Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Heart of Darkness Supplementary Readings

  1. #1
    HB Forum Owner MrBranchAPLit's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 3rd, 2007
    Posts
    27
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    You will respond here to four different readings that are meant to help you to build upon your understanding of Conrad's novel - Heart of Darkness.

    #1 - Mark Dintenfass lecture
    #2 - Joyce Carol Oates introduction to your novel
    #3 - Chinua Achebe's criticism of the novel
    #4 - Coppola's adaptation of the novel

    Your response for each should focus on how the text helps your understanding of the novel; whether or not you agree with what has been said; and other thoughts and questions you may have.

    You may post all at once, or as you finish each piece. All posts need to be completed by Monday and will be worth a total of 40 points.

    <font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 02, 2007 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Mr Branch ]</font>

  2. #2
    Inactive Member montanaro.g's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 5th, 2007
    Posts
    18
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Introduction by Joyce Carol Oates

    I must say that I agree with what Oates is saying about the novel. Conrad, through the characters of Marlow and Kurtz, is showing the attitude that the Europeans had during that time (and, still, today). Although Marlow sees such horror and decries it, he still does nothing in order to end it. He portrays the European who does not wish to voice out his opinion because it might alter the status quo. Kurtz, on the other hand, is the typical European who sees everything non-European as something brute, savage, and horrific, and who tries to make everything as European as possible. Just like Oates writes in the introduction, Conrad , just like Marlow, was someone who traveled to Africa in search of an adventure. Marlow, having a thirst for some unknown adventure, went to Africa were he saw the crudeness of European colonialism, which was personified in the person of Kurtz. Oates compares this masterwork with other literary achievements, like Wilde's The Portrait of Dorian Grey, Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, along others, to show how the other literary works have the same basic meaning, but described in very opposite ways. Wilde's novel shows the nature of men when power is granted to them without limitations. The same is true for Conrad's Heart of Darkness, where Kurtz creates in himself an image of God who mistreats the infidels and the savage for the sake of humanity and European tradition. In Stevenson's novel, the main character has a double identity disorder in which one is somewhat more reserved, while the other one is more frontal, more demonic, per say. Marlow represents the reserved one, not wanting to express his real feelings but just going with the flow, while Kurtz is the demonic figure in the story who becomes into a ruthless tyrant because of his strong belief in the European superiority.

    Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now (1979)

    Wow... This movie just shows how inhumane humans can be. The first scene and the scene in which Captain Willard recruits his men, just show how primitive one becomes when it is about surviving. Surviving in war, for some, means killing the enemies, but in this case, the Americans were the enemies who were invading Vietnam. The Americans were trying to survive by bombing the Vietnamese with napalm. That is just wrong! Anyways... Going back to the relation between Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now... I would like to focus on the last scene of the movie, the one in which Willard kills Kurtz with the machete. That scene depicts the real men, one that when it comes to being "primitive" is primitive. I mean, what was the need of killing Kurtz with various blows of the machete, when Willard had a handgun. The constant blows shows the savagery that accompanies war. Kurtz is the perfect example of this also. Prior to the war, Kurtz was someone respectable, with high ambitions and high sense of ethic. Once in Vietnam, he learned that power is the name of the game. Men are still not used to "civilization," since each opportunity we have to return to "savagery," we don't let it go by. Although we pride ourselves in being the most civilized of all animals, we are, in reality, the most savage of all animals: we kill, not for surviving, but for comfort, whereas animals, wrongly labeled uncivilized, kill for protection and survival. Sooner or later we are part of our primal instincts.

    Criticism of Heart of Darkness by Chinua Achebe

    I must say that Achebe does have some valid arguments to his thought. I mean, Conrad does portray some sort of racial superiority through his descriptions of the African as shadows, dark bodies, etc. Also, the character of Marlow, which most critics say resemble Conrad, is someone that does nothing to stop the mistreatment of the Africans, therefore he is an accomplice of such inhumane acts. Now, talking about the superiority complex of the Caucasians (Europe) over the Africans (Africa). Achebe first starts off by comparing the descriptions of both rivers, the Thames and the Congo. The Thames, representing civilization and calmness, is the epitome of what Conrad sees as superior, while the Congo is one which is in an eternal darkness, therefore creating come sort of antithesis between both. Although the Thames once had a dark period it has managed to overcome it, but, the Congo, unable to pass by its eternal darkness, continues dwelling in the same darkness that they have been dwelling over the past thousand years. Another portion of the critique that I really liked was when Achebe made reference to Dorian Grey's portrait to exemplify Europe's conduct. Dorian Grey was a man who did not age because all sins that might have aged him were set forth on his portrait. The same thing occurs with Europe and Africa, as Achebe puts it. Europe, for the sake of progress and as a way of feeding its ego, uses Africa as a guinea pig in order to test and insert all of its flaws in order to appear as a pure continent, while Africa, plagued with Europe's plagues, is slowly being destroyed. After reading this critique, I realize that Conrad only focuses on showing how "primitive" and "savage" Africa really is, rather than showing us how inhuman and unfathomable was the way Europeans treated and prostituted Africa. This article or essay is the one I most liked of all the three essays.

    Mark Dintenfass lecture

    As I was reading this lecture, which I found rather very interesting, I could finally answer the one question I asked at the beginning of the book: Why make art so difficult to understand? And the answer to this question, according to Mr. Dintenfass is that nothing is hard to comprehend when you take a specific view of the art. When one tries to comprehend the work of art as a whole, taking into consideration its criticism to the natural state of human being, its criticism to 19th century colonialism, etc... one looses the essence of the novel, because one is focusing on one to many things. Unlike Achebe's essay, this lecture praises Conrad's novel by practically cataloging it as one of the best novels written in human history. Once you understand the basic theme of the novel, one can go deeper into the book and dig hidden meanings that Conrad put in the novel for some reason. One must first understand the point of the novel in order to interpret it. And, in order to understand it, one must first focus on a specific idea and then elaborate on that. Just as the lecture progresses, so must we follow that path that we start from something rather general and end up very specific.
    When we see a masterpiece, be it a painting, music, or literary work, we are awed by its magnanimity, but what makes us feel that way is that we are unable to know or understand what the artist was thinking when creating the masterpiece, and that is what brings us satisfaction: searching for the unknown, searching for that darkness that is waiting to be covered by light.

    INTO THE WOODS

    <font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ December 02, 2007 03:29 PM: Message edited by: montanaro.g ]</font></font>

    <font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ December 02, 2007 04:34 PM: Message edited by: montanaro.g ]</font></font>

    <font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ December 03, 2007 09:38 PM: Message edited by: montanaro.g ]</font></font>

    <font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 03, 2007 10:08 PM: Message edited by: montanaro.g ]</font>

  3. #3
    Inactive Member sofiastaburuaga's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 5th, 2007
    Posts
    15
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    #1: The Dintenfass reading helped me look at the book in several different ways. It made me realize that there is no right or wrong interpretations of the book and it can be seen from different system of ideas view points. One can analyze the book from a historical, psychological, or even scientific point of view and you will be able to find support and examples that explain the book in each and every one of them. I also realized that the modernist writer wants to make us live every moment from begining to end and to to explain and simplify ideas. "their purpose is to get the reader to re-live an experience in some important and concrete way, with all its complexity and messiness, all its darkness and ambiguity, intact." I also agree with what he says when he points out that by not telling us what the darkness really was Conrad was giving us some sort of freedom of imagination and interpretation as readers. If the answer was given to us then we wouldn't have to think about what the book was trying to teach us or talk to us about as a whole. This article also got me thinking on the "3" idea. I never realized that the novel had these different patterns of three, although I still can't figure out what Conrad was trying to do by grouping things in three's.

    #2: Oates makes some very interesting points about the novel Heart of Darkness which I agree on. For example when she says, "Dying of fever in the jungle, as Marlow nearly dies , Kurtz's famous pronouncements of his own spiritual condition--The horror! The horror!"--is a judgement upon mam's universal propensity for evil. I also think that "The horror! The horror!" talks about how everyone has an evil side that is hidden that might come out any second. Its talking about human misery, hate, and injustice in the world. With her introduction I learned that Conrad's audience were wealthy caucasian males and the book made more sense to me. I didn't understand why it talked about the Africans as brutes, savages, uncivilized, not giving them a concrete form and just talking about them as shape and color. The Europeans thought that because they had more power they were better than the Africans and they could do as they pleased with them. I completely disagree with Conrad when in Oates's introduction there is a statement which he talks about the women being "out of touch" with the truth because we always imagine ourselves in a perfect world. We, the women, can handle the truth the same way a man can handle it, and sometimes even better.Now it makes much more sense when Marlow tells the "intended" that Kurtz's last word was her name when it was really not. It was to protect her because he thought she was more vulnerable.

    #3: Chinua Achebe talks about how Conrad is underminding and discriminating against the African people. Its true, he describes the people as savages, brutes, shapes, colors, but not as persons. Conrad writes "black limbs, a mas of clapping hands, of feet stamping, of bodies swaying.." but he never talks about the Africans as people. He describes them as things or parts. He also compares an African man to a dog, he basically said that they were like animals. When talking about the two women he says that the white European woman "had a mature capacity for fidelity, for belief, for suffering" like saying that the African woman didn't possess those qualities at all. That she didn't understand those concepts because she was too primitive. In a way Conrad says that the Africans didn't have humanity in them. I think that the point Achebe is trying to make is a valid point: that Conrad was a racist and that he discriminated African culture. But, I think that wasn't the point of the book. I think the point was to show that each and everyone of us has evil inside and that no one can escape from that. In that sense he is putting the Africans and Europeans along with the rest of the world on an equal basis. In the end, we are all the same.

    #4: The movie Apocalypse Now helped me understand better the entire novel. There were some places in which I got lost and lost track the story and by seeing the movie I got the entire picture altogether. The movie was a very good representation of the novel's idea because it was during a war. A war is the time when humans are the most uncivilized they can be. A war shows "The horror" of humanity and all the killing and going back to the animal instincts to kill for survival. Only that the animals have no other choice but humans know better and they could've stopped the war. The war also showed the same prejudice towards black people as the book when they showed the heads and bodies mutilated in the inner station, and when the Africans were doing their offering ceremonies and killed the bull and offered it to the deities. But, the movie had black men in the boat crew and the captain which had the most power in the boat was black. But in the end they both died and the only two that survived where white men.

    <font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ December 02, 2007 02:41 PM: Message edited by: sofiastaburuaga ]</font></font>

    <font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ December 02, 2007 03:07 PM: Message edited by: sofiastaburuaga ]</font></font>

    <font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 02, 2007 03:17 PM: Message edited by: sofiastaburuaga ]</font>

  4. #4
    Inactive Member alberto_dacosta's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 1st, 2007
    Posts
    19
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    #1 - Mark Dintenfass lecture

    Dintenfass makes a series of interesting points regarding the versatility of <u>Heart of Darkness</u> and the possibility of exploring it from several different perspectives, a fact that is clearly evident from Achebe's masterful analysis of the text. I agree with the professor's evaluation that "there are many different ways to make sense of [the book]"; additionally, his emphasis on the triads that repeatedly appear in the book is very interesting, although I fail to observe how this constancy has significant bearing on the book's central theme.

    However, what perhaps struck me most about this lecture was his mention of the fact that Modernists "[exhibit] a distrust of abstractions as a way of delineating truth". Most if not all of Marlow's story is characterized by a rather outlandish sensation, a fact that is reiterated several times by the protagonist himself. Thus, we could perhaps safely assert that one of the central themes that Conrad addresses in his book is this fluidity of truth: the idea that there is no right or wrong in the polar opposition of light and darkness, civilization and savagery. We can tie this statement together with Achebe's analysis to conclude that Conrad is perhaps passing no judgment at all: he is not making a definite motion towards which of the two parties is justified, but simply demonstrating how they differ and how they are ultimately alike.

    An equally relevant point lies in Dintenfass' discussion of the purpose and importance of this surrealist atmosphere experienced by Marlow. This, says the professor, is a reflection of Conrad's intent to portray "the truth of real experience in all its dark messiness and complexity." <u>Heart of Darkness</u>, in fact, clearly emphasizes the ephemeral nature of human experience, with Marlow travelling to and from the "heart of darkness" in the African continent but failing to fully comprehend the ultimate nature of the human soul.

    The Dintenfass lecture is very useful in that it stresses the plurality of meaning contained in Conrad's work while maintaining that it nonetheless obeys a structure of coherence; it can therefore be exposed to an inexhaustible analysis made possible by both the abundance of possible interpretations and by the form that the text complies to. Accordingly, I must say that I agree with the points the professor makes throughout his lecture.

    #2 - Joyce Carol Oates introduction to your novel

    Although I think that Oates' introduction was significantly more relevant as a venue through which to understand Conrad's personal history and the impact that his life experiences had on his work, it was nonetheless a good way through which to learn about the underlying themes of Conrad's work and about the social reality in which Conrad existed. Oates corroborates Achebe's evaluation by stating that "Conrad...painfully reveals himself in [certain] passages [as a racist]", yet she also highlights the importance of Kurtz as "the very embodiment of European civilization." In that sense, the impression I had of Oates' introduction was that it was more of a connection between the ideas presented in the other complementary texts than an idea in itself.

    Oates tackles both the issue of racism presented by Chinua Achebe and the problem of bigotry in Conrad's work. She successfully addresses both in terms of Conrad's historical period and by connecting the themes presented in such passages with the central ideas of the text itself, making her introduction a must-read in order to conciliate with the text reasonably in face of Achebe's adamant accusations. Most importantly, however, she decisively narrows the central theme of Conrad's <u>Heart of Darkness</u> into that of "[an exploration of the] unmapped territory [of] the human soul."

    Finally, I must say that I agree with Oates' assertion that the "particular resonance" of Conrad's work lies in its accurate portrayal of the "predicament of man." Intricate as the story might be, it flawlessly probes the dual nature of the human soul, torn between its idealistic ideals of civilization and the inherent savagery produced by our "flawed and treacherous [souls]."

    #3 - Chinua Achebe's criticism of the novel

    Although I agree with Achebe's demand that "[his] reading stand beside [the] other readings [of the novel]" and with the points he makes regarding possible racist connotations in Conrad's work, I must say that I vehemently disagree with his bombastic assertion that Conrad's "bloody [racism]" was the basis for his work in <u>Heart of Darkness</u>. Furthermore, even though Achebe foresees that he "may be challenged on the grounds of actuality", that is exactly the pivot about which I disagree with him. Despite the fact that Achebe's reading is enlightening, given that he peruses Conrad's text through the lens of racism, it seems to me that his interpretation strips the novel of any parallel significance that might stem from Conrad's choice of scenery.

    Achebe's criticism highlights the role that the African continent and the African people play in the text yet fails to arrive at any deeper understanding of the novel's argument itself because it becomes mired in its discussion of racism. Particularly revealing is his emphatical assertion that Conrad sets "Africa up as a foil [of] Europe, a lace of negations...in comparison with Europe's...state of spiritual grace", one that contains important implications regarding the theme's novel. However, Achebe proceeds to move onto a tangential discussion of the inherent racism of said comparison, a discussion that bears little contextual relevance in my opinion. I say this not because of some relativistic perspective on the nature of truth, but rather because this foil that Achebe criticizes is exactly the central argument of <u>Heart of Darkness</u>: man in a supposed state of grace versus man in his natural state, a contradiction that Conrad explores and, most importantly, refutes in his work.

    Achebe rails against Conrad's characterization of Kurtz's native lover as a "savage counterpart to the refined, European woman with whom the story will end". However, he fails to note that the "savage counterpart", unlike the "refined European woman", is ultimately left with knowledge of Kurtz's fate, whereas the other isn't; the "savage" has knowledge, whereas the "refined European" has ignorance. Achebe also conveniently forgets to note Conrad's depiction of the Christian and European pilgrims, shaped into symbols of colonialism's hypocritical and deceitful proposition. In that respect, I don't think that Conrad purposefully "parades vulgar fashion prejudices and insults"; it seems to me that he demystifies them, picturing the self-affirmed "superior" Europeans as no better than those that they enslaved under the prerogative of "civilizing".

    Interesting as Achebe's interpretation of the novel on ethnic grounds might be, I think that it is slightly exaggerated. Kurtz, after all, is portrayed as having made himself into a deity in the eyes of the "savages"; extending Kurtz's symbolic representativeness of the "educated European" under this light yields a conclusion that holds little goodwill towards Europeans. Although Achebe's lecture allowed me to better observe <u>Heart of Darkness</u> under this different light, I don't feel as if it changed my perception of the work significantly.

    #4 - Coppola's adaptation of the novel

    It seems to me that Coppola's adaptation is a perfect parallel to <u>Heart of Darkness</u>, albeit one that seems less confusing and is easier to comprehend. This clarity, of course, does not come at the expense of the surrealism present in Conrad's text: the booming sound of Wagner while the helicopters blast away at a tranquil riverside village emphasizes the nonsensical and barbarous nature of war, just as Marlow's travels reflect the horror and brutality of colonialism. The adaptation of Conrad's scenario into the Vietnam setting also bears testimony to the universality of Conrad's message and argument. As in <u>Heart of Darkness</u>, the movie reveals a certain ambiguity of truth in what pertains to the two opposing sides, the American Army and the NLF; we see the savagery of both and are therefore led to question the legitimacy and truthfulness of their propositions. Yet the greatest merit of the movie was, certainly, the fact that it successfully left Conrad's original premises intact: the exploration of the darkness, reflected in the movie through the abundance of partial lighting, and the inherent horror of the human soul, displayed both in the terrible atrocities of the war and in Kurtz's "epiphany". I think that Coppola's movie made a significant contribution to my understanding of the text's underlying themes, particularly in what pertains to the idea of the metaphorical darkness.

    <font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 03, 2007 04:26 PM: Message edited by: alberto_dacosta ]</font>

  5. #5
    Inactive Member cjkb90's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 6th, 2007
    Posts
    18
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)
    #1 - Mark Dintenfass lecture

    Professor Dintenfass seems to cover a wide spectrum of topics while lecturing on Heart of Darkness. One of the things that I thought stood out the most was how he explained that the novel could be analysed from several different perspectives. You could analyse the historical situation of the Congo and its status as a colony of Belgium, or go for the sociological point of view and dig deeper into the quotes that mention the cannibals or the pilgrims, or perhaps even the comments of the other people on the Thames River along with Marlow and the narrator. He also noted a connection between Conrad and Freud while taking a psychological point of view, even though Freud had not yet published his work by the time Conrad finished Heart of Darkness. On a side note, I think that his way of giving a lecture is entertaining, since I felt identified with the students he described as day dreamers, and it was very funny to picture a Professor saying that some people are probably fantasizing with the girl that sits in front of them instead of listening to him.

    #2 - Joyce Carol Oates introduction to your novel

    Oates clearly idolizes Conrad?s work, since she describes it as a masterpiece. I found it useful to learn through her that Conrad called colonialism in Africa ?the vilest scramble for loot that ever disfigured the history of human consciousness?. Also, she says that Kurtz is a good man, but that the distance from home unleashes the evil in him. This would go to say that man is evil by nature, and that all Europeans (if not all the world) would behave accordingly in Kurtz?s situation. Furthermore, I understand why Conrad wrote so vehemently on the horror in the Congo, and it is because the things he saw there made him dream of only nightmares once he got back to Europe.

    #3 - Chinua Achebe's criticism of the novel

    Chinua Achebe seems to regard Conrad as a magnificent writer, but at the same time as a racist. On several occasions he argues that Conrad describes the Africans as savages in a way that is beyond the viewpoint of Marlow, but one of Conrad himself. For example, Achebe says ?It is clearly not part of Conrad?s purpose to confer language on the ?rudimentary souls? of Africa. They only ?exchanged short grunting phrases? even among themselves but mostly they were too busy with their frenzy?. Another example would be when Marlow describes the man who said ?Mistah Kurtz, he dead,? as ?the insolent black head of the doorway.? Ultimately, and I was shocked to read this, Achebe says ?Whatever Conrad?s problems were, you might say he is now safely dead. Quite true. Unfortunately, his heart of darkness plagues us still. Which is why an offensive and totally deplorable book can be described by a serious scholar as ?among the half dozen greatest short novels in the 20th century literature??. He also goes as far as calling Conrad a xenophobic. In general, I think he went too far when insulting Conrad, but he does have reason to be mad when people refer to African languages as ?native languages? or ?dialects?, because supposedly language is far too grand for savages.

    #4 - Coppola's adaptation of the novel

    As I write this, I am listening to ?The End?, by The Doors. On a personal note, I would like to say that I thought this was a fantastic movie, and I loved the 60?s ambience that was set up in a 1979 movie. At first, before watching the movie, I thought to myself ?how can Apocalypse Now be based on HoD if it is set in the Vietnam War?? However it is now clear to me, since there are many connections with Conrad?s novel. The last third of the movie was when most of these connections were conspicuous, when the photographer says that the sirens scare the natives and when he says that Kurtz is a genius even though he tried to kill him only a few days earlier. These are the minor connections that I believe matter the most, since others are necessary for the thematic link to be accurate, such as the fact that Kurtz was a murdering megalomaniac. Also, I believe that Coppola was a visionary for setting up the movie in Vietnam, since it is something that Americans could identify with much closer than Belgian colonization of Congo in the 19th century.

  6. #6
    Inactive Member hcaceres's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 7th, 2007
    Posts
    15
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    #1 - Mark Dintenfass lecture


    On a special note, I consider Mark Dintenfass? beginning in his lecture as a great way to captivate the audience while presenting the topics and arguments. But compared to the other opinions, his is probably the most factual and ranged when taking into consideration the variety of points he discussed. What surprised me was how he managed to break apart from the typical and present several different perspectives through which the novel could be analyzed. One example is when he drew a connection between Freud and Conrad in a physiological sense. What most surprised me was that this also implied some similar beliefs that pre-existed in Conrad. This lecture helped me understand the novel immensely by presenting new approaches that change the overall meaning of the book. This way, one can truly dissect and analyze the novel while having fun with different ways to read in between the lines.

    #2 - Joyce Carol Oates introduction to your novel


    In my opinion, Joyce Carol Oates admires Conrad?s Heart of Darkness, and because of that it represents a distorted view of the novel. First of all, I disagree with the opinion that Kurtz is a good person and he simply gets carried away because he is far away from Europe. I find this comment to be offending because it implies that Europeans are superior and that the evil lies in the brutality in Africa. That is why I agree with Conrad on his feelings toward colonialism. It is a part of history that shows how evil and obscure the nature of man can get to be once it is infected with materialism. This passage helped me understand the novel better because it gave me some insight on how Conrad felt when he wrote the novel and his emotions towards Africa, specifically the Congo.

    #3 - Chinua Achebe's criticism of the novel


    I found Chinua Achebe?s criticism, to some extent, a little confusing. First of all, Achebe begins by praising Conrad and his writing abilities. However, the article is dedicated to prove how Conrad is a racist. This is contradictory because it discusses the negative and positive aspects of Conrad?s writing in an unclear way. Chinua Achebe mainly discusses the racism in Conrad?s Heart of Darkness. It does so by constantly showing how Conrad described the Africans in the novel. I think that Achebe has a point, because Conrad does describe the Africans like ?shapes?, ?images?, and even ?phantoms?. But I don?t think that Conrad does this to be racist, but instead to further prove how humans are mere shadows that linger in the dark of ignorance. Also, he does so to show the universality of his beliefs, and that no men, either white or black, is exempt. This text did not help me understand the novel in any way significantly. The perspective it introduces was not new to me or relevant.


    #4 - Coppola's adaptation of the novel

    I think the movie Apocalipse Now, based on The Heart of Darkness, truly represents the immorality and dark nature of the human race. Personally, the movie helped me understand the novel greatly. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and this is no exception. By providing the novel with visual scenes, the plot and the messages are enhanced because the audience gets to see exactly what is going on instead of imagining parts that are not relevant. Also, the expressions of the actors suit perfectly with the novel and its characters. The captain represents Marlow with great detail and even imitates some of his thought processes. I partly agree with the messages the movie is stating. On one part, I can see the logic behind the opinion that the nature of men is evil, and unnecessarily evil too. War, murders, rapes, and other events that we call crimes prove such reasoning every minute. But I think the world is forgetting to recognize a part of the population who wishes to excel, who want to help others and make this place better. By stating universally that men are evil the movie is undermining the emotional differences between the people as well.

    <font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ December 02, 2007 06:56 PM: Message edited by: hcaceres ]</font></font>

    <font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ December 02, 2007 07:19 PM: Message edited by: hcaceres ]</font></font>

    <font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ December 02, 2007 07:20 PM: Message edited by: hcaceres ]</font></font>

    <font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 02, 2007 07:30 PM: Message edited by: hcaceres ]</font>

  7. #7
    Inactive Member mariecburt's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 21st, 2007
    Posts
    16
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    You will respond here to four different readings that are meant to help you to build upon your understanding of Conrad's novel - Heart of Darkness.

    #1 - Mark Dintenfass lecture

    I really liked Mark Ditenfass? lecture on Heart of Darkness and the many underlying meanings hidden to such a confusing novel. I specially enjoyed the fact that it said that confusion was one of Conrad?s objectives; it made me feel less stupid after being confused for the majority of the reading: ?The highest virtue is not clarity in the abstraction, but the truth of real experience in all its dark messiness and complexity?(pg4). I think Ditenfass? comparison of Conrad?s style of writing and modern art is very accurate. If we could understand exactly what the message the modern artist is trying to convey, it would be too easy, Conrad?s objective is the same. I enjoyed this response of Heart of Darkness and how it made me understand some of the author?s motives for writing the novel and what some of his intentions were. As Ditenfass says about Conrad?s style of writing and objective in writing this novel: ?to re-create, in all its fullness, his experience of darkness in our feelings, our sensibilities, our own dark and mysterious hearts? (pg. 5)Even though I do not think I would particularly like to read another book written in this same style, I must applaud Conrad by saying that he was successful in making the reader feel the confusion and uneasiness that the narrator was feeling himself.


    #2 - Joyce Carol Oates introduction to your novel

    I found Joyce Carol Oates? analysis of Heart of Darkness similar to the first reading, but with a little more biography and more praise. They both share the theme that they are supporting Conrad?s different and modernist style of writing. Oates points out some archetypes present in the novel which are good versus evil and the flawed man. As she states: ?humanity that acknowledges, but does not succumb to, man?s flawed and treacherous soul.? (14). To be honest, I didn?t really like this reading, it seemed to be fake and overly praising. I think my favorite part of the passage was her way of defending Conrads views saying that ?no art can be universal? (13). Most of these readings point out that obviously this novel can be analyzed in many ways, but it is always subjective, but I think the way that Oates words that is very effective.

    #3 - Chinua Achebe's criticism of the novel

    Chinua Achebe?s criticism of Heart of Darkness is a little too intense and cynical for my taste. I think he is blowing a lot of things over proportion and overanalyzing. His number one criticism against Conrad was that he was a racist. This is no the feeling that I got at all, Marlowe, the narrator was extremely racist, but in my opinion, this was Conrad?s way of criticizing imperialism and racism. There is one point, however, that Achebe makes that I agree with, he says that there is no point in making two narrators if they both have the same opinions; I don?t think adding another narrator adds anything extra to the novel. This critic also goes on to say that he does not believe that Heart of Darkness should be as recognized as it is, or read as much as it is. Even though I was not a big fan of the novel, I must say, I am glad that I read it. It led me to discover a new writing style, which even if not that clear, is still valid and I think that is a very important tool that people need to learn. This is the skill to analyze and differentiate between different types of literature and understand why the author is choosing a certain path over the other.

    #4 - Coppola's adaptation of the novel -- movie

    I very much enjoyed Francis Ford Coppola?s movie Apocalypse Now, and I thought it was a really good idea to watch the movie and connect the similarities to the book Heart of Darkness. I have to say though, I think it would be easier to understand the book without the movie than the movie without the book, I'm glad we watched this really famous movie after reading the book because it helps me understand it so much better. Anyway, I think it was genius the way Coppola made such a dense and confusing book into a movie that I found quite understandable. Also, I liked the way that Coppola decided to use the format of Conrad?s criticism to imperialism in Africa to the war in Vietnam but at the same time making very obvious parallels. To such an extent, that you feel like they are the same story. This same idea makes you realize that you can use Conrad?s novel as a criticism of something that is going on today in society, showing one how versatile Conrad?s apparently confusing novel really is. All these things stated are reasons why this movie made me appreciate this novel and made me reflect on the book and on Conrad?s skills as a writer in a new light.


    <font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ December 02, 2007 08:57 PM: Message edited by: Marie Claire ]</font></font>

    <font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 02, 2007 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Marie Claire ]</font>

  8. #8
    Inactive Member rcln's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31st, 2007
    Posts
    20
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    #1 - Mark Dintenfass? lecture

    What most catches my attention from Dintenfass? lecture is his classification of different perspectives (caps) through which we can analyze the novel. He defends Conrad against those critics who only search for ?light and more light? by stating that a discrepancy exists between them because each wears a different cap. Modern novelists aim at re-living ?an experience in some important and concrete way, with all its complexity and messiness, all its darkness and ambiguity, intact.? After reading this lecture, I also realize that I have read ?Heart of Darkness? as a student, and not a reader, and perhaps that is the reason why I have failed to grasp that fullness of experience which Conrad tries to convey.

    #2 - Joyce Carol Oates? introduction to the novel

    Oates? response to the novel is outlined in the beginning of her introduction: "Heart of Darkness has had an influence that goes beyond the specifically literary. This parable of a man's 'heart of darkness' dramatized in the alleged 'Dark Continent' of Africa transcended its late Victorian era to acquire the stature of one of the great, if troubling, visionary works of western civilization." In order to make us see this influence, she analyzes Conrad?s perceptions from the contemporary background and reality based upon Caucasian male privilege and his own experience, and justifies it against common criticisms. Furthermore, she compares it to other masterworks which have similar themes and distinguishes ?Heart of Darkness? for its extreme pessimism. Finally, she points out the fact that this novel, although written in a different time, place, and social perspective, ?has a particular resonance for the twentieth century with its blood-tide of history.?

    #3 - Chinua Achebe's criticism of the novel

    We can clearly see Achebe?s strong criticism of Conrad for his racism toward the Africans. He also parallels Conrad with Marco Polo in the way that both have made omissions of vital truths in their trips, the former regarding Africans as ?black figures?. Personally, I disagree with what he proposes, since I have realized that ?Africa is merely a setting for the disintegration of the mind of Mr. Kurtz? after having watched Coppola's ?Apocalypse Now?, which makes the same argument even though the setting is changed to Vietnam. As the previous lecture made by Dintenfass, I think that Conrad?s purpose and only concern has been to completely express his experience. Yet it is still interesting to recognize that ?Heart of Darkness? may imply racist connotations, an idea which has never come to my mind before. Perhaps this happens because, just as Achebe states it, ?racism against Africa is such a normal way of thinking that its manifestations go completely unremarked.?

    #4 - Coppola's adaptation of the novel

    Although I didn?t get to finish seeing the film, it gave me an impression identical to that of Conrad?s ?Heart of Darkness?, only that it was visual (and could project a more effective impact on certain circumstances). As mentioned above, these two events happening in different time and place resemble in their objective to explore the inner darkness of human kind. In addition, it could also be applied to every one of us.

    <font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ December 03, 2007 11:19 PM: Message edited by: brucelin ]</font>

  9. #9
    Inactive Member lucas89a's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 2nd, 2007
    Posts
    16
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Arrow

    Mark Dintenfass' Lecture [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]
    His lecture, in our context, is an introduction to Achebe's and Carol's opninons and analysis of the HoD. Although Mark does make some conclusions about the book (the Freudian perspective, etc.) his main focus was on how many different levels this book could be read. To prove this we have Achebe's and Carol's opposing crtisisms.

    Joyce Carol Oates introduction to your novel [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]
    Oate's is praising the book as a masterpiece. Her analysis on the book were very interesting. She posits Kurtz as the colonial Europe. With this she says that Europeans aren't all that bad, they are just corrupted by other factors. Although I find this quite euro-centric and without fundaments, I believe it is a very interesting way to see Kurtz. This text also serves to contrast Chinua Achebe's reading of the book.

    Chinua Achebe [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]
    I find Achebe's analysis very strong. Achebe feels offended by the book and by Conrad (although Chinua prasies Conrad at first which is, I think, to sound not so rude) because of the racism he found. I have to strongly disagree with Achebe. I understand this point of view but I find it too close minded and biased. Close minded because Achebe fails to see other perspectives, he perhaps fails to realize that the book never actually meant to denigrate black people; Achebe feels so strong about his ideas. It is also biased because Achebe is from Africa and perhaps the only reading he could grasp was the prevoious one.

    Apocalypse Now [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]
    I found the movie almost exactly like HoD. Quotes were almost the same, names were similar, the plot and scenery was very similar, etc. It is the modern version of HoD. Copola (and whoever wrote the screenplay) delivers the message Conrad delivered but in modern contexts. You can see the great comparasions Copola makes: Vietnam War, USA, Colonialism, Europe, etc. This movie helped me understand more clearly the message of the book. Great movie. [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

  10. #10
    Inactive Member juanmax's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31st, 2007
    Posts
    22
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    1.)Personal comment on Dissenfass's lecture:

    There are two things I would like to highlight about Dissenfass's lecture on "The Heart of Darkness".
    Well, first of all, he mentions that Marlow tries to give an objective account of what was true and real throughout the story. Marlow is not saying that men in the jungle were evil and the visitors and himslef were good. Through the characters of his novel, Conrad portrays humanity as a complexity, where people cannot be categorized into good or bad. It is way more complicated than that; we all have darkness within us.
    Equally important to mention of Professor Dissenfass's lecture is his mentioning that "The Heart of Darkness" can be interpreted in multiple ways. Right off the top of my head I can mention a couple of lens one could use to interpret "The Heart of Darkness". The first one is the Biblical lens. I have made several connections between characters of the Bible and Characters or symbols in the book. For example, the snake-like river represents the path to hell. Another lens is the psychoanalytic lens. There is so much ways to look at how humans are driven by their blood thirst and savageness.

    2.Introduction to Novel-Joyce Carol Oates

    Oates does some importatant things in her introduction of the novel. First she simply explains about the social reality of the author and what was going on in the world at the time he wrote the book. This first part is important because it gives the book more meaning. Then she goes into protecting Conrad of Chebe's accusations that he was a racist and his book should not be taught. Furthermore, the most important thing she does in her introduction is give an explanation of what is the Heart of Darkness, and what the journey of Marlow represents. She says that the Heart of Darkness is the part of the human soul that is savage and primitive in nature. The trip represents the struggle to balance this primitiveness and civilization of humanity.

    3.Achebe's Criticism of "The Heart of Darkness"

    Achebe's criticism is based on the idea that Conrad's novel is based on racism, and that that is its main idea. I strongly disagree with his assertion, I think his ideas are biased and superficial. He must understand the time period Conrad was living in. At that time, people thought differently of Africans simply because the reality was different. Also, he must understand that the book was intended for the rich European elite, which was highly racial at the time. There is so much to learn from Conrad's novel, Achebe shouldn't get fixed on the idea that he was a racist and that we shouldn't read him because he was a racist.

    4.Coppola's movie

    The movie is an excellent portrayal of "The Heart of Darkness". The basic happenings are very similar to the happenings of the book itself. There was a war, a trip, and a final meeting between Kurtz and an officer(not Marlow, though). The music, lighting, and shots of the movie helped me understand the novel better and fill in gaps that I had not understood when reading. What dissapointed me of the movie was that the crew never got out of the boat. If they had gotten out and explored the "darknes", the movie would have been more engaging. They would have been dragged into "darkeness". That would have been interesting to watch.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •