You have now read both "The Journey Within" by Albert Guerard and "An Unreadable Report" by Peter Brooks. Again, post a 100+ word blog response that involves 1.a peer's comments, 2. either Brooks' or Guerard's comments, 3. some textual evidence, 4. a consideration of at least one of the topics below, and 5. something original of your own. You might start by considering: What was Conrad's central problem in telling this story?
topics to consider
psychology (inner journey)
lies
grave imagery
narrative
dream
truth and transmissability
intentions and reality
the limits of language
42 comments:
...Has someone been assigned to start this thread already? I thought Mr. Koon gave it to someone in class....Whoever you are, you are slack. (But I say that with all the affection my little body can muster.)
If I come back later and still find no posts, I'll start one. :)
(-flexes muscles- Because I am on top of things and such. /cough.)
Have no fear Kayla! I'll start :)
I really liked what Jessica said about the African woman being strong, unlike the European women, and venturing into the world of men. I wonder if that is what led to her death...I think that the European women are considered "safe" because they are weak, simple, and innocent people. Because the African woman has exposed herself to the world of men, she knows more than she "should" and is no longer innocent and weak. This is why she did not run at the sound of the whistle and the pilgrims did not hesitate in killing her. Many men, even today, see strong, independent women as threats; I think this is the way the African woman was percieved by Marlow's men.
In An Unreadable Report, Brooks discusses how the use of simple, non-specific language is an essential part of Heart of Darkness: "That Kurtz's experience in the heart of darkenss should represent and be represented by a fall from language does not surprise us: this belongs to the very logic of the heart of darkness, which is consistently characterized as 'unspeakable.'...Critics have most often been content to point to the moral signified of such phrases--or to criticize them, and Conrad, for a lack of referential and ethical specificity..." Brooks goes on to say that this kind of language used in the novel conveys the idea that the heart of darkness is "unsayable" and has removed Kurtz from a civilized way of living, therefore depleting his linguistic ability. An example of this is found on page 68: "'Close the shutter,' said Kurtz one day; 'I can't bear to look at this.' I did so. There was silence. 'Oh, but I will wring your heart yet!' he cried at the invisible wilderness." Kurtz leaves many questions unanswered--Why can't he bear to look outside? Whom is he speaking of? Why does he want to wring their neck? Conrad leaves these questions unanswered to show how crazy Kurtz became in Africa; almost nothing he says ever makes sense. Marlow also says of Kurtz, "Sometimes he was contemptibly childish. He desired to have kings meet him at railway stations on his return from some ghastly Nowhere, where he intended to accomplish great things" (68). This quote shows how delusional Kurtz became in Africa as well--he thinks he is all-powerful and that his actions have been justified by this power. Even though the vague language in Heart of Darkness makes it diffucult to read and to understand, it contributes heavily to the theme of the novel--how the heart of darkness changes a person.
In Heart of Darkness Marlow's commentary is inconsistent in its details of language. At times there seems to be too many details than what the situation calls for. When he was describing the Amazonian woman there was absolutely no reason for a page or more description of the woman. Then the vagueness of Kurtz's Intended was significant because of the comparison if showed to the Amazon. This is Marlow's story so the amount of description is a direct effect of the impact the characters had on him.
As Peter Brooks said in his ‘An Unreadable Report’ “Critics have most often been content to point to the moral signified of such phrases--or to criticize them.” But critics have been blind to the real reasons of Marlow’s language. Yes, he was racist but that was not the important parts of his language. I agree with Sarah when she said “Many men, even today, see strong, independent women as threats; I think this is the way the African woman was perceived by Marlow's men.” Yet this does not mean that Marlow did not see the African woman as important. He describes here and speaks about her and tells a lot of the story about her. Yet there is not much description of the European woman because she did not make such an impact on him.
Just for the record, I find great relief in the fact that I didn’t have to post first.
Every story, to an extent, is a lie. Marlow mentions early on that he despises lies, which turns many critics to focus on his grand lie at the end of the novel (when he tells Kurtz’s Intended that Kurtz’s final word was her name). But for Marlow to attempt to describe his journey into the heart of darkness to his fellow crew members is a lie: pieces of the story will be missing, the whole recount will be slanted through Marlow’s eyes. Guerard says, “This is the ‘evasive’ Conrad in full play, deferring what we most want to know and see; perhaps compelled to defer climax in this way...we are told on the authority of complete knowledge certain things we would have found hard to believe had they been presented through a slow consecutive realistic discovery (331)”. The story is a necessary lie. For us to understand and believe, it has to be. Meg said earlier, “This is Marlow's story so the amount of description is a direct effect of the impact the characters had on him.” Marlow’s story is a lie because it cannot fully encapsulate all the events he experienced; it is more of a description of how the events affected him and changed him. It was a journey within. But for us, it is a lie. And just to throw in a paradox, it is also a truth. Marlow was faced with the same difficulty that Conrad, the author, faced and I think that this parallel is an intentional reflection of Joseph Conrad onto his character. All fiction is based on truth, but all fiction is still a lie.
Like Meg said, "critics have been blind to the real reasons of Marlow’s language," I agree and think critics have been blind to much language within the novel, The Heart of Darkness. Peter Brooks says, "The manager's language-"unsound method," "want of judgment," "duty to point it out in the proper quarter"-refers to ordering systems and in doing so find a way to mask perception of Kurtz's experience really signifies." Conrad uses language to cover what he really means, it's like sitting in a lecture where the teachers lectures for hours and makes one point but in doing so it take a long time because he beats around the bush. The novel uses alot of language for simple points.
I also agree with Sarah when she says that the language in Africa was very simple and that the heart of darkness is "unspeakable." As i read about it i wondered why Africa is unspeakable and related to little words, while Kurtz is seen by Marlow as just a voice. This contrast struck me as interesting because how can Kurtz be just a voice in an unspeakable place?
In An Unreadable Report i also found it interesting about the deathbed. Brook's said "The deathbed scene of the nineteenth-century novel eminently represents the moment of summing-up of a life's meaning and a transmission of accumulated wisdom to succeeding generations." I think that when Kurtz was on his deathbed and he said his last words, they summed up his life. When he said "The horror," Brooks points out that it is a cry. You can interpret that cry in many different ways. So this could be why Marlow retells the story of Kurtz. Because Marlow is still trying to find the real meaning of Kurtz's summed up life.
I enjoyed An Unreadable Report and it wasnt as hard to get through as i thought it would be.
While reading this novella, it is difficult to understand the reality of Marlow's narration. Meaning that the experiences Marlow had or what he saw, is nothing like that of what we picture it. For example, in "The Journey Within" Guerard writes, "So too when Marlow finds it hard to define the moral shock he received on seeing the empty cabin, or when he doesn't know why he was jealous of sharing his experience, I think we can take him literally..." Throughout Marlow's entire narration, his intentions are for us, the reader, to understand what he felt or saw, an almost impossible task. When Marlow explains to the Nellie crew that they cannot understand his dream, I feel the same way through his narration. He could never convey that sensation, surprise, and bewilderment of terror to the listeners, or readers. This leads to the fact that I completely agree with elizabeth's post. When she says, "Marlow’s story is a lie because it cannot fully encapsulate all the events he experienced; it is more of a description of how the events affected him and changed him," she is exactly right. He is intending to share the reality of his trip, but it is all how it affected him and he cannot explain the exact feeling of the moment. This is Conrad's central problem in telling the story through Marlow; he can't. We were not on the Congo, we did not see the heads of humans on stakes, and we cannot understand how Marlow felt when seeing and experiencing this, because he can't convey that. He can only make a vain attempt at conveying these feelings. I think what was happening in Africa and everything Marlow saw, is much worse than we think.
The inability of man to communicate with others is the greatest pitfall of humanity. Experience is objective, it cannot be expressed clearly, coherently, or accuratley, and thus we are never able to understand things until we have experienced them ourselves. Joseph Conrad, Marlow, and Kurtz each suffer the same fate, in a perpetual lineage of trying to understand the original experience, Joseph Conrad's trip into the Congo. Peter Brooks (Unreadable Report) talks here about the pitfalls of language, which is to say conveying "wisdom." Brooks establishes the narrative lineage as such: Conrad attempts to retell his story through Marlow, who seeks the omnipotent voice of Kurtz, who writes a report on his experiences. Elizabeth said that stories are all lies to an extent. The Heart of Darkness is of course, as she said, a lie, but even more so it postulates that all human experiences are perceived through a never-ending chain of other people. Look at politics; would they exist if people didn't discuss their own views? As a virgin to the morbidity of colonialism, Marlow seeks the knowledge that is present, but indiscernable, but when he finds it, he neither understands it nor shares it with others, as demonstrated by the final little lie he tells to the Intended. The final question I ask is, "Is knowledge based on truth, or lies?"
-extra super mega high five to Sarah!-
Okay. Now then. The last sentence of Kyle's post strikes a chord with me. (Maybe because I am about to favor Guerard the same way he did.) Reading The Journey Within, I think it has a tendency to split themes of the novella up into two distinct parts, namely what was meant to happen, and the actual happening. Intent and reality, really. It focuses a lot more (as does Brooks) on Conrad than Marlow, and in Guerard's case, how successful the author was in keeping the two separate.
When Marlow describes Congo, he speaks of it as a different world. Though, this obviously isn't the case, we all live on one planet. :) I think he does it for his mental well being. The deeper he goes into the heart of Africa, it shows the nastier parts of himself that he is finding harder and harder to suppress. Guerard hints to a sort of depression on Conrad's part while he wrote this novella. (The winding dark trees, the blood lust and ongoing nightmares, etc.) And, reading back over HoD, I have to agree. It can be seen as symbolism for Imperialism, yes. But (maybe this is just from my personal experience with depression and what not) I think it's important to look past that. Whenever an author writes, they can't remove themselves from the work completely. It's the nature of the beast. While Conrad may have intended to write about Imperialism or whatever else, the actual reality is he gave an unknowing portrait of his mind.
(Oh, and, Mr. Koon, P.S., thank you for all that unnecessary trepidation about reading The Unreadable Report. Was that your own private joke on us? :p)
I also agree with Elizabeth in that Marlow's story in Heart of Darkness is a lie. Like Kyle said, we cannot fully relate to Marlow's adventures in Africa because we did not experience it. This is the limitation of words. Words cannot convey all the feelings and emotions, nor the sensations or or thoughts that go through one's mind when they have not been through the same situations. Even if they have, it would still be hard to convey one's story because people would react differently to it and would get something different out of it. Former slaves or even African Americans now might be appalled by how the Europeans treated the Africans then while Europeans of that time wouldn't be able to understand how a white man like Kurtz could stand to live with what they considered "brutes". Both of the critizism we were assigned to read realize this and seem to think Conrad was also aware of the limitations of language while writing this novel. Guerard says, "he likes work for the chance it provides to 'find yourself... what no other man can ever know.' The Inner Station 'was the farthest point of navigation and the culminating point of my experience.' At a material and rather superficial level, the journey is through the temptation of atavism (Regression to a primitive state)." He says yourself is something that no one else can know which includes your experiences and stories because no one can really relate. However, it seems to discover one's self, one must return to a primitive state. This supports the other critic's,Brooks, opinion. Brooks says, "'The horror!' appears as minimal language, language on the verge of reversion to savagery, on the verge of a fall from language." This shows that when Kurtz was dying, he went back to a primitive state in a way and just used "minimal language." Earlier on, Brooks also says, "it is at death that a life first assumes transmissible form-- becomes a completed and significant statement--so that it is death that provides the authority or 'sanction' of narrative." So if one results to a primitive state at death and it is at death that a story is almost understandable and one can almost relate to it, then maybe it is in the primitive state, a state everyone shares and can relate to, that people can truely understand one anothers experiences.
The perception of morals in The Heart of Darkness is quite the contrary from what one would believe to have. I find it very intriguing that Marlow is drawn to Kurtz even after the dreadful things that he has heard of him. But the reason for this is that unlike the Manager and the other heads of the Company, Kurtz does not show any regret for what “horrors” he has preformed. Marlow is drawn to his pure and consistent form of aggression, instead of the ones who happily take the profits but detest the business. Guerard makes a connection with Under Western Eyes, “makes a distinction between those who burn and those who rot, and remarks that is sometimes preferable to burn.” Guerard says, “The Kurtz who had made himself literally one of the devils of the land,…burns while the others rot.” Guerard concludes that Marlow justifies what Kurtz has done because he is not ashamed of any of it and also because he brings in an actual source of revenue for the Company. Kurtz will always be one of the devils that will burn in hell, but according to Guerard, burning is preferred over rotting, because rotting ‘til death has a connotative meaning of a slow deterioration of cruel death.
I liked Leanne’s quote from Brook’s The Unreadable Report, "The deathbed scene of the nineteenth-century novel eminently represents the moment of summing-up of a life's meaning and a transmission of accumulated wisdom to succeeding generations." This summation that the quote speaks of is of Kurtz’s awfully performed cruelties that have provided Kurtz of “accumulated wisdom” which he realizes on his deathbed when crying “The horror.” When Kurtz dies, his life will represent the utmost pure evil that he has conducted over the years that will result in his burning in hell, a more justified preferable death.
Conrads central problem to telling the story of his experience in Africa is very simple. The problem is that no matter how much he might try to explain, or demonstrate what he went through on his trip through the congo, the problem lies in the very fact that it is just a story to us. We werent there. We dont know exactly how certain situations felt or the specific way conrad perceived certain people. Conrad breaks from marlow's narration several times during the novel to illustrate this point by having marlow ask if his audience understands and then has him say of course they dont because they werent there. Conrads problem arrises out of the limits of language,and this is problem thats only solution comes in the form of first hand experience. This leads me to agree with kyle bensons point that Marlow's story telling task is an almost "impossible" one.
For some reason when I read the Unreadable Report I got the message that the story is a bunch of lies. It's like this...when on person gets the story from anothers they tell it to others and so on...However, when you are told a story may look one way in your head and be totally different from what you were actually told. So when yu go to repeat the story that you've heard the story starts to be wornd and when it finaly goes does the line the story is a big lie. I got this from here: "Marlow's narrative plot will more and more as it proceedss take as its story what Marlow understands to be Krutz's story"(376). This makes me think that Brooks is saying, Marlow's story is only about what he UNDERSTANDS from Krutz's story. So like i said what one gets from another can be totally different from the actual message. Another thing that Brooks mentioned was the lie that Marlow told to the Intended. He states; or else the manner in which posthumously he commands Marlow's "loyalty" in retelling-it-as lie-to his Intended". To me this is saying that Marlow lieing to the Intended is only a small lie but can lead up to a story wit the lie at which would make the whole entire story a big lie. So, Marlow may think that him telling her this was best, but really it's not. This sort of realtes to Bobbyis post. He says that Marlow's story is a lie at which I totally agree upon. With the limitation of words people will indeed interepret stories wrong or differently which would eventually make the story wrong or a huge lie. {L.Watson}
Booom! The last few posts have hit on something that has been bouncing around in my head for a while now…we cannot truly relate to Marlow’s story due to the fact that it is just that…a story! We were not there to feel the emotions of the event. Ever since the beginning of this novel, I am constantly reminded of this same theme which also occurs in Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried. As my other peers have noticed, one of Conrad’s major problems in conveying this story is the inability to actually make the reader FEEL as Marlow feels. In the Journey Within, Albert Guerard writes, “Marlow finds it hard to define the moral shock he received on seeing the empty cabin.” This shows how as he is telling the story, Marlow realizes that he cannot truly tell the story and have the reader understand it as he does due to the fact that it is impossible for the reader to feel exactly as he did as he opened the door to the empty cabin. This is a problem that can be seen in the real world today. Story-telling is an act that has been used throughout all of history. The problem is that as stories are told, things are not always taken as the storyteller intended. This leads me to what Latoya said. As Latoya pointed out, when stories are passed, there is always a risk that the story may have been altered. This can be perceived as lies. A prime example of this is when the Intended asks what Kurtz’s last words were, he tells her a lie. Stories always have to be taken with a grain of salt and judged for there validity.
Shawana:
I agree with Lexi as she agreed with Sarah, upon the subject of language. The novel upholds such indistinguishable language to say simple things. The novel simply beats around the bush on many accounts….
And now I would like to focus on Kurtz and how he is perceived by Marlow, as I read An Unreadable Report. The passage reads, “There is no doubt at issue: that Kurtz’s final words answer so poorly to all of Marlow’s instance on summing-up as a moment of final articulation of wisdom, truth, and sincerity, as affirmation and as moral victory. Marlow affirms that it is Kurtz’s ultimate capacity to judge, to use human language in its communicative and its normative dimensions to transmit an evaluation of his soul’s adventures on this earth, that constitutes his victory: the victory of articulation itself. And yet the horror.” If I wouldn’t have read this passage, I would not have perceived Kurtz last words to advocate this type of meaning. These words are supposed to sum up the adventures of Marlow’s view of Kurtz’s life in such a circuitous way. Kurtz’s victory is referred to as “The Horror.”
To play off of Kyle's statement that "Marlow's story telling task is an almost "impossible" one", I'd like to point out the passage on page 43 on my computer edition, it reads, "'It seems to me I am trying to tell you a dream-making a vain attempt, because no relation of a dream can convey the dream-sensation, that commingling of absurdity, surprise, and bewilderment in a tremor of struggling revolt, that notion of being captured by the incredible which is of the very essence of dreams....'"(Hope I quoted that properly..). In "An Unreadable Report", Brooks states, "Meaning will never lie in the summing-up but only in transmission: in the passing-on of the "horror", the taint of knowledge gained". This is why I do not believe that Marlow's story is a simple recounting, and why I feel like certain things are simply added in by Marlow himself. Instead, Marlow is using Africa and a story about a place unfamiliar to his audience to transmit his learnings while in Africa. His purpose is not to inform about what he did, but to explain what he learned from the land itself. He was not a sailor, not one to believe a "...casual stroll or a casual spree on shore suffices to unfold for him the secret of a whole continent...". Instead, he sailed through Africa and tried to not only learn about the people, but whatever message the place had for him. I feel that his story is not a physical one, but a one of ideals. And that does make it difficult to relate, similar to when you tell a story of an event that was hilarious to you and those select few that were there, but outsiders do not get it. It was one of those things you just "had to be there for". Marlow, and by extension Conrad, is attempting to show us, to let us in on the "inside joke" of Africa. This means that his report should not be read, not word for word with your eyes on the superficial, but thought about and understood, with your focus inward to see just what his narrative says to -you- as a person, and how it makes -you- feel.
I agree with Leanne about the deathbed scene. The quote from the Unreadable Report, "The deathbed scene of the nineteenth-century novel eminently represents the moment of summing-up of a life's meaning and a transmission of accumulated wisdom to succeeding generations." means that Kurtz's life must have been a horror, because those were his last words. However, when Marlow lies to Kurtz's Intended, his life's meaning becomes very confusing. Marlow's lie leads the Intended to believe that his very last words her name. "'I heard a light sigh and then my heart stood still, stopped dead short by an exulting and terrible cry, by the cry of inconceivable triumph and of unspeakable pain. "I knew it -- I was sure!" . . . She knew. She was sure.'" The Intended is now convinced that Kurtz loved her and led his life according to her desires. But the Intended was not the center of Kurtz's life. Africa drove him wild and he even had an African mistress in his time away from his Intended. It seems Kurtz life is centered around lies and so, consequently, when Marlow lies to the Intended, he is fulfilling the meaning of Kurtz’s life.
When I was reading this book, it was just so hard to picture things that happened. I felt like through the whole narration of Marlow, there was this haze over it that made it impossible (as said by many others) to tell this story well. He would constantly say that he couldn't express it, like Kyle said, and so he didn't try. It almost seemed insensitive for some parts that he wasn't totally horrified (heads on stakes), or that he wasn't really sad (when Kurtz died). It seems since he doesn't really shove the emotions into your face, it comes to you slowly, darkly, deeply. We want to grasp it, we want to understand, so it makes us hungry for the little information that is given. Brooks also goes into the narration of the book, and how it is steered away from what is seemingly the main plot, “Yet the orders tried out in Heart of Darkness may in their very tenuousness be necessary to the process of striving toward meaning: as if to say that the plotting of stories remains necessary even where we have ceased to believe in the plots we use.” (378) I think that if the book were to be written without the vague canopy of Marlow and the Narrator, Kurtz’s plot should be the main one. He seems to be the center of the story: showing a “civilized” man going back to instincts of drum beats and being amongst the trees. Then again, his story may not seem so dark and foreboding if he were the one to tell you. As Elizabeth mentioned earlier (and quoted), Conrad holds back what you really want to know and see, making the story that much deeper and unknown to you. Humans fear the unknown, the dark, the unfamiliar, the other side, around the corner, the jungle, so Conrad leaves us in the story of the Congo with vague narrators, wavering sanity, and only guides us when completely necessary. He wants us to understand that it is impossible to know, really, what happened, but we can fear the unknown and be haunted by its effects.
Conrad’s central problem in telling this story was that it was very hard to
decipher what was really going on during this novel. I agree with what
Bobby said.He says,“Words cannot convey all the feelings and emotions, nor the sensations or thoughts that go through one's mind when they have not been through the same situations.” Conrad tells the story thinking that the reader will understand exactly
what is happening to him, when in reality no one quite can grasp the
feeling of what is going on. It’s like a “you had to be there” moment. You had to be there or it just doesn’t have the same effect. Throughout the novel, Conrad tries to express what is occurring on the river. The readers can get somewhat of an overall picture as to what is happening but they cannot get the full effect since they did not have a personal experience. In Guerard’s “The Journey Within”he states that people cannot really relate
to anyone else’s experience. Although
you can tell someone a story and go into detail about it, it is not the same as being there. You can get an idea what happened and try to imagine it but you can’t feel the same emotions you would have if you were actually there to experience it.
I love getting to teach you guys.
Bobby paraphrases Guerard: "He says yourself is something that no one else can know..." Can you even know yourself? Or is his own self as impenetrable a darkness as Kurtz and Africa for Marlow?
Also, Seth says: "Brooks states, 'Meaning will never lie in the summing-up but only in transmission: in the passing-on of the "horror", the taint of knowledge gained.'" So before giving up on language completely, consider that statement closely. Where is meaning? Does Marlow pass anything on?
Great observations. I like Bobby's conclusion -- maybe we truly understand each others' experiences only in the primitive state. (I'm an apeman, I'm an ape ape man, I'm an apeman.)
Kyle has brought up an interesting topic when he talks about how the biggest problem in the novel is the fact that the book is just another book to us. so when marlow is telling us about his experiances on his voyage and how estatic they were, the events really dont affect the reader because we werent there to experiance it with him. this reminds me of when i dream and try to explain what happened tp someone else. its hard for someone else to interpret the situation becuase they werent there to and dont understand the emotions i felt at the time. in the criticism Its like marlow is describing a huge dream of his own throughout this whole novel. Guerard brings this to our attention when he brings out the quote when Marlow states, "it seems to me i am trying to tell you a dream -- making a vain attempt, because no relation of a dream can convey the dream-sensation".
I agree with Maggie when she says, “You can get an idea of what happened and try to imagine it but you cannot feel the same emotions you would have if you were actually there to experience it.” However, with this statement, I looked at it from a dream like aspect. I think one important excerpt from this story is when Marlow says, “We live as we dream, alone.” I totally agree with this statement. Marlow is trying to get the reader to understand that we live as we dream alone, because as you dream only you can understand the emotions that go along with that dream. That no matter how hard you try to explain the dream to another person, that they’ll never truly understand you. Albert Guerard also believes this too as it makes reference to the quote made by Marlow, “It seems to me I am trying to tell you a dream—making a vain attempt, because no relation of a dream can convey the dream-sensation, that commingling of absurdity, surprise, and bewilderment in a tremor of struggling revolt…” Now I know that probably everyone on this blog has referred to this idea, so to make mine stand out I want to take this a little further. I believe that this quote is crucial to the novel because it gives the reader an idea of what’s to come in the conclusion of the novel. Why do I say this? Well it is simple. At the end of the novel, Kurtz is alone, because he ventures into the jungle (alone) and befriends the natives, but also dies (alone) after he is rescued from the jungle by Marlow. The Intended is alone because now that her husband is gone, there is never going to be a chance of them being together again. Marlow is “alone” because Kurtz dies. Kurtz is the one who he searches for in the entire novel. The only one that understands his motives. I might be wrong in my way of thinking but that’s another way of how I interpreted this quote.
I agree with what Leanne said about trying to talk about the "unspeakable". That goes with my idea of how difficult it is for Marlow to tell his story. He says "'It seems to me I am trying to tell you ya dream—making a
vain attempt, because no relation of a dream can convey the
dream-sensation, that commingling of absurdity, surprise,
and bewilderment in a tremor of struggling revolt, that notion
of being captured by the incredible which is of the very
essence of dreams'". It seems like that's why his descriptions are soo inconsistent because its the dream sensation and the smudging of the line between what's real and what's not. The African woman is surreal and abstract like Africa. He describes what is most important so that we can understand his experience. Like last year with Tim O'Brien we talked about how you can't be sure if his stories were lies or reality; what really counts is that you feel the same as the author. In the Journey Within Guerard says "And I am afraid it is impossible to say where Conrad's conscious understanding of his story began and ended. The important thing is the introspective plunge and powerful dream seem true". So, all the varied descriptions and ways of writing help the readers experience what Conrad felt.
I agree with Neely and Leanne when they talk about the lies that Kurtz tells throughout his life and the final result of Marlow falling into his lies. Another place in the novel when Marlow falls into Kurtz ways, is when he finds out how Kurtz obtains the ivory. One of the helsman tells Marlow that Kurtz steals the ivory from out of the ground or other villages who have already killed the elephants. Marlow realizes this is wrong but does nothing to stop him. In Brooks, "An Unreadable Report", he mentions this instant and says, "is a way of moralizing as lapse from order any recognition of the absence of order, using the concept of disorder to conceal the radical condition of orderlessness." Meaning, even though Marlow knows what Kurtz is doing to obtain the ivory is morally wrong, he is morally wrong as well for not doing anything about it. Brooks notices that Marlow is trying to conceal the problem by not responding much to the helsman. This context shows Marlow in a cowardly manner.
Seth kind of covered the quote I wanted. I agree where he says that the purpose of the novel is to recount the meaning and not just the events. Brooks says “Is it experience or reaction to experience? But we have a problem conceiving the signifier as fulfilling the conditions of the wisdom-and-truth-articulating function of the end.” (381) He’s referring to specifically Kurtz’s “the horror!” exclamation. And with the fact that the novel only really tells the story for its meaning and not it’s actually occurrences, one can’t read verbatim. That’s why everyone (in the beginning) says it’s so hard to truly get out of this what Marlow did, because the story isn’t narrated as a story but more as a moral (for lack of a better term) It intended to be a message, a meaning to be absorbed. As if to say, “Hey, this is why things happened. There’s a reason and something to get out of it” Not just the reality to say “Here, this is what happened. End of story.” A good way to explain that is with the African mistress. As Mr. Koon said, for all we knew, she could have died and her hands flailed up in the process. But that is one image to remember, and to make an impact. He mentions her arms coming up in the presence of attack but doesn’t say exactly what happens for a reason. It’s not the reality, it’s the intention.
(sorry for the length)
I completely agree with the point Bobby and others made about how the story to us is a lie. Even if we were on the Congo with Marlow, his story would still be a lie to us because we are not Marlow. Our perspective and interpretation of things is obviously different than anyone else in the world because we have not had the same experiences. So what is the point of this story which is unreadable and must be told repeatedly passed on for even a grain of truth to be discovered? It is about Marlow making his story true for himself not for anyone else. It is the only way to “know oneself” to attempt to make others understand your own story, even though it will never be truth to anyone but yourself.
I would like to agree with Sabrina and Kyle about how it was almost impossible for Marlow to tell the story to the audience and for us to fully understand it. The reason for the audience not fully understanding the story that Marlow is telling, is that the reader was not present during to time of the events that took place and the reader cannot withness the feelings that Marlow possesed during the time in which the events took place. Also when Marlow was trying to explain his dream that he had to the Nellie crew, and none of the crew could comprehend what actually was going on shows how if you dont experience what someone is telling you that you may not fully understand its meaning.
I completely and toatlly agree with Meg's initial statement of Marlow's narrative inconcistency. At times Marlow is very clear at pointing out what he is trying to get across (he says it in very short details), while on the other hand he throws in multiple layers of descriptions as well as feelings that somewhat complicate the reading. The description of the amazonian woman was exactly what i was thinking of too. (meg and i have the same brain waves!!)
Leanne brought out the point that i wanted to highlight in 'The Unreadable Report' concerning the deathbeds. "The deathbed scene of the nineteenth-century novel eminently represents the moment of summing-up of a life's meaning and a transmission of accumulated wisdom to succeding generations." As Kurtz cries "The horror! The horror!" Marlow hears these words and begins to contemplate, what in Kurtz's life would have caused such a cry on the edge of death? I feel that this situation brings about the point of generations through the limits of language. The only words Marlow hears are words of agony and despair, thus limiting the knowledge and information. Also when he goes to inform Kurtz's fiance he decides to tell her a fabricated tale, which adds to the limits of language. He holds back the truth in order to save her from the harsh reality. Was this the best thing to do? It can be debated yes or no but something that seems clear is that what Kurtz's fiance will carry with her, and tell the next few generations, is the fabricated tale that Kurtz said her name as he died.
I like how william related "Heart of Darkness" with Tim O'Brian's, "The Things They Carried." The two have strikingly similarities with the author and the reasons behind the makeup and build of the novel. In The Things They Carried, O'Brian Mentions that he wrote the book in a way to talk about the war and confront his experience without having to actually talk about it. In Heart of Darkness, Conrad uses the same reasoning behind writing the novel. In "The Journey Within," Ablbert Guerard mentions talks about Conrad and states that, "To what extent it also expresses the Joseph Conrad a biographer might conceivably recover, who in 1898 still felt a debt must be paid for his Congo journey and who paid it by the writing of this story, is doubtless an insoluble question." This is where the topic of psychology and "inner journey" come into play. After years of visiting the Congo, Conrad is still pulled back into his horrible memory of what went on during the colonization of Africa. In a way, Conrad takes an "inner journey" to bring back and reflect his past through writing. Much like Conrad, Tim O'Brian does the same thing with the Vietnam War. In The Things They Carried, O'Brian mentioned that after thirty or more years of being released from the war, he still is faced with the horrible atrocities of what went on and how it affected him so much. Again, "inner journey" comes into play. Through a psychological journey, O'Brian reflects the past through writing. Both authors use writing as a psychological cusion to protect their fragile "inner journey" they both took.
Sabrina and Kyle brought up a good point about the book in relation to the reader. Kyle mentions that the Marlow’s story is just another tale to us. We could care less what happens because we were not there and we didn’t participate in the events or the journey that Marlow took to find Kurtz. In a way, the frame narrator serves as a go between for Marlow’s story and the reader. Therefore the reader doesn’t see a problem with Marlow’s lying to the intended or other things that Marlow finds deeply troubling. At least with the frame narrator, some emotion is shared outside from Marlow’s perspective.
Ian M Says:
I agree with Nina and what she talks about with the sort-of "Haze" that hangs over this book. As Marlow states (sorry that this was used by so many others)" it seems to me i am trying to tell you a dream -- making a vain attempt, because no relation of a dream can convey the dream-sensation." This statement drawn out by Guerad, shows how Marlow cannot convey what he saw because he was the one that was there, the one that experienced it. There are just some things that cannot be conveyed through words; emotions like love, hate, rage. When my mom almost died, I felt as though no one could truly understand the pain that I felt when she first went into the emergency room and the doctors told us to be ready to make goodbyes. As in all stories and life itself, there are just certain aspects that cannot be put into words and or understood by others.
I want to refer back to something Elizabeth said in a much earlier post, that every story is to some extent a lie, and this story a necessary lie. It reminded me very strongly of Tim O’Brien’s assertions in The Things They Carried about the value of story-truths and truth-truths (does anyone else feel like that was this same year?). We of course know that Marlow’s story must be taken with a grain of salt, as the frame narrator tells us of “his propensity to spin yarns.” Further, the frame narrators description that “the yarns of seamen have direct simplicity, the whole meaning of which lies within the shell of a cracked nut,” relates to Marlow’s deliberately less-than-descriptive narration at times. The meaning of the story could not be relayed in words if the teller tried, nor if the story was purely fact. Rather, the meaning is better conveyed through ornamentation when necessary, even if the events are not exactly accurate. Guerard states, “the story is not primarily about Kurtz or about the brutality of Belgian officials but about Marlow its narrator.” Just as O’Brien made up stories about what he experienced, Marlow edits his tale to fit his own transformation.
I agree with Rob and Bobby about the idea that Conrad is telling a story of lies. In Brook’s “An Unreadable Report” he talks about how the retelling of stories in the novella is “potentially infinite.” Brooks describes how the Heart of Darkness “shows the motive of retelling” and that the constant repetition of stories is a “product of failure in the original telling.” The constant retelling of the stories eventually results in a web of lies throughout the novella. An example of this is when Marlow lies to Kurtz’s Intended, when he tells her that Kurtz’s last words word her name. This is a prime example of a retelling of a story that results in a lie. As the story continues, the frame narrator attempts to describe Marlow telling his story, who is describing the story of Kurtz. It is then up to the reader and future readers to interpret the story. The Heart of Darkness does not “end,” it simply “breaks off.”
I agree with Elizabeth that by Marlow having to lie to the Intended about what Kurtz said on his death bed, it can be stretched that to some extent the whole story was a lie. "An Unreadable Report" says, "Marlow affirms that it is Kurtz's ultimate capacity to judge, to use human language in its communicative and its normative dimensions to transmit an evaluation of his soul's adventures on this earth, that constitutes his victory: the victory of articulation itself." Marlow's narrative plot seems more and more to follow Kurtz’s, which is why it is so hard for him to lie to the Intended. He wanted to tell her the truth because that would in turn start to become something that he said, and a part of his story. This displays some of the limits of language. The first being that Marlow wants to live through the truth of Kurtz's words, but finds it hard to do that when he ends up having to lie to his fiancée. Another limit of language in the novel is when Kurtz calls his method the "unsound method." He uses this language so he doesn't have to face the reality of how horrible the raids are that he does in Africa. The Manager seems gullible enough to believe that this is Kurtz's true language, but Marlow knows that Kurtz is just selectively choosing what to say as he believes it is "no method at all."
Me This Time =)
I agree with what Chris said about O'Brien and Conrad both writing to cover up their "inner journeys," but I also think they wrote to cover up their "outer journeys" as well. Both men caused and saw some atrocious actions, but I think they wrote their stories the same. Neither used the exact truth, but they tried to convey what they went through as best they could. Did everything Conrad wrote about really happen?? Who's to say unless you were there; O'Brien had the same problem when telling his story. Some things got a little exaggerated to keep the story alive and to convey the thoughts and emotions of the time to each of the men to the reader and listener.
Brooks states in his “An Unreadable Report: Conrad’s Heart of Darkness” that “Heart of Darkness does not ‘end’; it is a potentially interminable analysis that simply breaks off.” Before this he states how Marlow retelling his story on the Nellie is not wholly a success because the tale must go on and be repeated and even uses the term that the information transmitted in the tale must be “retransmitted.” Even prior to this, he states, “The impossibility of summing-up, the impossibility of designating meaning as within the narrative frame, explains why Marlow must retell his tale on board the Nellie, seeking meaning in the ‘spectral illumination’ of the narrative transaction.” Basically, Marlow cannot convey what he means to say; therefore, he retells the story to try to get across what happened, and because the story never really “ends,” it must be continued to be told by others also.
Marlow even states in his narrative: “It seems to me I am trying to tell you a dream- making a vain attempt because no relation of a dream can convey the dream-sensation, that commingling of absurdity, surprise, and bewilderment in a tremor of struggling revolt.” Guerard uses this quote in his critique “The Journey Within” also. This shows how even Marlow doesn’t think he can convey what he saw or experienced on his trip to the Congo, same as a person cannot convey the experiences and feelings of a dream.
I agree with Elizabeth's comment that Marlow's journey to the heart of darkness was a lie. She says that it was a neccessary lie in order for us to understand the story. Marlow's story of journeying to Africa is incomprenceable to those of us who have not been. He has traveled to a place unknown to most of the men of his time, who know nothing about Africa and can not relate to Marlow's findings. We ourselves can not fully understand the things Marlow has been through because we were not there to witness the events in frist person. To try and help his listeners, Marlow might have included extra details or even left out important information. Guerard says, "Yet no figure can convey 'Heart of Darkness' in all its resonance and tenebrous atmosphere. The movement is not one of penetration and withdrawal only; it is also the tracing of a large grand circle of awareness." (333). Marlow does not mean for the listener to feel as though they themselves have traveled into the heart of darkness but just so that they can understand the feeling once they are inside, what Marlow experienced. In order to describe this serial place Marlow must use relateable lies to create images in the listener's minds so that they might comprend his unfathomable story. I don't think Marlow intended his listeners aboard the ship to fully grasp his story and believe it to be completely true but as my peers mentioned before me, a story is fictionous and made up from the author's mind, in this case Marlow's. Although parts of the story my be based off of realistic events, the fact remains that it is still but a story conjured from the depths of Marlow's mind, a lie if you prefer.
I agree with Brad's statement saying that in Brook's "Unreadable Report" he describes how the story doesnt end because as the story is retold new lies are incorporated in to the story which in turn keeps the story alive because the truth is never fully discovered. This is represented in the "Heart of Darkness" when Marlow tells Kurtz's intended that his last words were his name and also as Marlow is retellling the story aboard the Nellie. Because Kurtz's story is being told by Marlow the exact truth is not know but it is for the reader to decide what actually happend. As Brook's says "the story doesnt end it just breaks off". Allowing for the story to be retold and interpreted by others so tha the story will continue with new lies and details.
Sorry it took so long to post something..
I agree with Elizabeth's statement that stories are lies. A person never remembers exactly what happens, because as soon as the action is done our own impressions and reactions from the event begin to mingle with the concrete truth and weaken its foundation, but in our mind give the moment strength. Our thoughts and emotions about an event give it a larger meaning, which can make it last past its normal importance.
The unreadable report discusses how things can not truly be told from one person to the other, and how in doing so, we almost always lie. I also think though, that by removing the complex ideas that we see, the truth is revealed. By stripping something down to its base level it is shown as its true meaning, and I believe this was a significant theme in the novel. Marlow's separation from the European civilization is what brings out the Marlow that we see at the end of the novel. This ties into a section in the essay, The Inner Journey (Underlined), where it says how a savage guide can help to lead to revealing your primitive self. This allusion to Dante's Inferno shows a guide into a dark place that leads the protagonist to a new found knowledge. With this I thought it was interesting how one man taught Dante about the entirety of existence, while basically a country (at least what surrounds the river) teaches Marlow about only himself in the end.
Also, to comment on Jen's post, and to touch on my favorite novel of the class, The Thing's They Carried, although a story can never be true, it's message can be. In this novel the message was of Marlow's personal development and his change in perception. O'Brien would state that story truth isn't necessarily what happened, but how what happened changed the person retelling the event.
One last thing, I believe in Josh's post he meant to say subjective as opposed to objective, but correct me if I'm wrong
I agree with Morgan about Marlow feeling the need to lie, but I think it might have to do with an earlier theme in the story -- loose ends. In An Unreadable Report, it is mentioned that the end that Marlow has been looking for -- the meeting with Kurtz, and finding out who he is -- will no longer occur, as Kurtz is extremely ill, to the point that it causes him to die. "Marlow as the belated follower of Kurtz the predecessor is too late, as, the tale implies, he who seeks to know the end, rather than simply live it, must always be. Ends are not - are no longer? - available." It’s true that we do end up seeing snippets of Kurtz, but we never really learn fully enough about Kurtz, though Marlow says later in the book that he was as close to Kurtz as a man could be. Peter Brooks also mentions in AUR that Marlow "cannot repeat Kurtz's last words to the Intended, but must rather cover them up by a conventional ending" However, this could be Marlow trying to keep the end from ever occurring for the wife, the end being Kurtz and his true self, which wasn't necessarily "The horror", but possibly a cry that would give the idea of "the horror". Not only does Marlow not get to have his end, as well as Kurtz's Intendent, but neither does Kurtz, with the use of a cry to for the end.
Conrad’s central problem in telling the story is that he is still looking for something in the story, some sort of explanation to the events that took place. The repetition of the story through many characters is proff of this search for answers. As Josh said, “Joseph Conrad, Marlow, and Kurtz each suffer the same fate, in a perpetual lineage of trying to understand the original experience. Conrad attempts to retell his story through Marlow, who seeks the omnipotent voice of Kurtz, who writes a report on his experiences.” The original journey was taken by Kurtz, but because many things were left unanswered by him the story continues to be told by Marlow/Conrad in the search of a resolve. Brooks says in An Unreadable Report that “Marlow’s narrative is not primary: it attaches itself to another’s story, seeking there its authority: it retraces another’s path, repeats a journey already undertaken.” Marlow is not just telling his story he is giving an account of Kurtz, but this can not be considered Kurtz’s story because it is in the view of Marlow. “Kurtz’s narrative never fully exist, never fully gets itself told. And for the same reason, Marlow’s narrative can never speak the end that it has sought so hard to find…” (An Unreadable Report) Even though Marlow’s journey is pretty much devoted to following Kurtz’s, he still ends up not coming to a resolve for Kurt’s journey, which in turn does not allow him to finish his narrative. This point is best illustrated through Marlow’s inability to tell the Intended what Kurtz’s true last words were.
This is Mrs. Koon, sitting, amazed at the literary critics in our school. Until I've lived in the skin on an IB student, which at this late date won't happen, I can't know what you're going through, although I listen and try very hard to understand, although I see your tired faces, sometimes see your tears of frustration. (Trust me, I see the same tired face in my house as I look at my husband!) But here, as I see the tracks you leave of your thinking, I know that all this effort is well worth it. You are a breed apart, the elite of South Pointe, the few; you should be proud. Live your lives the way you apply yourself to this blog. Thank you for helping me to think more deeply about this text. Thank you for inspiring me to think more deeply period! Keep your chins up! You guys are simply fabulous. I.B. should stand for, "I'm BAD!!!!!"
Mrs. Koon
(P.S. For the record, I think a story is always better if it's real. What is reality? Objectivity surfaces when witnesses notice the same things; subjectiviy arises from the differences.)
Post a Comment