Reminder: As you bring in your WLA 1 files, be sure they are saved as something compatible with MS Word 2003. Use the drop down "save as type" box and click .doc or .rtf. Documents saved as .docx and .xml do not look right when opened with school computers. WLA 1 revisions will be due September 14.
Now, the assignments for Monday/Tuesday:
A. Read your selected criticism. Note its three main points and compose five good questions on a selection of your choosing from Heart of Darkness that will help others see those main critical points. Confer with your partners about the selection and questions; talk over the implications of the critic's essay. Present your points and lead a short discussion of your selection Monday/Tuesday.
B. Read the passage posted to the right and dated 8.25. Then read all comments from your classmates in this thread. Post here, as "comments" on this assignment posting (Thursday, August 25), a commentary on it. Include a reference to the student who has posted just before you (extend or argue one of her points); an interpretive question on the passage (perhaps based in your critical reading) that will prompt thoughts from your classmates; and an application of some idea from your critic (be sure to acknowledge the critic by name). Develop your thoughts clearly. You may consider speaker, tone, imagery, diction, figures of speech, style, structure, and progression of ideas in the passage. I would write in Word and then copy it to the blog to keep from losing big blocks of material when the internet flickers. Everyone should have an entry posted by Saturday midnight for A-day and Sunday midnight for B-day, or you will be charged a late fee. Think hard and write clearly.
29 comments:
This passage touches on issues raised by Daphna Erdinast-Vulcan, in her criticism The Failure of Metaphysics. One of these is the role of Kurtz as a false idol. Erdinast-Vulcan discusses how Marlow perceives Kurtz as obtaining a 'deific stature' (420), which by the end has changed into the 'dethroning of a sham idol' (420). I believe that in this selection the Intended becomes a parallel to Marlow's own naivety, her speech becoming more like a disciple rather than a future wife. She finishes Marlow's own statement, "[It was impossible not to…] 'Love him,' she finished eagerly, silencing me into an appalled dumbness" (74). This shows that Marlow does not agree with her own judgement of Kurtz, instead being shocked by her obliviousness to Kurtz true behavior, which was as Erdinast-Vulcan states, much more like Cain than Adam. However, a question that comes to my mind, is the Intended a blind follower or is she willfully ignorant? This vagueness that surrounds her personality is caused by Conrad's introduction of her character to the reader in only a few short pages.
Great start, Eliza. I'm wondering, if anyone wants to address it, what makes natives and the Intended idolize Kurtz? What's he got that I ain't got? Keep text in play, just as Eliza does.
I agree with Eliza in saying that the Kurtz is looked upon as an idol. I also agree with Eliza when she says that the Intended is more like a disciple of Kurtz than a future wife. I also think that the Intended represents the calm side of Kurtz, the side of him that was lost in the jungle. The Intended was the person that knew Kurtz best for the person he was when "everyone was looking", not the person he was when in the jungle. This can be seen when Kurtz says "' You knew him best,' i repeated. And perhaps she did. There is the questionable nature in Marlow's voice as he says and thinks about if the Intended really knew Kurtz best.
I agree with Shankia when she stated that “The Intended was the person that knew Kurtz best for the person he was when "everyone was looking", not the person he was when in the jungle,” but it makes me question if she forced herself to believe that for the sake of their relationship and reputation, which goes back to Eliza’s thought of her being “willfully ignorant.” I think that Kurtz’s death caused a “nonphysical” death of the Intended. Marlow describes her as “all in black, with a pale head” (73). She supposedly knew Kurtz the best, but was too ignorant to accept his character while he was away in the jungle, therefore, when she found out of his death, a part of her died along with him.
I agree with Laine and Eliza when they discussed that the Intended believed in this false notion of knowing Kurtz the best even though she only knew a part of him. But my question is how can Marlow say that he knows him over this women who has known a part of him while Marlow has only seen him for awhile. My reasoning for this conundrum is that Marlow is the only character in the story who can have a clear perspective of alll the surrounding events while not being overtaken by the jungle. This is derived from the lesson in Mr.Koon's class where you look at the picture up close and from far away to have a better understanding. " But with every word spoken the room was growing darker,and only her forehead, smooth and white, remained illumined by the inextinguishable light of belief and love" (74). This shows that the Intended has been taken over by the jungle for as she continues to mourn so does her surroundings. Marrow does not feel the same as therefore can have a better understanding of the complicated man that is Kurtz.
I agree with Shivam and Shankia; how can the Intended believe that she knew Kurtz best, even though she didn't know his full side? She didn't know him in the jungle, or his "wild side".Laine stated that the Intended "was too ignorant to accept his character while he was away in the jungle, therefore, when she found out his death, a part of her died along with him". I fully concur because the novella describes how "it was more than a year since his death, more than a year since the news came; she seemed as though she would remember and morn forever" (73). Jeremy Hawthorn, a critic for Heart of Darkness, emphasizes the contrast between the Intended and the African mistress also. He writes "where the Intended is static and passive , she is active and forceful; where the Intended has the odor of death about her, she has the personification of life; where the Intended has a thing of black and white, she is ablaze with colour..." (408). This suggests the black-white imagery between them- or death versus life. "European women are portrayed in Heart of Darkness to strengthen the novella's depiction of idealism as weak, unhealthy and corrupted" (407). If this is so, how can Joseph Conrad, the author, only focus on the Europeans, or the European woman? Idealism is defined as the act or practice of envisioning things in an ideal form, therefore,wasn't both women ideal in Kurtz's different lives; the jungle and Europe?
(sorry my comment is so late I got asked to stay late at work and didn't get home until after midnight so I figured I might as well sleep)
"Only in the atonement of his lie to Kurtz's "Intended" back in the sepulchral city, does the experiencecome truly to an end. 'I laid the ghost of his gifts at last with a lie...'" -Albert J. Guerard(332) So with this lie that Marlow has told the Intended, he has come to terms with the death of Kurtz while the Intended still has not. I disagree with Augusta in saying that I believe that the Intended did know Kurtz best. I think Conrad making her repeat herself saying "I knew him best" wants to get the point across that Kurtz is not the man that he turned into in Africa, but the man the Intended was engaged to in Brussels. It is like the paper we read on the first day, Kurtz's "true self" was not the Kurtz in Africa, but the Kurtz in Brussels.
I agree with Quincy that the Intended knew Kurtz best. This is because Africa changed Kurtz into something he wasn't. The jungle invaded him and made him into a mere shadow of his former self. Conrad consistently uses words like "the shade of Mr. Kurtz. The initiated wraith" (49). And on page 59, Marlow's first description of Kurtz describes him as "that atrocious phantom... the eyes of that apparition shining darkly... it was as though an animated image of death" (59). Kurtz is clearly not what he once was, he is literally a shadow for all intents and purposes. This goes back to Shivam's question of how does Marlow think he knows Kurtz more than the Intended does? This cannot be true because Marlow has only known the shadow of Kurtz while the Intended loved him while he was full of life. What I wonder is, did Kurtz always posses that ability to be that wild and haunted man? Was it just waiting inside of him ready to be brought out with the appropriate stimuli? If so than maybe the Intended doesn't know him like she thinks she does.
I partially agree with Austin, I believe that yes, the intended did know him best back home in London, but i do not believe that his time with the trading company changed him from something that he was not before. While Kurtz was at home he was calm with the person he loved and she brought out the goodness in his heart, with her angelic "pale head, and floating" qualities. London is many times refereed to as the "sepulchral cit", this ca be read that within the walls of the city there is darkness, or that within the presentable decent bodies of the people there lies darkness within. This references that going to the heart of darkness in Africa, does not change Kurtz from who he was at home, but it merely brings out something within him that is dark and looming, but has always been boiling inside of him, but never needed to rise to the surface.
I agree with Chelsea when she said “I do not believe that his time with the trading company changed him from something that he was not before.” The man he was with the Intended and before he left may have been Kurtz in his true form, but I don’t think that is all there is to him. In his novel, Joseph Conrad says through Marlow “the mind of man is capable of anything—because everything is in it, all the past as well as all the future. What was there after all? Joy, fear, sorrow, devotion, valour, rage—who can tell?—but truth—truth stripped of its cloak of time” (36). Kurtz is example of this statement. Before leaving in his search for ivory he was what society formed him to be. Evolution has shaped the characteristics and the actions of humans today. In answer to Austin’s question, what Conrad is saying in this statement is that when the truth is revealed and Kurtz is exposed to an environment that has yet to be affected by the present society, it can bring forth the reality of human behavior and human action. Marlow knew that the affects of such an environment would change someone, so I think that he didn’t necessarily know Kurtz the best, but knew his true nature as a human allowing him to understand Kurtz. The Intended is blind to the potential of human behavior and is therefore ignorant and will remain ignorant of Kurtz himself in his death.
I agree with Vivian when she said, “Evolution has shaped the characteristics and the actions of humans today.” This statement is true in my opinion, because this statement follows under the socio-cultural levels of analysis. Saying that, culture influences human behavior and that because human beings are social animals, they have a social self. I believe that the Intended did know who Kurtz was but she only knew one side of Kurtz and did not know the other social self of Kurtz when he was living in the inner station. Joseph Conrad wrote, "Whether he knew of this deficiency himself I can't say. I think the knowledge came to him at last--only at the very last. But the wilderness found him out early, and had taken vengeance for the fantastic invasion. I think it had whispered to him things about himself which he did not know, things of which he had no conception till he took counsel with this great solitude--and the whisper had proved irresistibly fascinating. It echoed loudly within him because he was hollow at the core." (57-58). this passage from the book can also show how the environment can influence our behavior because it is saying that the wilderness was able to show him things about himself, And how he changed when he was living in the inner station. It would be interesting to know how Kurtz would of acted if lived and went back to the city. Would he be the man that the Intended knew? Or would he be the man that lived in the station?
Jessie points out good things by saying that culture influences human behavior and I agree with that statement. Kurtz was a different man after experiencing Africa and everything at the Inner Station. According to Albert J. Guerard, the author Joseph Conrad puts some of his own personal experience into this novel as if Marlow is seeing it. When Conrad got back from his adventure he "felt a debt must be paid for his Congo journey and who paid it by writing of this story"(328). Answering Jessie's question I don't believe that Kurtz could have been the man that the Intended knew. After an experience like he had in the Congo it would be hard for him to go on with his life as he had before. He may have nightmares about what happened there or may feel bad about the things he was involved in there. If you were put in a position as Kurtz was would you still stand for what you believed in or would you treat it just as a job and go to any means necessary to be successful at it? Would you feel guilt like Conrad did after an adventure like that? How would you be affected?
Great discussion! Does "The horror!" give any clues as to what Kurtz would be if he returned to the Sepulchral City?
Some of you are neglecting the application of an idea from your own critic.
I agree with Brandon’s statement, that “Kurtz was a different man after experiencing Africa and everything at the Inner Station.” I have to say if I was in Kurtz position I would have to stand up for what I believed in therefore I could not perform my job to the fullest extent by any means necessary because I believe and enact upon morality and not harming others for a profession. I would most likely feel guilty, and Jesse made a great point when she stated culture influences human behavior because today’s morals in society are what influences actions of humans today. A diverse viewpoint of Kurtz “adventure” was without doubt raised by Andrew Michael Roberts, in his criticism Masculinity, Modernity, and Homosexual Desire. The Heart of Darkness no doubt, mentions the knowledge of the Other, of the violence, and of the corruption of European civilization of evil within human nature. He points out that the text , “generate a rhetorical and narrative intensity around the idea of something to be known without ever specifying what that something is.(457) Sedgwick points out the associations of such a technique with a homophobic discourse which treats same sex desire as something which cannot be spoken of.(457) He argues also the viewpoint that the author Nina Pelikan Stratus argued that “In Heart of Darkness women are used to deny, distort, and censor men’s passionate love for one another.”(457) The dispute is made that Marlow’s appeal with Kurtz in terms of desire, excluding women from “the secret knowledge”, however he does say “the story is not primarily about repressed homosexual desire.” (458) Counter arguments are made about homosexuality throughout the book, and is portrayed as “intensification” of the mystery around Kurtz, for example “there was something in wanting in him”(57) “lacked restraint in the gratification of his various lusts (57) marked by ‘exalted and incredible degradation’ (66) and whose soul ‘had gone mad (66) possessed by diabolic love and …unearthly hate (68) and lastly ‘the horror!’ (69) Faced with the stream of mystery and conviction around Kurtz, What has Kurtz actually done? He has murdered and brutally exploited African people, but what were his unspeakable rites? (50)
Kurtz may have done nothing terribly wrong in the eyes of the Africans, but to the people from Europe, Kurtz had done unspeakable things. One of the “unspeakable rites” is placing the heads of “rebel” Africans on posts. To a European that is a savage thing to do, the morals of the savages and the morals of the Europeans have different standards. It seems as if Marlow did not know all things Kurtz did, but heard stuff had happened, so he eludes to give many specifics. I disagree with Jarvis when he says he could not perform his job to the fullest because he “believe(s) and enact(s) upon morality and not harming others for a profession.” I cannot say what I would do in Kurtz’s situation because I have never been exposed to that kind of environment; I do not know what side of me would be brought out by the darkness of the jungle. Jeremy Hawthorn who writes about the women in Heart of Darkness interestingly compares the woman in the oil sketches to the Intended, “the painted woman is as cut off from her surroundings as is the Intended.”(413) I believe Conrad added the painting of the woman to represent the Intended; in the sketch the woman was blindfolded which shows the ignorance of the Intended toward Kurtz. This leads me to think the Intended did know all sides of Kurtz, but that does not mean she did not know him the best. Marlow only learned the side of Kurtz that was brought out by the jungle; he never knew what he was like in Europe. Why does Marlow keep the Intended ignorant by lying about the last thing Kurtz says when she claims to “know him best”?
I agree with Michelle when she says that Kurtz may not have done anything wrong in the eyes of the Africans, but in the eyes of the Europeans, he did unspeakable things. Several of the people in the novel, such as the Russian, speak highly of Kurtz and all of the things he has done. I think he is admired by so many because of his success with his ivory. Edward W. Said says that, “domination and inequities of power and wealth are perennial facts of human society.” (422) This would be a good explanation of why people think the way they do of Kurtz. Yes, he may do unspeakable things and be a terrible person in the eyes of some, but he knows how to be successful in his own way. Wealth is important to him, which is represented through the ivory. The intended also spoke highly of him, but it was for a different reason. The Kurtz she knew was not the Kurtz that others spoke of in the novel. After Marlow spoke to the intended of Kurtz and figured this out, he did not want to let her down by telling her of Kurtz’s changes. I think this is why he lied to the intended, because before Kurtz underwent these changes, she may have “known him best.” How do you think the Intended would have responded if Marlow would have told her the truth about Kurtz? Does this lie symbolize anything about Marlow?
In response to Jarvis's opinion stating that he could not have done the things Kurtz did because of his self beliefs and morals, I would disagree. With Kurtz initial intentions before the Congo shown to be a lustrous life with the intended, his own viewpoints changed along with his character throughout his journey within the jungle. His character was degraded withholding more primal instincts as his common pleasures of life diminished. Along with his animal like cravings established, his morals and respect for others faded. His hunger for money and power overwhelmed his previous character, as shown in his actions with the Natives, his mistress, and the men on the steamship. Therefore, I cannot determine whether I would or would not react to the situation the same way as Kurtz. In connection to this topic, Daphna Erdinast-Vulcan discusses Kurtz relation to a idyllic postion in her criticism The Failure of Metaphysics. As Eliza previously stated how Marlow perceives Kurtz as obtaining a 'deific stature' (420), which by the end has changed into the 'dethroning of a sham idol' (420). This ideal shows how Kurtz looses his high acclaimed personality after he is changed by the thing that gave him his postion in the first place, the Congo. His personality that previously gave him the intended's love and his high position in the Congo, had faded from the harsh situations he had experienced. Kurtz was no longer the same person, and could not have survived back within the Sepulchral City. If he had returned, the truth about the Congo's brutal changes that effected a person would have been released. This is also why Marlow lied about Kurtz's last words. To keep the Congo a secret.
After reading the passage, I agree with Shivam concerning the relationship between Kurtz and Marlow and Kurtz and the Intended. I am very skeptical about how well she actually know Kurtz and the things he did in the jungle, and how much of the whole truth does she know. Marlow also shows that he doesn’t know much about Kurtz’s life, when he was talking with the Intended and he wasn’t sure of his profession, but many aspects of Marlow’s life made him more capable of understanding Kurtz because they worked for the same company, been to the same cities, traveled the same river, and both went into the jungle and saw the “heart of darkness.” I still don’t think either shows an understanding of Kurtz, as Conrad puts it, “True, he had made that last stride, he had stepped over the edge, while I had been permitted to draw back my hesitating foot. And perhaps in this is the whole difference; perhaps all the wisdom, and all truth, and all sincerity, are just compressed into that inappreciable moment of time in which we step over the threshold of the invisible."
I agree with John on the statement "I am very skeptical about how well she actually knows Kurtz and the things he did in the jungle." While she might have known him very well prior to him leaving, she doesn't really know who he became. She thinks she knows and she persistantly reffered to how "he was a remarkable man" and "no one knew him well as I!" unfortunately, Kurtz had become a stranger to the man she used to know. The jungle changed him. And referring back to Brians comment, "this is why Marlowe lied about Kurt's last words. To keep the Congo a secret" I have to disagree. I believe that it truly was "too dark" to destroy the perfect image of Kurtz that she had originally had. He knew she was already mourning and she was convinced that she knew who he was and for him to strip her away from that would cause her so much pain and grief. It would be "too dark".
In response to John's comment on Marlow's saneness compared with Marlow holding on to his grip with reality, I believe that Marlow was able to survive through the heart of darkness due to his focus on his work as he says he was consumed with his work and the fact that Kurtz mission was that of acquiring ivory. Kurtz was placed within the country where we as the readers have no idea who he was between that and his long stay in the jungle his greed for ivory went to bear upon the entirety of the place and created his need for ivory. My question is if kurtz's charismatic nature was more cult like in that he had everyone he encountered obeying his every word. In my reading Lissa Schneider's commentary she raises the idea that the painting Kurtz paints of a blidfolded woman holding a torch symbolizes woman as the ideals of something great leading men forward, but that woman can be blind to what they are doing.
Referring to Lane's comment "Kurtz's charismatic nature was more cult like in that he had everyone he encountered obeying his every word", I both agree and disagree. He definitely was held in high regard by the Intended because of her deep love for him. However we see him once he is in the jungle being held in high regard by the natives and even the Russian out of a fear and respect. Kurtz’s does indeed display the average characteristics of a cult leader, being that he is well spoke, well educated, feared, and respected. Edward W. Said states in his criticism that at the time, "Independence was for whites and Europeans; the lesser or subject peoples were to be ruled; science, learning, history emanated from the West". This is shown to be true because Kurtz was called a "prodigy" by the European standards, making him almost God like to the natives. However the Manager and the rest of the crew did not in fact obey his every word, they considered him a sort of savage himself. This view of him by the other Europeans dismissed him of his cult like leadership over them. My question is how then is the Russian so fascinated with Kurtz? He to is a white man in the jungle, yet he has no leadership over the natives. From the talks Marlow has with the Russian, we can see that the Russian holds Kurtz on as high if not higher a pedestal than the natives do. Why did the Russian have no leadership and rule over the natives if he to was educated and a white European?
After reading the string of comments, I agree with john on the fact that no one really and truly knew who Kurts was. The Intended knew him as a lost love, “And you admired him’ she said. ‘It was impossible to know him and not to admire him. Was it?” this quote coming from the assigned passage and Marlow knew him as a man gone wild, or taken over by the wilderness. In the words of J. Hillis Miller, “The wilderness destroys Kurtz by a kind of diabolical seduction: ‘The wilderness had patted him on the head, and, behold, it was like a ball-an ivory ball; it had caressed him, and-lo!-he had withered; it had taken him, loved him, embraced him, got into his veins, consumed his flesh, and sealed his soul to its own by the inconceivable ceremonies of some devilish initiation. He was its spoiled and pampered favourite.’ (48)” (468). With this being said, that none of the characters in the book know who Kurtz is, I believe that the question is left up to the reader to decide, because I, the reader, am the only one who has been shown both sides of Kurtz. Who was Kurtz? What kind of man was he? In conclusion, you have to read the novella in that strong sense of understanding, in other words, “No one can do your reading for you”(463).
Marissa's statement that "[the truth] truly was 'too dark' to destroy the perfect image of Kurtz that she had originally had" supports Jeremy Hawthorn's statement in his essay, "The Women of Heart of Darkness". Hawthorn states that Marlow's "worship [of women] leads him to lie to the Intended and thus to perpetuate the cycle of lies that fuels imperialism" (Hawthorn 405). However, because the Intended serves as a symbol of the pure ideals of Europe, this could therefore mean that Marlow worships those ideals, the ideals that Kurtz went to Africa for in the first place. As well, in his essay Hawthorn also introduces a quote found at the beginning of the novella discussing the isolation of women from the real world: "It's queer how out of touch with truth women are They live in a world of their own, and there had never been anything like it, and never can be. It is too beautiful altogether, and if they were to set it up it would go to pieces before the first sunset Some confounded fact we men have been living contendedly with ever since the day of creation would start up and knock the whole thing over" (Conrd 12-13). As well, Hawthorn states that the "world of their own" is very similar to Kurtz's ideals. Therefore, because the seperate world of women is a symbol for Kurtz's ideals, and Marlow worships women, it can be concluded that Marlow to an extent worships the ideal, not the "unsound method" (Conrad 62), but the pure ideals of Europe.
As well the passage also shows some of the contrast between black and white shown throughout the novel; the "sad light" which "had taken refuge on her forehead" contrasts with the "dark eyes" (74). Hawthorn states Conrad's creation of the Intended as "a thing of black and white, of sickliness and death" (Hawthorn 407). However, this goes against a conventional view because while sickliness and death are commonly associated with black, white is typically seen in a more uplifting way. This does make sense in the context of the novella though because Conrad makes it clear that while things associated with light, like these ideals and Europe (which was seen as better, or more civilized), are often just as dark: "'And this also,' said Marlow suddenly,'has been one of the dark places of the earth'"(Conrad 5). Hawthorn continues to analyze the symbolism of black and white in the novel noting that in the passage "words connotative of idealism such as 'pure' and 'halo' are made to seem unhealthy and corrupted" (Hawthorn 407). Conrad does this also in the beginning as well before Marlow begins his story, "these misty halos that, sometimes, are made visible by the spectral illumination of moonshine" (Conrad 5). The lightness of moonshine can bring out the darkness (the misty halo), which at the end of the novel is repeated when the "ashy halo" from the "light" brings out the "dark eyes", this can therefore symbolize the pure "light" ideals bringing out the darkness in Kurtz. Conrad also uses the contrast of black and white when Marlow arrives in the city to sign his contract. His impression of the city was a "whited sepulchre" (Conrad 9), however, once inside describes "a narrow deserted street in deep shadow...a dead silence" (Conrad 10). This contrast can once again support Marlow's statement on the darkness of Europe. Hawthorn makes one last remark on the contrast of black and white, stating that there can not be one symbolic meaning of it in the novella and therefore describes Conrad's purpose for not choosing a "simple symbol": "Conrad seems concerned to undercut simple symbolic associations in his use of this imagery, to disabuse the reader of the belief that good and bad can be straightforwardly defined and neatly compartmentalized" (Hawthorn 407).
Going back to Marissa’s point of the jungle changing Kurtz, as well as the original excerpt provided illustrates a reoccurring structure in the novel. This structure is addressed by Chinua Achebe in An image of Africa. He states that the African Woman “fulfills a structural requirement of the story: a savage counterpart to the refined, European woman who will step fourth to end the story,” (341) It appears that Conrad upholds the theme of having opposites through out the novel. This theme in the novel also presents itself as Kurt’s changed personality from when he is in the jungle and when he is in the sepulchral city. This was mentioned in many previous posts. Kurtz’s split personality show both a savage and civil side of him. Are there any other instances where this occurs?
Iagree with Marissa on the statement "I am very skeptical about how well she actually knows Kurtz and the things he did in the jungle" and the points she brings up. Kurtz did change a lot in the jngle and i cannot see that she would still know him as well as she claims too after that. She may have known him very well before but after the jungle he was no longer that same man and she couldnt possibly know him as well as she believs. Along with this however, i can say that i do agree with grant when he says "no one really and truly knew who kurtz was" because each character knew him as a different man. The intended, the african woman, and marlow all knew a different Kurtz which makes part of me believe that no one DID know who he was. it is hard to completely know anyone to begin with, and kurtz was very difficult because he was a different man to each person. This view can come from one of the first discussion questions we had in class and about if we ever truly find ourselves, and how others can affect who we are.
I forgot to leave a question. Referencing Hawthorn's point that both the black and white that describe the Intended and symbolize sickliness and death, what can be other interpretations of using both black and white to symbolize this? How can light represent death? Also, because Hawthorn says that Conrad blurs the line between good and bad, can this therefore in any way justify Kurtz's actions? Does Marlow justify Kurtz's actions? Is his lie to the Intended in some way this justification?
I get the sense and feeling the Intended knew about the African woman and some of Kurtz's bad doing. "She had a mature capacity for fidelity, for belief, for suffering"(73). The Intended in a way does represents Europe and so how can she not expect Kurtz to behave in such a brutal, harsh, destructive manner, and be treated some what like a god over in Africa. For Kurtz was only carrying out what the Intended wanted him to do which was go civilize, take the resources, and gain the trust of the Natives in order to implement the plan Europe had given him. We are driven by more power, more wealthy, more fleshyly desires, and reaching the plateau of prosperity. Kurtz last words "The horror! The horror"(69).
Marlow was suppose to end this horror by seeing the Intended but insteads the Intended intimates and provokes. "I saw them together-I heard them together"(74). 'I have survived', 'You knew him well'(74). The Intended is taunting Marlow in a sense and is playing with his mind allowing the darkness to grow and gain more strength with every word that she speaks. "But when you think that no one knew him so well as I! I had all his noble confidence. I knew him best"(74). Marlow fails to realize back in Africa Kurtz had no one to answer to but the Intended is the supreme and that Kurtz works for the Intended. The Intended took Kurtz's life and he was not a sacrifice just an mere example to show Marlow what is getting ready to happen to himself so get ready. No matter how hard or fast you run the Intended is going to be right there ready to snatch another soul.
I agree with you Israel, that the Intended represents sort of a stereotype of European women. However in the same passage on that you quoted on page 74 the Intended also defends Kurtz’s character by saying “And you admired him,' she said. `It was impossible to know him and not to”(74).This shows that she is naïve to Kurtz’s actions and has no knowledge of his wrongdoing, the Intended also consistently makes this argument every time Kurtz’s character is called into question such as on page 78 “Who was not his friend who had heard him speak once?' `He drew men towards him by what was best in them.' `It is the gift of the great,'”(78) She continuously tries to justify her high opinion of Kurtz by mentioning how his peers hold him in reverence. The intended appears to take great stock in Kurtz’s ability attract supporters and believes that everyone must see Kurtz in the same way as her, as a godlike figure who can do no wrong. This belief also further perpetuates the stereotype of the Intended as an idealized European woman who believes the motivations of men are pure and honest as opposed to self-serving. In the criticism that I read titled “Iconography and the Feminine Ideal” Lissa Schneider mentions that a painting of a blind folded woman carrying a torch also symbolizes this view of women. Where the torch represents European moral values and the blind fold symbolizes how women are blind to the truth behind the real intentions of men.
Post a Comment