I uploaded a new passage for discussion. It is on the right side of the blog and is labelled "9.1 Passage for comment." B-day should respond by Sunday midnight (Sept. 4) and A-day by Monday midnight (Sept. 5). Grant volunteered to start us today, so you can work anytime between today and the deadline.
1. Engage the previous entries in the discussion thread: be specific in your reference to it.
2. Use one or more of the following critical terms correctly in your comments: narrator, digression, allegory, ambiguity, connotation, diction, irony, metaphor, paradox, satire, or tone. You may also use others of your own choosing (Of course!). Look these terms up and make efforts to understand them.
3. Write one interpretive question (one that requires us to look at the text itself and create an interpretation of its meaning) to prompt future thoughts on the passage.
4. Develop your thoughts clearly. You are not required to apply your critics. You MAY do that, but focus tightly on the passage provided. Quote from and interpret its style, on the ways Conrad creates his effects and complicates or clarifies meanings. Try to get the passage all over your hands in this response. Do not try to sound pretty. Be clear. At the same time, do not be afraid to experiment with your thinking. Clear language HELPS you to lead you to new thinking -- it really does...I promise.
I would write in Word and then copy it to the blog to keep from losing big blocks of material when the internet flickers. Comment here under Thursday's post.
33 comments:
Hey, Grant, do you have any thoughts on the narrator's use of the word "uneasiness" in this extract?
I think that the narrator was taken aback by Marlow’s long drawn out explanation of Kurtz. But also, and maybe more importantly, I think in his tone there is a sense of ambiguity towards what Marlow says about dreams and living, “We live as we dream-alone…” If I heard someone say the same thing while we sat around on a boat barely able to see each other’s faces, I would be a little uneasy about it too. But not just in that particular situation, because humans aren’t designed to live alone, but in company with one another. I think the way the narrator reacts to Marlow’s extended talking shows a lot about the way Marlow might be talking, his tone I mean. What kind of tone might Marlow have in talking about this subject, and why? What are his obligations to Kurtz that might make him speak in a different tone while explaining the situation to his fellow seamen?
Irony is a main component of this excerpt. Marlow depicts his distaste for lying, saying "There is a taint of death, a mortality in lies,-- which is exactly what I hate and detest in the world- what I want to forget" (Conrad 27). However, when presented with a choice between exposing Kurtz' true personality to the Intended, Marlow chooses to tell her a lie. This choice is ironic, not only because of Marlow's clear distaste for lying, but also because of his attitude towards Kurtz at the end of the novel. We learn as the novel progresses that Kurtz is not a man that Marlow idolizes, but instead someone whose actions and behaviors Marlow disagrees with and holds in high contempt. Therefore, his decision to lie for Kurtz is extremely ironic. This ties hand in hand with the question Grant raised, asking what obligations Marlow might feel towards Kurtz that would change his tone while telling his story to the other men on the boat. I believe that Marlow's obligations lie in the simple fact that he saw Kurtz die. I believe that Kurtz "relevation" at the end of his life, the acknowledgment of the horrors of his life that he will know pay retribution for in the after life, weighs heavily on Marlow. This weight morphs into a feeling of guilt and obligation that he must continue Kurtz' sham of a life. However, the question that I would raise, is Marlow a parallel to a pre-Africa Kurtz, the Kurtz that the Intended speaks of, and does the shift in his character when Kurtz dies represent that parallelism getting stronger, in the sense that his morals seem to change at the end of the book when he lies to the Intended for Kurtz?
Although Marlow and Kurtz have similar characteristics as they progress throughout the novella, I would have to disagree with the notion that Marlow is a parallel version of Kurtz but rather a failed metaphor of Kurtz. Marlow envisions a Kurtz that is idolized beyond compare and strifes to become this symbol but this fails due to the fact that Kurtz's characteristics do not compare to the idolized model. ". . . No, it is impossible; it is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one's existence,—that which makes its truth, its meaning—its subtle and penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live, as we dream—alone. . . ."(Conrad 27). Marlow states here that the components of a man cannot be expressed to another and that men live on their own. Kurtz, at some points in the novella, resembles a character with unreal qualities and may even portray a dream. So from this quote, we can see that Marlow foreshadows the fact that the "dream" version of Kurtz is something that is in a category of it's own and cannot be duplicated. The reason why Marlow allowed himself to lie to the Intended was out of pity which is a characteristic that we don't see in Kurtz."'And I was not with him,' she murmured. My anger subsided before a feeling of infinite pity (Conrad 76). This reflection between the unreal Kurtz and the real Kurtz creates a paradox, visible to all and allows Kurtz to see the error of his ways. This then allows him to change his character towards the brink of death. Marlow on the other hand undergoes a change by witnessing the truth about the colonization of the Congo. This causes him to be more cynical than insightful about his life like Kurtz's change of character. The question that I have is, why does Marlow continue to support Kurtz, from Kurtz's transformation from dream to nightmare, even though Kurtz is an example of the lies that make Marlow "miserable and sick" (Conrad 27)?
To answer Eliza’s question about Marlow being parallel to pre-Africa Kurtz, I do not think Marlow is like pre-Africa Kurtz. I do believe there are many similarities between Marlow and Kurtz once they have entered Africa; for example in this passage, it seems as though Marlow lies to manipulate the bricklayer for information just as Kurtz manipulated to Africans to get more ivory. The difference is that Kurtz did not truly realize what he was doing in Africa was wrong until the moment before his death and during his life Conrad was ambiguous about how Mr. Kurtz felt when in Africa. If we had a clearer understanding of Kurtz, it would be simpler to see more similarities and draw more connections between Marlow and Kurtz. Meanwhile, with Marlow we are able to get a view of him reflecting on his lie. “ ‘ I [Marlow] became in an instant as much of a pretence as the rest of the bewitched pilgrims. This simply because I had a notion it somehow would be of help to that Kurtz whom at the time I did not see’ ” (27) This quote seems to dwell on how bad Marlow felt about lying including an excuse. Marlow is saying this after he has had time to process and think about what he has done. I think maybe Marlow thought lying was the right thing to do and is just lying now about how he hates lying. Referring back to Eliza “when presented with a choice between exposing Kurtz' true personality to the Intended, Marlow chooses to tell her a lie.” Do you think Marlow talks a lot about his distaste for lying and how the other sailors will not understand because his is trying to convince the sailors and himself that Marlow has done the right thing?
Wow, kids. Impressive. Later posters, remember to stay close to the text of the extract!
To answer Michelle's question, yes I do think he is trying to prove himself, but not for doing the right thing. I don't think he knows if he made the right choices (i.e. his lies), but I think that Marlow thinks he is proving himself just by telling the story. Maybe trying to prove himself as a man of morals or maybe as a "real seaman/adventurer". And one thing that we've mentioned in class and others on here have said is that Kurtz's "The horror, the horror" signifies he has has realized the error of his ways, but how can we be sure of that? True, he may have realized the 'horror' of Africa and his deeds but maybe he was horrified by the European civilization he was headed back to. After all, he was on a boat that was meant to take him from Africa, the place that had bewitched him, so maybe he found it better to let himself die rather than go back to the horror of Europe.
As for the passage, Marlow, throughout his narration, creates a paradoxical tone that should leave those on the ship, and those reading the book, wondering if he is really a reliable narrator. For instance, like Eliza said, Marlow says "I hate, detest, can't bear a lie" (Conrad 27) but yet later he lies to the Intended to protect her. Does he think that just because he lied for righteous reasons that makes the lie not "taint[ed] with death"? There are other instances when he contradicts himself such as saying "Mr. Kurtz is no idol of mine" (Conrad 58) while internally idolizing him from the pedestal Marlow placed him on. Why do you think Marlow is so contradictory is is narration of his journey, especially when it concerns Kurtz?
I agree with Austin when about Marlow being a reliable narrator. We as the reader only hears the story through the point of view of Marlow, and Marlow contradicting his self by saying "I hate, detest, can't bear a lie" (Conrad 27), but lies to the Intended to protect her shows that Marlow is not reliable in any way. To answer Austin's question I think that he felt just about lying to the intended because as we stated in class it would shatter the Intended's world and image of Kurtz. In the honor of preserving her image of Kurtz it was just to lie. That leads me to my question do you think by Marlow saying that he hates lies that is how he feels in the eyes of others, or is that his honest belief.
To answer Shankia’s question, I do believe that is Marlow’s true opinion on lying, but I think Marlow understood Kurtz, and lied to the Intended because it was impossible to explain what when on in Africa. The Intended lived her life in the white sepulcher city, and didn’t know what was occurring in Africa. Marlow saw what Kurtz had become, and saw Kurtz realize what he became on his death bed with, “The horror, the horror.” I think Marlow seeing Kurtz’s realization gave him a bond with him that is impossible to put into words. “‘Do you see him? Do you see the story? Do you see anything? 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. . . .’ He was silent for a while.” This showed that Marlow had trouble explaining to people he was taking a journey with what Kurtz was when he came to Africa. How would it be possible to explain that when this women knew him as a completely different man, and explaining the “Heart of Darkness.” So he lied not for the sake of preserving Kurtz fame and honor, he lied because he had no way of expressing to the Intended who Kurtz had become.
I do not think it was possible for Marlow to tell the Intended about the "heart of darkness". Telling her about what happend would be like telling her about a dream. And we know that it is impossible to explain exactly what happened because Marlow said, "Because no relation of a dream can convey the dream-sensation" (Conrad 27). This means that no matter how you tell it the narrator of the story, or the dream, will never get it exactly right. This is why he had to lie. He knew that he could not tell the story exactly right, so he had to lie no matter how much he despised lying. To me Marlow's character is ironic. Marrow says I "hate, detest, and can't bare a lie" (Conrad 27). Yet throughout the whole book he tells his fellow seamen the story of how he went to the inner station. He stated that it was impossible to tell them exactly what happened while he was there, because the whole thing was like a dream, so in a way wasn't he lying? Another ironic part of the book is when Marlow said, "of corse in this you fellows see more than I could then. You see me, whom you know..." and then right after that the book says," it had become so pitch dark that we listeners could hardly see one another" (Conrad 27). This is ironic because Marrow expects them to be able to see the story and know what is going on, yet at the same time the seamen can not actually see. Marlow's tone of voice is very assertive in this passage because he is trying to tell a story that can't be told and he wants his fellow seamen to understand that. My question to propose is, do you think Conrand said that is was so dark that they could hardly see one another, to mean that they did not really know Marlow because the seamen could not "see" him?
This passage is an example of the ambiguous nature of the novel. Conrad never makes any one point too clear. In this passage, it is unclear as to why, if Marlow is so appalled by lies, that he would do so for Kurtz, with whom he must have a strong connection with, because it would seem that he was very close to fighting for him. However, Conrad does clarify that Marlow “had a notion it somehow would be of help to that Kurtz whom at the time I did not see” (Conrad 27). Marlow’s statement that he did not see Kurtz, proves that Marlow was very much for the ideals of imperialism, and therefore the helpfulness that he believed he was giving to Kurtz, shows a change in Marlow’s morals by imperialism. However, going back to the ambiguity of the passage, the inability of Marlow, as well as the people whom he was telling the story to, to see Kurtz can lead to the idea that even after Marlow had seen “the horror” that Kurtz had created in Africa he was not able to see him as the monster that imperialism had molded him into, after all, he did lie to the Intended, perhaps to save her from the darkness, but just as well he may have lied for Kurtz.
Marlow’s ambiguity comes from the inability “to covey the life sensation of any given epoch of one’s existence” (Conrad 27). He can never fully tell the story the way he knows because they (the listeners) will constantly make judgments as the story progresses, when they are not aware of what it would be like to be in the situation. Therefore, Marlow attempts to tell the story in a very sensory way, however in doing so the event is lost in emotion and reasoning is as well.
The blurry lines of “why?” in the novel are a conscious decision on Conrad’s part. Conrad does not explain why Marlow lied to the brick maker in this passage, or why he later lies to the Intended. Conrad puts a “haze” over the events because he does not want “the reader” to make judgments about the events. He doesn’t allow there to be a line between good and bad, right and wrong. Lying is bad, but Marlow who lied twice in the short novella is not seen in a negative way. Also, Brantlinger states, “In the world of Heart of Darkness, there are no clear answers. Ambiguity, perhaps the main form of darkness in the story, prevails” (Brantlinger, 387). The darkness of ambiguity I believe comes from Conrad never fulfilling “the reader’s” quest for answers and reasons.
In response to the question Shivam raised on why Marlow would continue to support Kurtz even though he is an “example of lies,” it is first and foremost important to distinguish that Kurtz isn’t an “example of lies” he is a personification of the destruction of ideals. Brantlinger quotes Trilling on why Marlow would continue to support Kurtz: “‘For Marlow,’ says Trilling, ‘Kurtz is a hero of the spirit whom he cherishes” (Brantlinger 390). This can relate to Hawthorn’s belief on Marlow’s “worship” of women (Hawthorn 405). Because both Kurtz and the women can be symbols of imperialism, this can therefore go on to Marlow’s support of imperialism, or at least it’s ideals.
And on the parallelism between Marlow and pre-Africa Kurtz, it isn’t quite possible to come to an adequate conclusion upon this because we do not have much to go on in the description of pre-Africa Kurtz, except for what the Intended says, but who knows if Kurtz was in fact always disturbed, he could have been putting on a façade for the Intended in the same way his “beautiful eloquence” hid the horrors of his wrongdoings.
However, the novella is a definite example of imperialism’s affect on people. If the Intended’s descriptions of Kurtz are true, then Heart of Darkness shows the destruction of Kurtz from imperialism. The “near-enough lie” (Conrad 27) Marlow tells the brick-maker, is followed by a total lie to the Intended, showing the change in morals from Marlow’s experience with imperialism.
Marlow states that there is “a flavour of mortality in lies” (Conrad 27), therefore, in reference to our discussion in class, was Marlow’s aversion to lies a way to think himself greater than a human? And if so, can this prove that imperialism destroys humanity?
Shivam mentions pity. Does Marlow pity not only the Intended but also Kurtz? See this line from early in M's voyage as he notices the customs house clerks and soldiers being being landed on that empty continent:
"Some, I heard, got drowned in the surf; but whether they did or not, nobody seemed particularly to care. They were just flung out there, and on we went." And how the Manager uses him!
The quote provided in the previous post is evidence of the compassion Marlow has for his fellow human beings. This compassion does not lack when faced towards the intended about Kurtz’s death. It is here that Marlow lies to the Intended, after previously declaring his hate for lying on page 27. It appears as though Marlow cannot prevent himself from lying to the Intended. I believe this involuntary action was brought by more than just his pity for the Intended, but also by his pity for Kurtz. Marlow states “I would not have gone so far as to fight for Kurtz, but I went for him near enough to a lie.” Shortly after this quote is made, along with Marlow’s rampage against lying, he states “I had a notion it somehow be of help to that Kurtz…” This clearly reveals Marlow’s thoughts of helping Kurtz with the lie to the Intended, thus
demonstrating his pity for him.
It is obvious that Marlow pities the Intended, as described by Shivam. "'And I was not with him,' she murmured. My anger subsided before a feeling of infinite pity (Conrad 76). Marlow hates lies, thus it is very ironic that he would lie to the Intended. But if it was for pity, then the excerpt is more coherent. I don’t think Marlow pitied Kurtz as much as the Intended because he knew that Kurtz lived his life full of temptation desire, and ruthless power. Before Kurtz died he said, “Save me- save the ivory, you mean. Don’t tell me! Save me!...”(Conrad 61). Kurtz was completely hypnotized by the ivory throughout his lifetime; he didn’t seem to focus on anything else besides his greed. He fell into the trap of gluttony for the “precious” ivory or anything of value (put the African mistress in mind). It is also ironic that Kurtz did not have the intentions of doing this before going to the Congo. He had the intentions of marriage with the Intended back in Brussels; however, he never reached that point. The narrator’s tone seems pitiless towards Kurtz throughout the novella because it was Kurtz who placed the end upon himself; the death of darkness and upmost despair. This compares to Marlow’s view on lies. He quotes, “There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies- which is exactly what I hate and detest in the world- what I want to forget” (Conrad 27). If this is so, do you think that maybe Kurtz could be a lie more to himself or to all the other characters? Was the idolization of Kurtz necessary?
Sorry Augusta this was supposed to go right after my last one!
What I found to be most compelling was the repetition used by both Marlow and the narrator on the subject of “seeing” and “sight.” The narrator is given such a small role in the novel, that it would seem his few words hold much significance. In the passage provided, Marlow is trying to convey his reasons for lying for Kurtz. In trying to explain this to his listeners, he asks them to see Kurtz as he did not see him. “… Kurtz whom at the time I did not see- you understand. He was just a word for me. I did not see the man in the name anymore than you do. Do you see him? Do you see the story? Do you see anything?” He continues on to say “Of course in this you fellows see more than I could then. You see me, whom you know…” The significance in this begins when the narrator speaks, “It had become so pitch dark that we listeners could hardly see one another. For a long time already he, sitting apart, had been no more to us than a voice.” The narrators rare words are similar to Marlow’s with the repetition. Yet as much as this word is used by Conrad in this excerpt, an unclear fog still remains around the story. “I am trying to tell you a dream- making a vain attempt, but 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 the very essence of dreams…” Conrad’s irony is evident around this excerpt in the form of repetition of the word “see,” while the descriptions remain unclear.
This brought to my attention the possibility of a cyclical timeline. The way Marlow describes himself and his feelings toward Kurtz are similar to that of the narrator listening intently to Marlow’s story. Also, in the beginning Marlow is described as having “sunken cheeks” and “a yellow complexion” resembling someone that is ill. Do you think that it is possible that Marlow is to the narrator what Kurtz was to Marlow?
In Karlie's discussion I would like to address the question of the effect of lying on person as well as the country they lie for. In my observation Marlow feels that lying is the worst act that a man can commit. However he still does it so he must feel that either he is is committing a lesser crime or that with the change in environment that a crime like that is permitted. I believe that Marlow lies beacause of his earlier statement that "They beguiled the time by backstabbing and intriguing against each other in a foolish kind of way". (pg 24) Marlow does feel himself greater that the pilgrims but not superior to Kurtz even when he does meet him he still believes that Kurtz's path is greater than the pilgrims. So yes, Marlow feels he is a better person. I think that imperialism has little effect on those at home but it corrupts the lines between good and evil evidence in the coastal stations slavery. In a way the paradox of the lie Marlow tells the intended of what Kurtz said and his lie to the brick-maker is similar but the reasons for him telling a lie to them could be very different. My personal thought on the reason for him lying is that the jungle is still with him and that in his journey he has survived but been associated with so much evil that he is permanently scarred. My question is if life in the jungle has made Kurtz evil or if he came to the jungle similiar to it and it manifested with him being the irony of a great mad man turning into a confused shell of himself as he speaks with Marlow
The one thing that stands out in the passage to me is the diction and how Conrad uses it to Kurtz's advantage. Conrad gives power to Kurtz very early in the novel by having Marlow and all the other seamen go searching and chasing after Kurtz. "I became in an instant as much of a pretence as the rest of the bewitched pilgrims"(27). Hear we have Marlow being like a dummy just like the pilgrims who all seem to be under some kind of spell that have them believing that they are suppose to be a help to Kurtz. When they know nothing about him but Marlow explains it best in that "He was just a word for me"(27). A very powerful word, a word that made you enter the Heart of Darkness and see what Kurtz describes as "The horror! The horror!"(69). Marlow can't believe this experience which he sees as a dream which has captured him. Marlow also uses other phrases such as "that commingling of absurdity, surprise, and bewilderment in a tremor of struggling revolt"(27). Conrad continues to uplift Kurtz by using Marlow to describe Kurtz as a precious and powerful figure in history. "No, it is impossible; it is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one's existence-that which makes its truth, its meaning-its subtle and penetrating essence"(27). My question is does the diction throughout the novel strengthen Kurtz's ego or is it what causes Kurtz to eventually die?
I don’t agree with Augusta when she says that lying to the Intended was ironic for Marlow. I believe that Marlow knew what he was doing when he lied but while telling the story to his fellow seamen, is too afraid to admit his fault. For example, Marlow says “I went near enough to it by letting the young fool there believe anything he liked to imagine as to my influence in Europe. I became in an instant as much of a pretense as the rest of the bewitched pilgrims. This simply because I had a notion it somehow would be of help to that Kurtz whom at the time I did not see” (Conrad 27). So by lying and allowing the man to continue with his assumption of Marlow, he (Marlow) is giving off the impression that he wanted the other pilgrams to believe that he was of importance so that he may finally have the opportunity to meet Kurtz. And, as few have mentioned earlier about the lie to the Intended, I believe Marlow knows that he must lie to her to preserve her innocent ignorance. The irony I find in this passage comes from Marlow himself when he adds a few statements like “you understand” or “you see me, whom you know…” at the end of a sentence. The narrator at the beginning of the novel states “we knew we were fated… to hear about one of Marlow’s inconclusive experiences” which suggests that the men don’t really know Marlow at all. Which leads me to the question, do you think Marlow tells this part of the story to his fellow seamen in this way to show his innocence on the whole situation?
Addressing Katy’s comment about Marlow being to the narrator as Kurtz was to Marlow, I think that is a valid point, and I agree. While the narrator was sitting on the boat listening to Marlow, it became “so pitch dark that [the] listeners could hardly see one another. I think they were uneasy about what Marlow was telling them because it was as if he was telling a dream, just like Marlow was somewhat uneasy about reaching Kurtz. I found it ironic that Marlow stated "I hate, detest, can't bear a lie" (Conrad 27), but then lies to the Intended, and then later says “Of course in this you fellows see more than I could then” (Conrad 27), but was actually surrounded with fog during his journey. Marlow idolizes Kurtz, to an extent, by lying to the Intended in order to continue his reputation in the Sepulcher City and referring to previous comments, out of pity because of the “horror” he will have to face after his death. I also think that Conrad uses the allegorical example of Marlow finding his inner-self as the novella progressed, to help persuade readers of the relationship between himself and Kurtz. Do you think this use of allegory helps advance or hurts the story that Marlow tells to the narrator?
Similar to what Jessie, I also found Marlow's character quite ironic. The main thing in this passage that struck me was the irony of Marlow's words spoken through the narrator. --"...a flavor of morality in lies--which is exactly what I hate and detest in the world-- what I want to forget. It makes me miserable and sick, like biting something rotten would do." -- here, Marlow has vividly described how repulsive lies are to him, yet, he finds that it was okay for him to lie to the Inteneded with the simple justification that he was keeping her from something that was "too dark". If lying is something that makes him "miserable and sick" why was he able to lie so easily to the Intented? And if lying is also something he wants to forget, does that mean he will try his best to forget the lie he told her?
I agree with Vivian that lying to the Intended was ironic on behalf of Marlow. Marlow knows what he is doing, and has done. Like Vivian brought up in her passage from page 27 "i went near enough..i did not see". Marlow leaves the story open so that they can have their own interpretation and just assume that he is a wonderful man. I do not think the lying was ironic i think it was just to build himself up to the other seamen. If you agree that the lying was not ironic for Marlow, do you think it was ironic for someone else? If so, what do you think the reasoning behind it was?
In response to Marissa, I believe that Marlow's lie wasn't as easy as she proclaimed. When looking into the text, Marlow describes the moments of the lie stating,"I heard her weeping; she had hidden her face in her hands. It seemed to me that the house would collapse before I could escape, that the heavens would fall upon my head. But nothing happened. The heavens do not fall for such a trifle. Would they have fallen, I wonder, if I had rendered Kurtz that justice which was his due? Hadn't he said he wanted only justice? But I couldn't. I could not tell her. It would have been too dark -- too dark altogether..." This passage alternatively suggests that the decision to lie about Kurtz final words was a rather tough one for Marlow. He vividly describes the darkness that encompasses his decision, and acts as the house itself was pushing him to lie. I believe that this displays Marlow's own judgement, and the his own battle within to tell the truth. The journey that he has completed has shown to be repeatedly dark, so his own conscious is conflicted in his decision. Though his morals point to the truth, he can't help but lie. When he states that the end would be "Too dark", he is suggesting that the many negative and grim turnouts of his recent journey was already too difficult to digest, so completing that final act of truth would have made the darkness consume the novel. The truth of the congo and the realization of journey could not be released. With this, do you think that Marlow's experience in the Congo changed him as a person back in Brussel? Was he tilted to a more dark or light personality? Did the lie change him?
(English USED to be on A-day, guess I should of remembered that)
Marissa causes one to ponder if Marlow will forget the lie he told the intended. "which is exactly what I hate and detest in the world, what I want to forget," Marlow says this about lying. The diction used by Conrad here, shows that even though Marlows wants to forget he will not be able to. Seeing as how Marlow is telling the story after it has occurred it is clear that he has not forgotten the lies that he has told. Eliza also touches on the aforementioned quote showing its sense of irony. I agree with this. Irony shows itself in this passage as well as in "Cannibalism in the Heart of Darkness", where it is said that the chain gang is "enemies but not criminals". This overlapping of words shows directly the overlapping of light and dark within the novel. The ideals that are molded together with the realities are often ironic and contradictory. Can it be said that Conrad chooses diction to clearly represent irony, and therefore to represent ironic realities of London's "heart of darkness"?
(English USED to be on A-day, guess I should of remembered that)
Marissa causes one to ponder if Marlow will forget the lie he told the intended. "which is exactly what I hate and detest in the world, what I want to forget," Marlow says this about lying. The diction used by Conrad here, shows that even though Marlows wants to forget he will not be able to. Seeing as how Marlow is telling the story after it has occurred it is clear that he has not forgotten the lies that he has told. Eliza also touches on the aforementioned quote showing its sense of irony. I agree with this. Irony shows itself in this passage as well as in "Cannibalism in the Heart of Darkness", where it is said that the chain gang is "enemies but not criminals". This overlapping of words shows directly the overlapping of light and dark within the novel. The ideals that are molded together with the realities are often ironic and contradictory. Can it be said that Conrad chooses diction to clearly represent irony, and therefore to represent ironic realities of London's "heart of darkness"?
I agree with Laine, that while the narrator and the others on board where was listening to Marlow, the listeners could have possibly contemplated whether what Marlow was saying was recalled as an actual memory or very descriptive dream. I believe Conrad uses ambiguity as a major component of this book through examples like the “fog” or “darkness”. This is used to leave the reader to assume or suggest their own conclusion of what actually really happens because its never stated in an exact statement. “... No, it is impossible; it is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one’s existence—that which makes its truth, its meaning—its subtle and penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live, as we dream—alone..” ( Conrad 27) The tone that Marlow uses is compiled of multiple complex adjectives that give you a visual within your mind when the adjective is used as a by itself. The fact that all the adjectives are within one sentence it leaves the reader just as well as the characters within the book stunned. I believe Conrad structured Marlow’s dialogue intentionally to leave the reader uneasy, and not too sure but leaving the reader to understand the bigger plot. Could it be possibly that since the book has multiple biblical connections, be a reason why the diction of the book is complex, the same way as the bible? Do you think this is an component Conrad contributed for the purpose of connecting to the bible?
I agree with Augusta when she says that it is ironic for Marlow to lie to the intended, since he hates lying so much. This makes it obvious that there is meaning behind the lie, though. Marlow knew that the intended thought of Kurtz in a way that no one else did, and I do not think that he wanted to change her mindset if it was not necessary. A quote says, “There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies- which is exactly what I hate and detest in the world- what I want to forget” (Conrad 27). This makes it very clear that Marlow hates lies, because he is saying there is death in lies and he wants to forget death. The one thing he lies about is relevant to death, so maybe since that was already a factor, he felt that there was justification behind his lie. To answer Augusta’s question, I think that Kurtz was more of a lie to himself once the atmosphere of the Congo set in and he started to change. He forgot about his other life, with the Intended, and everything it entailed. The idolization of Kurtz was necessary to fully understand how the intended felt about him against how everyone else felt about him. The author also uses irony in this situation, because the one person who cared about Kurtz more than anyone, the Intended, is the person Kurtz forgot about and let go of. Marlow knew this as well, which gave him more reason to lie to the Intended, even though it went against his thoughts of lies. Do you think that Conrad created the death of Kurtz as an excuse for Marlow to lie?
To answer Lierin's question plainly. No. I do not think the Conrad killed Kurtz for one lie. I think he killed Kurtz because as a character he was the darkest and I feel like Conrad wanted light to prevail. Also if Kurtz had done anything but die I feel like it would have been a stretch to make it work in the text. But although light prevailed Conrad still shows that within light there is still darkness, not unlike dark sun spots on the sun, "the lie" is the darkness within the light that is Marlow. "It [lying] makes me miserable and sick, like biting something rotten would do" (Conrad 27) this shows how Marlow hates lies but he feels that sometimes they are unavoidable. Do you feel the metaphor used by Conrad, comparing lying to biting into something rotten, an accurate description of how you would feel after telling a lie?
I agree with Lierin about how Marlow only lied to the Intended because he didn't want to change her mindset about Kurtz if it wasn't necessary. But on the other hand, I feel like the Intended wouldn't have even believed Marlow if he wouldn't have lied to her because she was so blinded by her high ideas of Kurtz that she wasn't going to look past them no matter what any one said to her. To answer Jarvis' question, no. I think that Conrad used such language in his text to simply leave the reader uneasy and confused about the situation. It could be connected towards the bible through someone else's view, but I do not believe that Conrad personally used some of his dialogue in resemblance of the Bible. My question is, how do you think the book would've ended if Marlow decided to tell the truth to the Intended and do you think she would've believed him or not? What other reactions do you think she would've had?
(Sorry I keep forgetting to post these after I type them up)
I agree with Augusta when she says that it was ironic for Marlow to lie to the intended ad protect his image in her mind. Up until that point it seemed like Marlow was a very cynical and sarcastic character. Often going against what society believes especially when it comes to other people he says earlier “Mr. Kurtz was no idol of mine” showing that he certainly does not hold Kurtz in high regard like the Intended. Also Marlow himself stated that “You know I hate, detest, and can’t bear a lie” so for him to lie to the Intended at the end of the book goes completely against what we know about Marlow so far. I think that Conrad wrote this part so that the reader could sympathize with Marlow since his cynical nature can be off-putting to the reader. It connects the character to the reader because I believe if most people were presented with this situation they would lie in order to protect the image of Kurtz in the Intended’s mind. My question is Do you believe Marlow truly hates lying? (Marlow himself admits that his has sacrificed the truth for the sake of convenience), and how would you justify Marlow’s lie to the Intended at the end?
So many of you quoted "the flavor of mortality in lies, like biting something rotten..."
What effect does it create to have Marlow speak this way of lies and then encase the Intended in death imagery: the sarcophagus-like heart of the Sepulchral City? (the whited sepulchre is absolutely a biblical allusion -- other terms are often religious but not necessarily biblical).
Lierin says that it is ironic for Marlow to lie to the Intended and I agree with that but I don't see that action as surprising. Many people have double standards and I see Marlow as having one here. He would be mad if someone lied to him but for him this was okay for him to lie about. The narrator also shows how the tone of Marlow recalling this part of the story is. The narrator uses the words “silent”, “paused”, and “reflecting”. These show how Marlow is looking back at this and having own thoughts that were not spoken. Perhaps he could be resenting the fact of himself lying to the Intended, maybe not. By the action of Marlow’s described pause and this perhaps suggesting that he may have resented lying, do you think that Marlow has lasting psychological effects from his lie?
Mariah says: I do agree with Morgan it is like most humans to add excess to a story to make themselves or their lives more interesting and in regards to Marissa's question, I think maybe part of what Marlow finds so repulsive of lying is the effect it has on others. And his lie did not effect the Intended's almost "idolistic" view of Kurtz. It only supported her and she went unphased. Like the seamen on the boat, who weren't effected by the frills on Marlow's story. And that maybe the dark was a symbol of their unchangedness. Marlow can not see if the men are changed by his stories and therefore ok with lying about a few things. My question is that if Marlow didn't lie to protect others, did he resent Kurtz because he lied only to glorify or protect himself?
Post a Comment