscure writing. What do you think? “Men enough to face the darkness.” Comment, please. Fresleven, the Dane, killed over two hens. What do you make of the incident? What do you make of the Belgian doctor measuring Marlow’s head? There are African slaves chained together at the neck; they are clearly starving to death. Comment, please. We are introduced to Mr. Kurtz as a first-class agent. What do you think that means? Mr. Kurtz is also called a prodigy, an emissary of pity, science, and progress. What does all that mean? (As pointed out in the Content section, Conrad is a supreme ironist. What do you think he’s setting up with all this high-flown description?) Mr. Kurtz, finally, is a “universal genius” and Marlow hates lies. Hm. Heart of Darkness, Part II Now that you’ve finished Heart of Darkness, what do you think? Be honest. I can take it. Specifics: why does he miss his late Helsman awfully? This is an important point, one that Conrad uses to balance WHAT against corruption? Page 50, in my text; if you don’t have the same text, please find it: Conrad’s great comment about restraint. What restrains a human being from doing the unthinkable? Your thoughts on this passage, please. When we finally get to Kurtz we discover that he has become the worst mass murderer of them all. Human sacrifices offering to him. How has this happened? Comment please. (Also, please, on the gorgeous detail of the skulls at his compound all facing inward.) The worst thing anyone in the Company will say is that Kurtz’s methods were “unsound.” Why don’t they have any more condemnation than that? Why does Kurtz say “the horror”? Do you agree with Marlow’s take on it? Your thoughts on “what party? Any party” please. Finally, why does Marlow lie to the Intended?