Overall I unfortunately did not appreciate this book. I thought it was a good book but not one that I would ever pick up on my own and read. I thought the language was worded very tricky and I often thought that I was missing something even though I reread the same lines several times. I thought reading this book as a class would have been better to get a better picture and overview of the book however I just found myself constantly lost. The details were a bit over the top especially in the beginning. I tried to imagine it in my mind as best I could which is usually my favorite thing in a book however in this book I found it too hard to do with constant changes and excessive details. The book was also kind of depressing to me in the way it mentioned death and gloom all the time. The Heart of Darkness represented two different things to me. At first darkness was portrayed as exploration, discovery and finding the unknown. Yet in the end I found it more encompassing death, gloom and the evils of violence and greed.
posted by Nateil O.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Heart of Darkness and The Catcher in the Rye
So far Heart of Darkness has reminded me somewhat of The Catcher in the Rye. It could be because I read it before Heart of Darkness but I also see that it’s very detailed and sort of gloomy like The Catcher in the Rye. Throughout the whole book Holden is depressed by his surroundings and constant mishaps happening around him and tells the reader about his experiences through many details and depressing narration much like in the Heart of Darkness when Marlow speaks of people who have died like Fresleven when he says “he was whacked mercilessly while a big crowd of his people watched….. the grass growing through his ribs was tall enough to hide his bones . . . They were dying slowly-it was very clear. They were not enemies they were criminals, they were nothing earthly now-nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish gloom”. Also Holden only had one thing that made him happy and kept him going which was his kid sister Phoebe. Marlow’s person that makes him happy is Kurtz. They both somewhat idolize these people in their lives and center their world around them.
posted by Nateil O.
posted by Nateil O.
Heart of Darkness: Questions about Syntax and Dialogue
Can anyone give me a summary please?! I have no idea who’s talking and when the dialogue starts because the dialogue starts with quotes but then after however long the dialogue is a new quote starts but there are no end quotes for the last one and I don’t know who is speaking. Someone is just constantly speaking. I’m assuming it’s Marlow but it sounds like two different people. It is becoming quite aggravating and hard to follow. Also they speak so weird like they’re narrating their lives in the past. They tell the story like they want you to feel their experience but then they jump into past tense and I find myself lost again. Does anyone else agree with me or am I simply losing my mind?
posted by Nateil O.
posted by Nateil O.
Exploration
So far I have found reading heart of darkness a bit more challenging than I once thought. The way it’s written is a bit confusing because when there is dialogue in the book the person speaks so long and in 3rd person that when the book says someone stopped talking I have to go back in the book to see when they even started. The one part of the book I did understand however is this quote: “now when I was a little chap I had a passion for maps. I would look for hours at south America, or Africa or Australia and lose myself in all the glories of exploration… true by this time it was not a blank space anymore. It had got filled since my boyhood with rivers and lakes and names. It had ceased to be a blank space of delightful mystery- a white patch for a boy to dream gloriously over. It had become a place of darkness”. I agree with Marlow. Everything in life is amazing when you don’t quite know what it is yet, when you can let your imagination run wild. However once someone else has found the land or item you imagined and exposed all its glories and flaws you no longer want the land or item you imagined because it’s no longer yours to call your own. It’s now someone else’s reality. I can understand why Marlow likes to explore. He wants to find something for his own while out on the sea because the sea has no owner. It represents freedom, imagination and an unpredictable finding. I can identify with Marlow in that way because I think we (as people) are always searching for something to call our own.
posted by Nateil O.
posted by Nateil O.
Raskolnikov's past and present
At the start of the novel, Fyodor Dostoevsky does not mention the protagonist’s name, intensifying the novel’s element of mystery. Moreover, talk of the actual crime Raskolniknov commits does not come about until later in the novel. Although the reader does not immediately discover his murder plot, it can be inferred that he is contemplating a very important action in his head. Raskolniknov’s trip to the tavern foreshadows his descent into a life of sin and darkness. At the tavern, the reader is introduced to a character named Marmeladov, who, in his garrulous alcohol-induced state, speaks freely to Raskolniknov. The tavern reminded me of the opium den in Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray, in that both are abysmal and dreary places filled with seemingly ominous characters.
Throughout the first few chapters of Crime and Punishment, the reader learns about Raskolniknov’s isolation from society. He avoids social situations and does not participate in general gatherings and merrymakings. Raskolniknov’s isolation is partially by choice and partially due to his view of others as inferior and childlike. In college, Raskolniknov made very few friends, except for one that we learn about in chapter IV named Razumikhin. Raskolniknov was described in college as “very poor and somehow haughtily proud and unsociable, as though he were keeping something to himself.” Does Raskolniknov’s pain date back to his childhood? Is something in his past responsible for his unwillingness to socialize with his peers?
Readers eventually learn that Raskolniknov could no longer attend classes at the University because of his impoverished state. However, Raskolniknov throws around money in the first several chapters of the book as if he were of the middle or upper class; he gives forty-seven or fifty kopecks to the Marmeladovs, three to Natasya for the letter, and twenty to the policeman after his encounter with the teenage girl on the street. Although Raskolniknov is watchful of his money and mentions feelings of regret for spending so much of it, it is clear that Raskolniknov is not a cold-hearted person. Raskolniknov is battling numerous personal issues in his head, which I believe are partially responsible for his detachment from society. After reading the letter, I learned a little about the strained relationship between Raskolniknov and his mother and sister. The mother seems to cherish Raskolniknov and is willing to sacrifice her own daughter’s wellbeing to ensure her son’s happiness. Dunya is portrayed as a selfless sister who goes through great lengths to aid her brother. She kept working to support Raskolniknov monetarily, despite being harassed by her boss. Now, Dunya is getting married in hopes of establishing a better life for her entire family. I look forward to reading more of the novel so I will be able to uncover details from Raskolniknov’s past.
posted by Leslie P.
Throughout the first few chapters of Crime and Punishment, the reader learns about Raskolniknov’s isolation from society. He avoids social situations and does not participate in general gatherings and merrymakings. Raskolniknov’s isolation is partially by choice and partially due to his view of others as inferior and childlike. In college, Raskolniknov made very few friends, except for one that we learn about in chapter IV named Razumikhin. Raskolniknov was described in college as “very poor and somehow haughtily proud and unsociable, as though he were keeping something to himself.” Does Raskolniknov’s pain date back to his childhood? Is something in his past responsible for his unwillingness to socialize with his peers?
Readers eventually learn that Raskolniknov could no longer attend classes at the University because of his impoverished state. However, Raskolniknov throws around money in the first several chapters of the book as if he were of the middle or upper class; he gives forty-seven or fifty kopecks to the Marmeladovs, three to Natasya for the letter, and twenty to the policeman after his encounter with the teenage girl on the street. Although Raskolniknov is watchful of his money and mentions feelings of regret for spending so much of it, it is clear that Raskolniknov is not a cold-hearted person. Raskolniknov is battling numerous personal issues in his head, which I believe are partially responsible for his detachment from society. After reading the letter, I learned a little about the strained relationship between Raskolniknov and his mother and sister. The mother seems to cherish Raskolniknov and is willing to sacrifice her own daughter’s wellbeing to ensure her son’s happiness. Dunya is portrayed as a selfless sister who goes through great lengths to aid her brother. She kept working to support Raskolniknov monetarily, despite being harassed by her boss. Now, Dunya is getting married in hopes of establishing a better life for her entire family. I look forward to reading more of the novel so I will be able to uncover details from Raskolniknov’s past.
posted by Leslie P.
Perspectives on Colonialism
After reading Heart of Darkness, I feel like I have gained a valuable new perspective on colonialism. Throughout middle school and high school, I learned about the widespread negative effects colonialism has had on the oppressed peoples. However, I have never deeply analyzed the effects the institution has had on the oppressor. Through the narration of Marlow and his peers aboard the ship, I learned how the callous process impacted both parties. Colonialism is without a doubt, a dehumanizing process and I am by no means in support of it. However, many people were thrown into the business for strictly financial reasons, and not because they wanted to exploit the natives. A person’s motives for partaking of the institution were sometimes no indication of his moral beliefs. Of course there were people on the other side of the spectrum who joined the business for racist reasons; they felt superior to the natives and wanted to use the natives’ position to their own advantage. Moreover, the people who acquired land and natives by force were drastically transformed. While the natives were exploited, taken for granted and forced to perform grueling manual labor, the crewmembers also lived dreadful lives. The crewmembers lived in isolation from the real world, were consumed by dark forces, and frequently went mad. I don’t think I would have empathized slightly with the oppressor had I not been introduced to Heart of Darkness.
Marlow’s view of colonialism changed throughout the course of the novel. In Part I, I was not positive if Marlow was in support of colonialism. He stated, “The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much.” Yet as he continued speaking, he seemed to justify the practice by speaking of the idea behind it: “What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretence but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea- something you can set up and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to…” According to Marlow, in journeying thousands of miles to colonize certain territories, such acquisition was justified by the end result: civilizing the natives. Marlow originally had a profound respect for the “knight-errants” of the sea, the people who ventured out into un-chartered waters to colonize various territories and to bring pride to the mother country. But Marlow grew to despise his peers, his life on the seas, and his observations of the brutal practice of colonialism. I also found it interesting how the description of the natives changed throughout the story. At some points, they were referred to as primitive beings or cannibals. However, Marlow also recognized the humanity and developed a kinship with several of them. I think this flip-flopping of opinions is a result of the personal toll the journey had on the crewmembers (Marlow in particular).
posted by Leslie P.
Marlow’s view of colonialism changed throughout the course of the novel. In Part I, I was not positive if Marlow was in support of colonialism. He stated, “The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much.” Yet as he continued speaking, he seemed to justify the practice by speaking of the idea behind it: “What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretence but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea- something you can set up and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to…” According to Marlow, in journeying thousands of miles to colonize certain territories, such acquisition was justified by the end result: civilizing the natives. Marlow originally had a profound respect for the “knight-errants” of the sea, the people who ventured out into un-chartered waters to colonize various territories and to bring pride to the mother country. But Marlow grew to despise his peers, his life on the seas, and his observations of the brutal practice of colonialism. I also found it interesting how the description of the natives changed throughout the story. At some points, they were referred to as primitive beings or cannibals. However, Marlow also recognized the humanity and developed a kinship with several of them. I think this flip-flopping of opinions is a result of the personal toll the journey had on the crewmembers (Marlow in particular).
posted by Leslie P.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Heart of Darkness: Conrad's Writing Style
My first impression of the novel is that Joseph Conrad is an avid follower of “show, not tell” in his writing. He writes in such detail that it is easy to imagine the dark and gloomy expanse that was former Africa. While some parts of the novel need a lengthy description, other parts of the story could have been better off without it, for example, the first two pages of the novel. As if reading a classical novel isn’t daunting enough, Conrad writes in such depth that if his details were tranquilizers he would have put an elephant to sleep. However, my new saying is to never judge a book by the first couple of pages. The book really begins with the introduction of Marlow, the mysterious seaman who raptures his friends with a story from his past.
After his depiction of how the Romans viewed the new world, Marlow starts with his tale when he desired to visit Africa. I liked how the novel changed the point of view from the narrator to Marlow. Marlow has a unique dialect because his speech is very quick and connected. There were barely any sentences that didn’t have an ‘and’ or a pause to add a quick phrase. I had to reread many paragraphs since I couldn’t remember what the original thought was. Some parts of Marlow’s numerous monologues brought up some questions. Why does most of the novel so far refer to things in the vague third person? Ships were called “she’s,” and some people were called “they.” Another question was why did Marlow seem immune to the need for human contact? While on his trips he was rarely with someone else. Lastly, Marlow comments on his aunt’s behavior by saying all women are “out of touch.” I wonder if today’s men still share this view.
posted by Kayla H.
After his depiction of how the Romans viewed the new world, Marlow starts with his tale when he desired to visit Africa. I liked how the novel changed the point of view from the narrator to Marlow. Marlow has a unique dialect because his speech is very quick and connected. There were barely any sentences that didn’t have an ‘and’ or a pause to add a quick phrase. I had to reread many paragraphs since I couldn’t remember what the original thought was. Some parts of Marlow’s numerous monologues brought up some questions. Why does most of the novel so far refer to things in the vague third person? Ships were called “she’s,” and some people were called “they.” Another question was why did Marlow seem immune to the need for human contact? While on his trips he was rarely with someone else. Lastly, Marlow comments on his aunt’s behavior by saying all women are “out of touch.” I wonder if today’s men still share this view.
posted by Kayla H.
Marlow's Developing Character
When I first began reading Heart of Darkness, I did not think that Marlow’s character was going develop in the way that it has. I thought that perhaps the other men on the boat would have some type of role, but so far, they don’t. The way in which Marlow recounts his journey has me as enthralled as much as the other men who are accompanying him. It’s as if you are sitting beside them, listening to Marlow speak.
As I mentioned in my previous post, Marlow does not seem to share the mentality of other explorers around him, and this continues to be explored in the book. Once the steamer reaches the station, we see that Marlow is not like the other men that are there. He sees a truck missing a wheel, and machinery and tools laying around. He also notices that the white men there are just blasting at a cliff, and described it as “objectless“. Later on, he goes on to say that he has “seen the devil of violence, and the devil of greed” and the he would “become acquainted with a flabby pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly.” Marlow clearly disagrees with the way things are done in the station, he is a focused person who gets the job done when it needs to be, and does not dawdle with meaningless tasks. He also takes a shot at colonization with this quote. It is being described as the devil of violence and greed, that’s all it means to him. These men do not go to new lands to explore them, but rather to exploit those who live there, and make them work because they are deemed inferior. Marlow describes in the beginning of the book how important exploration is to him. He doesn’t join these expeditions in hopes of making the slaves work, or gaining riches.
At the station, Marlow gets a combination of slothfulness, greed, and exploitation in this “devil”. Marlow does not seem to share the same relationship with the Africans as the rest of the workers. The other men see them as savages, not worthy and only good for work. Meanwhile, Marlow does not treat them that way, he even offers a slave a biscuit after seeing his emaciated condition. However, Marlow does nothing to try to stop the behavior against the Africans, and he also calls them savages. Perhaps the time period adds to this behavior. After all, most white people did view Africans in this manner, and calling them savages was not seen as wrong. Personally, I disagree. So does this mean that he is just as bad as the other workers? If he were in a better working environment would be as appalled with what is going on?
As his time at the station, Marlow often hears Kurtz’s name. The more he hears it, the more he is intrigued by him. Kurtz is described as an “exceptional” man, a “universal genius“. Of course anyone would be interested in meeting someone that has made such an impact on people. Especially to Marlow, who has grown tired of the men at the station. At this point, Kurtz has become Marlow’s main motivation. He has an urge to meet Kurtz, to hear this remarkable man speak. Will it be what he expects, or will he be let down?
Posted by Wendy C.
As I mentioned in my previous post, Marlow does not seem to share the mentality of other explorers around him, and this continues to be explored in the book. Once the steamer reaches the station, we see that Marlow is not like the other men that are there. He sees a truck missing a wheel, and machinery and tools laying around. He also notices that the white men there are just blasting at a cliff, and described it as “objectless“. Later on, he goes on to say that he has “seen the devil of violence, and the devil of greed” and the he would “become acquainted with a flabby pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly.” Marlow clearly disagrees with the way things are done in the station, he is a focused person who gets the job done when it needs to be, and does not dawdle with meaningless tasks. He also takes a shot at colonization with this quote. It is being described as the devil of violence and greed, that’s all it means to him. These men do not go to new lands to explore them, but rather to exploit those who live there, and make them work because they are deemed inferior. Marlow describes in the beginning of the book how important exploration is to him. He doesn’t join these expeditions in hopes of making the slaves work, or gaining riches.
At the station, Marlow gets a combination of slothfulness, greed, and exploitation in this “devil”. Marlow does not seem to share the same relationship with the Africans as the rest of the workers. The other men see them as savages, not worthy and only good for work. Meanwhile, Marlow does not treat them that way, he even offers a slave a biscuit after seeing his emaciated condition. However, Marlow does nothing to try to stop the behavior against the Africans, and he also calls them savages. Perhaps the time period adds to this behavior. After all, most white people did view Africans in this manner, and calling them savages was not seen as wrong. Personally, I disagree. So does this mean that he is just as bad as the other workers? If he were in a better working environment would be as appalled with what is going on?
As his time at the station, Marlow often hears Kurtz’s name. The more he hears it, the more he is intrigued by him. Kurtz is described as an “exceptional” man, a “universal genius“. Of course anyone would be interested in meeting someone that has made such an impact on people. Especially to Marlow, who has grown tired of the men at the station. At this point, Kurtz has become Marlow’s main motivation. He has an urge to meet Kurtz, to hear this remarkable man speak. Will it be what he expects, or will he be let down?
Posted by Wendy C.
Dealing with Detail in Heart of Darkness
Heart Of Darkness is one of the most eloquent, vivid works of literature that I’ve read recently, but I’ve been finding myself getting lost in the detail and paying more attention to it, rather than the actual motive behind it all. In all honesty, I couldn’t get into the book for a long time. I am reading it bit by bit, and in the beginning I thought that the amount of detail was excessive and it made the book boring. It almost seemed overly dramatic. As I read on (I’m still not finished), it begins getting more interesting and less theatrical-sounding. I’m enjoying it more now, even though I’m still only scratching the surface. The main character Marlow is heavily philosophical, and I’m looking forward to seeing how his thoughts progress throughout the book. A lot of the plot's concept seems analogous to the plot of The Stranger, by Albert Camus. It is also an analysis of the main characters’ mental process (and in this book’s case, the narrator’s additional point of view facilitates that immensely). If anyone else has ever read The Stranger, let me know what you think, I really see a big connection.
posted by Devon V.
posted by Devon V.
Friday, July 27, 2007
The Aftermath of the Crime
In part I of the story, Raskolnikov is described and can be easily characterized as a nihilist individual filled with scorn and tension toward society -- perhaps even feeling ostracized by humanity. He was filled with ambivalence on whether or not to commit a crime he believed would benefit many; constantly contemplating over whether or not to commit an irrevocable crime that would either gain him praise or indefinitely condemn him. After he commits the said crime, the story truly begins to unfold and certain changes begin to arise.
The first thing to note after the crime is the fact that it did not impact humanity what-so-ever. Thanks to Raskolnikov's tension while committing the crime and the unexpected murder of Lizaveta, he did not necessarily steal everything he had planned to (he even dropped a box with earrings while fleeing). The items he actually managed to steal were hidden by him under a stone in fear that they would be found anywhere in his "closet" and be used as evidence against him. In the end, Raskolnikov failed in accomplishing what had been his real intention, but he still committed the irrevocable crime that will continue to effect him until the end.
Before and after the crime, Raskolnikov has been plagued by an illness/fever that renders him weaker than ever. What I find interesting about this illness is how whenever the crime is mentioned near Raskolnikov, it exacerbates, such as in chapter I of part II where Raskolnikov overhears and passes out right after hearing Ilya Petrovich and Nikodim Fomich conversing over the crime in the police station. This illness can very well be caused from an assimilation of all of Raskolnikov's negative thoughts along with feelings of hypochondria that drown his mind -- perhaps even being completely mental rather than physical.
Raskolnikov himself has also changed after the crime; not just it terms of illness, but in character. In chapter I of part II, Raskolnikov is shown arguing with the police chief's assistant (lieutenant) and later arguing over his case at hand (being in debt with the Landlady) -- this is an argumentative side of Raskolnikov never shown before in the book. In chapter VI of part II, Raskolnikov goes outside and starts randomly interrogating people (something that seems strange considering he is or was so anti-social). Raskolnikov even begins conversing with Zamyotov (a police official) inside a cafe and almost confesses to his crime. In chapter VII of part II, we witness yet another new side to Raskolnikov. In this chapter, he shows full-fledged compassion after seeing Marmeladov -- who has been trampled by a horse and carriage. He tries his best to help him, and in the end after Marmeladov dies a sad death, Raskolnikov gives Marmeladov's family all his money and offers to help them in the future. Are these perplexing actions and emotions ostensible or is the character of Raskolnikov truly developing as the story progresses?
Near the end of part II, Raskolnikov says, "Away with mirages, away with false fears, away with spectres!...There is life! Was I not alive just now? My life hasn't died with the old crone! May the Lord remember her in his kingdom, and--enough, my dear, it's time to go! Now is the kingdom of reason and light and...and will and strength....and now we shall see! Now we shall cross swords!". This quote indicates that Raskolnikov is ready to move on and face the "darkness". Will he truly manage to move on or will he continue to suffer emotionally? How will the connection with Marmeladov's family change him later on?
posted by Anthony M.
The first thing to note after the crime is the fact that it did not impact humanity what-so-ever. Thanks to Raskolnikov's tension while committing the crime and the unexpected murder of Lizaveta, he did not necessarily steal everything he had planned to (he even dropped a box with earrings while fleeing). The items he actually managed to steal were hidden by him under a stone in fear that they would be found anywhere in his "closet" and be used as evidence against him. In the end, Raskolnikov failed in accomplishing what had been his real intention, but he still committed the irrevocable crime that will continue to effect him until the end.
Before and after the crime, Raskolnikov has been plagued by an illness/fever that renders him weaker than ever. What I find interesting about this illness is how whenever the crime is mentioned near Raskolnikov, it exacerbates, such as in chapter I of part II where Raskolnikov overhears and passes out right after hearing Ilya Petrovich and Nikodim Fomich conversing over the crime in the police station. This illness can very well be caused from an assimilation of all of Raskolnikov's negative thoughts along with feelings of hypochondria that drown his mind -- perhaps even being completely mental rather than physical.
Raskolnikov himself has also changed after the crime; not just it terms of illness, but in character. In chapter I of part II, Raskolnikov is shown arguing with the police chief's assistant (lieutenant) and later arguing over his case at hand (being in debt with the Landlady) -- this is an argumentative side of Raskolnikov never shown before in the book. In chapter VI of part II, Raskolnikov goes outside and starts randomly interrogating people (something that seems strange considering he is or was so anti-social). Raskolnikov even begins conversing with Zamyotov (a police official) inside a cafe and almost confesses to his crime. In chapter VII of part II, we witness yet another new side to Raskolnikov. In this chapter, he shows full-fledged compassion after seeing Marmeladov -- who has been trampled by a horse and carriage. He tries his best to help him, and in the end after Marmeladov dies a sad death, Raskolnikov gives Marmeladov's family all his money and offers to help them in the future. Are these perplexing actions and emotions ostensible or is the character of Raskolnikov truly developing as the story progresses?
Near the end of part II, Raskolnikov says, "Away with mirages, away with false fears, away with spectres!...There is life! Was I not alive just now? My life hasn't died with the old crone! May the Lord remember her in his kingdom, and--enough, my dear, it's time to go! Now is the kingdom of reason and light and...and will and strength....and now we shall see! Now we shall cross swords!". This quote indicates that Raskolnikov is ready to move on and face the "darkness". Will he truly manage to move on or will he continue to suffer emotionally? How will the connection with Marmeladov's family change him later on?
posted by Anthony M.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Kurtz as Enigma
The enigma of Kurtz fueled Marlow’s desire to continue on his journey. Kurtz unknowingly cast a spell on Marlow from the first time his name was mentioned. Marlow was intrigued by Kurtz because he saw him as a “gifted creature” in the sense that he had the ability to talk; “the gift of expression, the bewildering, the illuminating, the most exalted, and the most contemptible, the pulsating stream of light, or the deceitful flow from the heart of an impenetrable darkness.” Kurtz established a name for himself in the business of collecting and bartering ivory through a variety of questionable means. It is amazing how Marlow was enthralled simply by the very idea of him. Marlow admired Kurtz because he was real and stood out from the other workers. The Company’s workers on the other hand, blamed Kurtz for all of the problems they encountered.
I imagined Kurtz as a robust man with a powerful presence that could be felt everywhere he went. But by the time the crew of the Nellie reached the station, Kurtz appeared gaunt and sickly. In fact, his ribs and bones were sticking out of his body and he looked like an “animated image of death,” according to the narrator.
I think that Marlow was drawn to Kurtz because he symbolized the rejection of certain conventional European ideals of the time. Marlow was excited to meet this legendary and mysterious man. Kurtz isolated himself from the rest of society and in doing so, was forced to live a modified lifestyle. This lifestyle ultimately took a toll on his health; he struggled with numerous external and internal conflicts and his poor soul “knew no restraint, and no fear.”
Marlow made a decision to side with Kurtz and stood up for him numerous times. He called Kurtz a remarkable man in front of the Manager who despised him. By siding with Kurtz, Marlow chose the nightmare that was filled with even more uncertainty and emptiness. He was ostracized by his peers and was looked upon as a traitor. But Marlow’s decision was not clear cut, for he still struggled with thoughts of putting an end to Kurtz’s life. I honestly can’t decide if Marlow was a genius for seeing something in Kurtz that I overlooked or that was out of my comprehension, or if the story was intended to be ambiguous.
Before I finish the book, I am left battling several questions- Does Kurtz’s desire to be remembered and have Marlow carry on his legacy signify a change in Kurtz’s character? Kurtz lived his life in partial isolation from European society and the ideals he was supposedly against. If he spent his life rejecting this way of life and the types of people associated with this lifestyle, why would he want/expect to be remembered by future generations of similarly-minded people?
posted by Leslie P.
I imagined Kurtz as a robust man with a powerful presence that could be felt everywhere he went. But by the time the crew of the Nellie reached the station, Kurtz appeared gaunt and sickly. In fact, his ribs and bones were sticking out of his body and he looked like an “animated image of death,” according to the narrator.
I think that Marlow was drawn to Kurtz because he symbolized the rejection of certain conventional European ideals of the time. Marlow was excited to meet this legendary and mysterious man. Kurtz isolated himself from the rest of society and in doing so, was forced to live a modified lifestyle. This lifestyle ultimately took a toll on his health; he struggled with numerous external and internal conflicts and his poor soul “knew no restraint, and no fear.”
Marlow made a decision to side with Kurtz and stood up for him numerous times. He called Kurtz a remarkable man in front of the Manager who despised him. By siding with Kurtz, Marlow chose the nightmare that was filled with even more uncertainty and emptiness. He was ostracized by his peers and was looked upon as a traitor. But Marlow’s decision was not clear cut, for he still struggled with thoughts of putting an end to Kurtz’s life. I honestly can’t decide if Marlow was a genius for seeing something in Kurtz that I overlooked or that was out of my comprehension, or if the story was intended to be ambiguous.
Before I finish the book, I am left battling several questions- Does Kurtz’s desire to be remembered and have Marlow carry on his legacy signify a change in Kurtz’s character? Kurtz lived his life in partial isolation from European society and the ideals he was supposedly against. If he spent his life rejecting this way of life and the types of people associated with this lifestyle, why would he want/expect to be remembered by future generations of similarly-minded people?
posted by Leslie P.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
What effect will Raskolnikov's mental state have on the events of the story-- and vice versa?
Chapter one starts out by describing Raskolnikov’s tense state, resembling hypochondria (excessive worrying about one’s health.) I wasn’t quite sure how he had hypochondria up until the point where Raskolnikov finally committed the murder. Though he was continuously scornful of society’s inhabitants and impoverished environment, the character’s mental deterioration quickly comes into play once he kills the pawnbroker. It almost seems as though Raskolnikov’s romanticized dreams of the “ideal murder” were quickly dulled into oblivion when he realized that his compulsive, fickle, and capricious paranoia was setting himself up for a corroding mental state. Raskolnikov’s perspective of the murder led himself to believe that he would reap praise, appreciation, and mostly human affection that he desperately longed for. Yet it becomes clear that Raskolnikov’s memories of the grisly murder are rife with regret in the bloody details and his conscience. When interrogated by inspectors, Raskolnikov contemplated admitting to murdering the pawnbroker and her sister in hopes of freeing himself from the heavy burden, and to perhaps win back redemption from society. Despite his attempts in confessing, Raskolnikov still continues to invent new excuses, and his pride fosters his need to justify his actions. Not only does the murder lead to detrimental effects on his mental state, but the consequences and guilt of murder take a toll on Raskolnikov’s health; he is forced to cope with fevers, colds, shivers, and delirious actions.
Despite Raskolnikov’s incessant rants of being freed from blame, his perspective is still confined towards awaiting horrible consequences and condemnation. I wonder what effects the environment, new types of stress, situations, and relationships will have on Raskolnikov as time progresses? With all luck, or misfortune, they will mold him into a more complete, affectionate person; or into a guilt-ridden delirious man who continues to go astray from society.
posted by Jennifer J.
Despite Raskolnikov’s incessant rants of being freed from blame, his perspective is still confined towards awaiting horrible consequences and condemnation. I wonder what effects the environment, new types of stress, situations, and relationships will have on Raskolnikov as time progresses? With all luck, or misfortune, they will mold him into a more complete, affectionate person; or into a guilt-ridden delirious man who continues to go astray from society.
posted by Jennifer J.
Kurtz
Kurtz is seen as an enigmatic and intricate character. He is a man with a variety of talents; a person capable of exerting influence to anybody he meets. Throughout the course of the story, we learn that Kurtz is a first-class agent, a painter, a musician, a politician, and more. All who have met him have been impacted one way or another. We first hear about Kurtz from the Company's chief accountant who states that Kurtz is a first-class agent, and says, "He is a very remarkable man". We later hear something similar from the Manager -- who also remarks that Kurtz is ill. Later on in part I, the brickmaker tells Marlow (about Kurtz that), "He is a prodigy", "an emissary of pity and science and progress, and devil knows what else" after Kurtz is mentioned once again. By the end of part I, Marlow is seen contemplating about Kurtz.
What I personally find interesting about Kurtz are the influences he brings upon Marlow himself. By the end of Part I, Marlow says "I would give some thought to Kurtz. I wasn't very interested in him.", this however is contradicted in part II where Marlow tries everything in his power to reach Kurtz's inner station via his steamer before Kurtz dies an inevitable death due to his illness. After being sidetracked by a consistent amount of occurrences -- including an attack by African natives -- Marlow is at a loss with himself after speculating that it is too late and Kurtz had already died; he laments not being able to meet him and also says, "I flung one shoe overboard, and became aware that that was exactly what I had been looking forward to---a talk with Kurtz.", admitting that he was interested in Kurtz one way or another.
In part III, Kurtz finally makes an appearance in the novel, but he is not as I personally imagined he would be (strong, intelligent, inspirational, etc). Kurtz is introduced as a sort of leader to a bunch of native people; he is plagued at this point of the story by his illness which has exacerbated to the point where he is near death and almost incapable of proper speech; and he is described as cadaverous, such as when Marlow grabs him over himself at one point and says, "and yet I had only supported, his bony arm clasped round my neck---and he was not much heavier than a child". In this final chapter, we also learn that Kurtz was in charge of the assault of Marlow's steamer, in hopes that they would actually presume him (Kurtz) dead and would turn back. By the end of the chapter, Kurtz dies in Marlow's steamer right after yelling out his final words, "The horror! The horror!".
After Kurtz's death, we learn that he was not all he seemed to be. Kurtz's apparent cousin states that Kurtz was a musician. A journal colleague of Kurtz's reveals that Kurtz was a politician. Kurtz's naive fiancée basically states that he was a meritorious genius. Thanks to these discrepant descriptions about him, Marlow is basically left with the conclusion that there was no real Kurtz; the man he met was different from what he has gathered from these people. Kurtz is truly the epitome of mystery in this story. Was he an ostensible character or an amalgamation of different people or personalities all combined into one being? What impact would he have had on the story if he appeared earlier without any pernicious illness?
posted by Anthony M.
What I personally find interesting about Kurtz are the influences he brings upon Marlow himself. By the end of Part I, Marlow says "I would give some thought to Kurtz. I wasn't very interested in him.", this however is contradicted in part II where Marlow tries everything in his power to reach Kurtz's inner station via his steamer before Kurtz dies an inevitable death due to his illness. After being sidetracked by a consistent amount of occurrences -- including an attack by African natives -- Marlow is at a loss with himself after speculating that it is too late and Kurtz had already died; he laments not being able to meet him and also says, "I flung one shoe overboard, and became aware that that was exactly what I had been looking forward to---a talk with Kurtz.", admitting that he was interested in Kurtz one way or another.
In part III, Kurtz finally makes an appearance in the novel, but he is not as I personally imagined he would be (strong, intelligent, inspirational, etc). Kurtz is introduced as a sort of leader to a bunch of native people; he is plagued at this point of the story by his illness which has exacerbated to the point where he is near death and almost incapable of proper speech; and he is described as cadaverous, such as when Marlow grabs him over himself at one point and says, "and yet I had only supported, his bony arm clasped round my neck---and he was not much heavier than a child". In this final chapter, we also learn that Kurtz was in charge of the assault of Marlow's steamer, in hopes that they would actually presume him (Kurtz) dead and would turn back. By the end of the chapter, Kurtz dies in Marlow's steamer right after yelling out his final words, "The horror! The horror!".
After Kurtz's death, we learn that he was not all he seemed to be. Kurtz's apparent cousin states that Kurtz was a musician. A journal colleague of Kurtz's reveals that Kurtz was a politician. Kurtz's naive fiancée basically states that he was a meritorious genius. Thanks to these discrepant descriptions about him, Marlow is basically left with the conclusion that there was no real Kurtz; the man he met was different from what he has gathered from these people. Kurtz is truly the epitome of mystery in this story. Was he an ostensible character or an amalgamation of different people or personalities all combined into one being? What impact would he have had on the story if he appeared earlier without any pernicious illness?
posted by Anthony M.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Learning more about Marlow
The protagonist Marlow is beginning to view the world differently than he did when he first embarked on his journey. Marlow seems to be appalled by the inadequate conditions at the station and the lackadaisical attitudes of the workers. In fact, his work ethic seems to be unparalleled; Marlow is goal-oriented and just wants to get the job done. Although the protagonist has many duties, he doesn’t express much reluctance and likes to keep busy. Marlow’s responsibilities keep him distracted at times from the abysmal conditions and savage behavior of the natives. While Marlow is piloting the ship and making repairs, he is in a little bubble. The character merely feels like a witness to the atrocities and exploitation of the natives, not an accomplice. Although Marlow has convinced himself that he is not a part of the oppressive process, I think that his observations and encounters with the workers and “savages” have had a greater impact on him than he thinks.
Marlow has a very ambivalent attitude toward the natives. At one point, he commented on how the natives “…were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now- nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish gloom.” Marlow even offered some natives a piece of biscuit after viewing their emaciated state. This compassionate act, though small, stood out in my mind. Marlow is not like the rest of the company’s workers; he is a hard worker and shows some empathy for the natives. But at the same time, Marlow views the natives as primitive and barbaric. I think this inner conflict makes Marlow a very complex character. Marlow states, “We were cut off from the comprehension of our surroundings; we glided past like phantoms, wondering and secretly appalled, as sane men would be before an enthusiastic outbreak in a madhouse.” While he is traveling, he is isolated from the rest of the world, existing in an altered state of mind. His encounters with the savages bewilder him because he is used to viewing the Africans as a “shackled form of a conquered monster.” But in this new setting, Marlow is able to see these people through distorted, but new eyes, as both monstrous and free. The intrigue and lurid fascination with the Africans sheds light on their humanity. The barrier between the “savages” and the explorers was temporarily torn down as thoughts of the Africans’ humanity and the “remote kinship” with the “wild and passionate uproar” surfaced. I think this theme of kinship between the Europeans and Africans will be revisited later on.
posted by Leslie P.
Marlow has a very ambivalent attitude toward the natives. At one point, he commented on how the natives “…were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now- nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish gloom.” Marlow even offered some natives a piece of biscuit after viewing their emaciated state. This compassionate act, though small, stood out in my mind. Marlow is not like the rest of the company’s workers; he is a hard worker and shows some empathy for the natives. But at the same time, Marlow views the natives as primitive and barbaric. I think this inner conflict makes Marlow a very complex character. Marlow states, “We were cut off from the comprehension of our surroundings; we glided past like phantoms, wondering and secretly appalled, as sane men would be before an enthusiastic outbreak in a madhouse.” While he is traveling, he is isolated from the rest of the world, existing in an altered state of mind. His encounters with the savages bewilder him because he is used to viewing the Africans as a “shackled form of a conquered monster.” But in this new setting, Marlow is able to see these people through distorted, but new eyes, as both monstrous and free. The intrigue and lurid fascination with the Africans sheds light on their humanity. The barrier between the “savages” and the explorers was temporarily torn down as thoughts of the Africans’ humanity and the “remote kinship” with the “wild and passionate uproar” surfaced. I think this theme of kinship between the Europeans and Africans will be revisited later on.
posted by Leslie P.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Raskolnikov's Psychology
Crime and Punsishment is by no means an easy read, but what makes it different from other books I've read is how psychological it is as opposed to being based on action. Most of the novel takes place in the mind of the main character, Raskolnikov, who is proud, contemptous and almost completely detached from society as well as in a semi--delerious mental state. What I find funny is the fact that Raskolnikov's mind is his greatest enemy and that is what causes much of his anguish and torment. It is in his own mind where Raskolnikov struggles the desire to commit the crime and his repulsion at the physical manifestation of it.
But he is not repulsed by the lack of morality in the action because he feels as if it almost a duty to kill the widow.
But its after the crime that we see the most interesting part as Raskolnikov's punishment begins and he is riddled with paranoia as he obssesses over possibly overlooked stains in his clothing and properly hiding the stolen goods. But we also see guilt set in when he gets strong urges to confess many times. I thought it was interesting, and a bit confusing, how it seemed that Raskolnikov hid the things so poorly. He even scolds himself for it. To me, it seemed like it was purposeful carelessness because he wanted to get caught because his conscience was starting to bother him, but then again it might have just been a bout of fever.
posted by Mikaela M.
But he is not repulsed by the lack of morality in the action because he feels as if it almost a duty to kill the widow.
But its after the crime that we see the most interesting part as Raskolnikov's punishment begins and he is riddled with paranoia as he obssesses over possibly overlooked stains in his clothing and properly hiding the stolen goods. But we also see guilt set in when he gets strong urges to confess many times. I thought it was interesting, and a bit confusing, how it seemed that Raskolnikov hid the things so poorly. He even scolds himself for it. To me, it seemed like it was purposeful carelessness because he wanted to get caught because his conscience was starting to bother him, but then again it might have just been a bout of fever.
posted by Mikaela M.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Raskolnikov and the Crime
Raskolnikov is the protagonist of the story. He is introduced as an individual filled with torment, scorn, and tension toward humanity. In fact, he isolates himself (out of tension) from other individuals as seen in the beginning of the story, where the narrator states "He was so immersed in himself and had isolated himself so much from everyone that he was afraid not only of meeting his landlady but of meeting anyone at all". During the beginning of the story, Raskolnikov is also introduced as a destitute university student who is in poverty; he is a man who seemingly considers himself superior to others despite his poverty, as seen during the beginning of the story where he goes out in tattered clothes -- not caring what others think. At a later chapter, the narrator says, "It seemed to some of his friends that he looked upon them all as children, from above, as though he were ahead of them all in development, in knowledge, and in convictions, and that he regarded their convictions and interests as something inferior". This quote expresses what Raskolnikov thought of his university peers and clarifies that Raskolnikov does indeed consider himself to be superior to others.
What I personally find unique yet ironic about Raskolnikov is the fact that he seems to be easily influenced by other individuals. The irony is the fact that he presumably sees other human beings as inferior yet is impacted by the actions or words of others, something that leads to the contemplation and final action of his eventual crime. One example of Raskolnikov being influenced by another individual during the course of the story would be when he meets Marmeladov in a tavern. In chapter II, Raskolnikov is absorbed into the story of Marmeladov despite feeling his usual unpleasant and irritable feelings of loathing while listening and conversing with the drunken man. Marmeladov -- in a drunk and loquacious state -- tells Raskolnikov much about himself (mostly speaking about his remorse over his problems), and later retreats with Raskolnikov to his house where he is greeted by his wife, who drags him by the hair and creates a scene after noticing that her husband "drank up" necessary money. This scene or action allows us to witness Raskolnikov's first act of compassion and influence by others (in this case, Marmeladov's problems) as he leaves some money for the dysfunctional couple before leaving their house; something he laments almost immediately afterwards.
Raskolnikov is a person filled with torment and anguish, constantly questioning and absorbing things while being drowned by his own thoughts. What readers don't find out immediately when beginning the story is that he is on a murder mission. In the first chapter, we slightly find out that he wishes (but is afraid) to accomplish something horrible as can be interpreted when he says "Oh, God, how loathsome this all is! And can it be, can it be that I...no, it's nonsense, it's absurd!" and "Could such horror really come into my head? But then, what filth my heart is capable of!...Above all, filthy, nasty, vile....And for the whole month I..." after leaving an old woman's house. Later on, we are given hints of the crime he wishes to commit when the narrator uses words in italics such as "trial" to indicate and foreshadow Raskolnikov's eventual crime. Everything is eventually confirmed in chapter VI, where we find out (through the narrator) how Raskolnikov learned about Alyona Ivanovna (the old woman from chapter I) from a student acquaintance of his; how he was greeted with a sense of loathing from the old woman when he first met her; and how he was influenced by the conversation of a student and officer (bringing us back to the fact that Raskolnikov is easily influenced) in a bar into devising his later crime, which was indeed a plan of murdering the old woman in order to take her money for "good" causes. Raskolnikov himself is filled with ambivalence on whether or not he should commit this odious crime, which can be seen as the source to what torments him during the first parts of the story. During the end of Part 1, he finally commits his crime and kills Alyona, as well as her younger sister "Lizaveta", who he didn't intend on killing in the first place. Now that the crime has been committed, what shall be the punishment? Will Raskolnikov later regret what he has done, making his own lament his punishment? And will Raskolnikov's odious action effect his character?
posted by Anthony M.
What I personally find unique yet ironic about Raskolnikov is the fact that he seems to be easily influenced by other individuals. The irony is the fact that he presumably sees other human beings as inferior yet is impacted by the actions or words of others, something that leads to the contemplation and final action of his eventual crime. One example of Raskolnikov being influenced by another individual during the course of the story would be when he meets Marmeladov in a tavern. In chapter II, Raskolnikov is absorbed into the story of Marmeladov despite feeling his usual unpleasant and irritable feelings of loathing while listening and conversing with the drunken man. Marmeladov -- in a drunk and loquacious state -- tells Raskolnikov much about himself (mostly speaking about his remorse over his problems), and later retreats with Raskolnikov to his house where he is greeted by his wife, who drags him by the hair and creates a scene after noticing that her husband "drank up" necessary money. This scene or action allows us to witness Raskolnikov's first act of compassion and influence by others (in this case, Marmeladov's problems) as he leaves some money for the dysfunctional couple before leaving their house; something he laments almost immediately afterwards.
Raskolnikov is a person filled with torment and anguish, constantly questioning and absorbing things while being drowned by his own thoughts. What readers don't find out immediately when beginning the story is that he is on a murder mission. In the first chapter, we slightly find out that he wishes (but is afraid) to accomplish something horrible as can be interpreted when he says "Oh, God, how loathsome this all is! And can it be, can it be that I...no, it's nonsense, it's absurd!" and "Could such horror really come into my head? But then, what filth my heart is capable of!...Above all, filthy, nasty, vile....And for the whole month I..." after leaving an old woman's house. Later on, we are given hints of the crime he wishes to commit when the narrator uses words in italics such as "trial" to indicate and foreshadow Raskolnikov's eventual crime. Everything is eventually confirmed in chapter VI, where we find out (through the narrator) how Raskolnikov learned about Alyona Ivanovna (the old woman from chapter I) from a student acquaintance of his; how he was greeted with a sense of loathing from the old woman when he first met her; and how he was influenced by the conversation of a student and officer (bringing us back to the fact that Raskolnikov is easily influenced) in a bar into devising his later crime, which was indeed a plan of murdering the old woman in order to take her money for "good" causes. Raskolnikov himself is filled with ambivalence on whether or not he should commit this odious crime, which can be seen as the source to what torments him during the first parts of the story. During the end of Part 1, he finally commits his crime and kills Alyona, as well as her younger sister "Lizaveta", who he didn't intend on killing in the first place. Now that the crime has been committed, what shall be the punishment? Will Raskolnikov later regret what he has done, making his own lament his punishment? And will Raskolnikov's odious action effect his character?
posted by Anthony M.
Monday, July 16, 2007
The sea, the sailor, and the empire
Heart of Darkness widely differs from most of the literary works I’ve read before. Conrad uses several different narrators to convey the story, causing some confusion as to who is actually speaking throughout the novel. Although this can be perplexing at times, the story is told in an intriguing manner that keeps me wanting to read on. I was immediately drawn into the story because of Conrad’s use of imagery. For instance, I had to read one sentence, “The water shone pacifically; the sky, without a speck, was a benign immensity of unstained light; the very mist on the Essex marsh was like a gauzy and radiant fabric…”over several times just so I could soak in Conrad’s powerful words.
Conrad places the sea at a high level of importance. In fact, he calls the sailors “great knight-errants of the sea.” Conrad’s personification of the sea foreshadows the paramount role it will play throughout the story. The sea is used as a means of transporting goods, which fuels the callous treatment of Africans and the process by which Europeans attempt to civilize these “inferior” beings. The narrator develops a fascination with the sea from an early age, and lauds sailors for their intrepid efforts. This fascination is quenched through his acquisition of a position aboard the ship “Nellie” working for a trading company.
The theme of imperialism shows up in the first part of the novel as the narrator reveals his respect for the practice. As the narrator retells the story, it becomes evident that he feels imperialism is a positive means of gaining honor for one’s country and learning more about the world. Many European explorers shared this mindset at the time. I am curious to see whether the narrator’s experiences aboard the ship will change his point of view.
-posted by Leslie P.
Conrad places the sea at a high level of importance. In fact, he calls the sailors “great knight-errants of the sea.” Conrad’s personification of the sea foreshadows the paramount role it will play throughout the story. The sea is used as a means of transporting goods, which fuels the callous treatment of Africans and the process by which Europeans attempt to civilize these “inferior” beings. The narrator develops a fascination with the sea from an early age, and lauds sailors for their intrepid efforts. This fascination is quenched through his acquisition of a position aboard the ship “Nellie” working for a trading company.
The theme of imperialism shows up in the first part of the novel as the narrator reveals his respect for the practice. As the narrator retells the story, it becomes evident that he feels imperialism is a positive means of gaining honor for one’s country and learning more about the world. Many European explorers shared this mindset at the time. I am curious to see whether the narrator’s experiences aboard the ship will change his point of view.
-posted by Leslie P.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
A substitute for time travel
I am enjoying Heart of Darkness so far. The point of reading literature is to experience places, events and ideas that you haven't before. Since I didn't have a time machine I thought I couldn't go back to the 1890s to experience the colonization of Africa. At least thought that until I read Heart of Darkness. Joseph Conrad makes exceptional use of descriptive language and imagery , for example-"the edge of the colossal jungle, so dark green" When he described the chain gang I could visualize and hear them walking by. I feel like a witness to the events that unfolded over one hundred years before. The tales of Marlow's adventures keep me reading from page to page. Marlow is an excellent story teller and keeps me engaged like his fellow sailors. I don't have a lot of previous knowledge about the setting, I am eager to read more, and feel like I am exploring the Congo myself for the first time. So far the book seems accurate in portraying the time period. In the late 1800s private European companies were exploiting native populations. I plan on doing some research to learn more about the time period. I am waiting to see what challenges await Marlow on his journey to the Congo.
posted by Jack N.
posted by Jack N.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Reading as a Witness
In Heart of Darkness, the main character so far in the novel is a man named Charlie Marlow. The story starts out with Marlow and four others aboard the Nellie. The other characters are not really mentioned in the story, besides their professions. Marlow is really the only character given a name. There is a narrator who starts the novel, but it then switches to Marlow when he begins to recount his past adventures. The story moves in and out of these two narrators, which provides for a truly unique reading experience. The story feels like a story within a story, which really intrigues me.
The more I read Heart of Darkness; I begin to feel less like a reader, and more like a witness to the events as they unfold. The way Marlow describes the Africans he encounters in the Congo, makes me aware of the time the novel was written. “Now and then a boat from the shore gave one a momentary contact with reality. It was paddled by black fellows. You see from afar the whites of their eyeballs glistening. They shouted, sang; their bodies streamed with perspiration; they had faces like grotesque masks…”I can see how this novel might be seen as being a bit racist, at times describing the Africans not as people but as inhuman beings. However through Marlow’s eyes I realize that he is an explorer, viewing things through a fresh sight.
posted by Christina R.
The more I read Heart of Darkness; I begin to feel less like a reader, and more like a witness to the events as they unfold. The way Marlow describes the Africans he encounters in the Congo, makes me aware of the time the novel was written. “Now and then a boat from the shore gave one a momentary contact with reality. It was paddled by black fellows. You see from afar the whites of their eyeballs glistening. They shouted, sang; their bodies streamed with perspiration; they had faces like grotesque masks…”I can see how this novel might be seen as being a bit racist, at times describing the Africans not as people but as inhuman beings. However through Marlow’s eyes I realize that he is an explorer, viewing things through a fresh sight.
posted by Christina R.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Imagery, Characterization, and Colonialism
Heart of Darkness begins with five men spending the day together on the Nellie. Of these five men, one is a lawyer, another an accountant, and the captain. What the person who is narrating the story does is unknown. These four men were listening to each other’s stories of their journeys, but mostly to those of Charlie Marlow. What caught my attention the most at the beginning of the book was the vivid imagery that allowed the reader to picture what was going on. The way that the author describes the setting helps the reader to understand how the characters are feeling. For example, he says, “The water shone pacifically; the sky, without a speck ,was a benign immensity of unstained light;…Only the gloom to the west, brooding over the upper reaches, became more somber every minute, as if angered by the approach of the sun…the sun sank low, and from glowing white changed to a dull red without rays and without heat, as if about to go out suddenly, stricken to death by the touch of that gloom brooding over”. This type of writing allows the reader to get more of a feel of what the characters are feeling, to visualize their surroundings. It makes the scene feel that much more real.
Something else that I noticed in the first part of Heart of Darkness was how the character of Charlie Marlow was developed. Marlow is an explorer, he felt a love for the sea and exploring ever since he was a child, and he does not look at exploration and conquest as most people think they do. Many explorers felt that they were doing the natives some kind of favor. That they were gracing them with their appearance to help civilize them as if they were some type of wild creatures. To emphasize that he does not feel that way Marlow says, “The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only.” I liked how Marlow looked at things this way because it makes him a very realistic character, and not stereotypical. He sees things as they are. Exploration to him isn’t some type of great deed, he‘s not “’weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways‘”. It’s something that he loves to do, but it’s also a business transaction. Hopefully, the book will continue to draw me in.
Posted by Wendy C.
Something else that I noticed in the first part of Heart of Darkness was how the character of Charlie Marlow was developed. Marlow is an explorer, he felt a love for the sea and exploring ever since he was a child, and he does not look at exploration and conquest as most people think they do. Many explorers felt that they were doing the natives some kind of favor. That they were gracing them with their appearance to help civilize them as if they were some type of wild creatures. To emphasize that he does not feel that way Marlow says, “The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only.” I liked how Marlow looked at things this way because it makes him a very realistic character, and not stereotypical. He sees things as they are. Exploration to him isn’t some type of great deed, he‘s not “’weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways‘”. It’s something that he loves to do, but it’s also a business transaction. Hopefully, the book will continue to draw me in.
Posted by Wendy C.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Heart of Darkness-- Writing Style and Imagery
Heart of Darkness centers around the protagonist Charlie Marlow, a seemingly loquacious individual who talks about his past journey/travel(s) to his four friends, or rather, four anonymous listeners as they are seen through the point of view of the reader due to them being identified only by their said professions (an accountant, a director of companies, and a lawyer) during the beginning of the story; the main narrator being the only individual out of the five friends that is not identified at all. What makes this novel unique is the way it is told; Joseph Conrad chose to tell this story through the perspective of two different narrators. The nameless narrator -- who begins the story -- narrates what goes on during the story's main setting, which is set in a boat referred to as the "Nellie", located in the mouth of the Thames with the five friends on-board. Charlie Marlow as mentioned before, narrates his own stories, while the aforementioned narrator and the three other individuals listen.
The use of two separate narrators (both whom speak in first-person) not only provides for a unique reading experience that allows the reader to see the point of view of two different narrators in different (time/place) settings, but also allows for a unique style of imagery that breaks the boundary between Marlow's stories and the actual setting of the story through the narration of the unnamed narrator. For example, several times in Part 1, Marlow would pause from talking and the anonymous narrator would alert the reader of Marlow's pauses with such comments like: "He paused", "He broke off", "Marlow began again", etc. While these shifts between narrators might seem minor, they do or can allow the reader to picture Marlow telling his story while pausing at times, as a normal person would; something that not all books allow.
Imagery itself is a major literary element found in this book. This can be noted as soon as you begin reading the story because it immediately starts out with the unnamed narrator describing his surroundings, such as how he says, "A haze rested on the low shores that ran out to sea in vanishing flatness. The air was dark above Gravesend, and farther back still seemed condensed into a mournful gloom, brooding motionless over the biggest, and the greatest, town on earth". With this quote alone, you can envision the gloomy or foggy atmosphere surrounding the narrator and the town of Gravesend. The use of imagery is also used a lot by Marlow, such as when he describes some Africans he sees by saying, "I could see every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots in a rope; each had an iron collar on his neck, and all were connected together with a chain whose bights swung between them, rhythmically clinking". With this quote, you can easily picture the cadaverous appearance of these black prisoners and the way they are treated by picturing the chain and iron collars around them. Judging from Part 1 of the story, imagery will continue to be a major element later on.
posted by Anthony M.
The use of two separate narrators (both whom speak in first-person) not only provides for a unique reading experience that allows the reader to see the point of view of two different narrators in different (time/place) settings, but also allows for a unique style of imagery that breaks the boundary between Marlow's stories and the actual setting of the story through the narration of the unnamed narrator. For example, several times in Part 1, Marlow would pause from talking and the anonymous narrator would alert the reader of Marlow's pauses with such comments like: "He paused", "He broke off", "Marlow began again", etc. While these shifts between narrators might seem minor, they do or can allow the reader to picture Marlow telling his story while pausing at times, as a normal person would; something that not all books allow.
Imagery itself is a major literary element found in this book. This can be noted as soon as you begin reading the story because it immediately starts out with the unnamed narrator describing his surroundings, such as how he says, "A haze rested on the low shores that ran out to sea in vanishing flatness. The air was dark above Gravesend, and farther back still seemed condensed into a mournful gloom, brooding motionless over the biggest, and the greatest, town on earth". With this quote alone, you can envision the gloomy or foggy atmosphere surrounding the narrator and the town of Gravesend. The use of imagery is also used a lot by Marlow, such as when he describes some Africans he sees by saying, "I could see every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots in a rope; each had an iron collar on his neck, and all were connected together with a chain whose bights swung between them, rhythmically clinking". With this quote, you can easily picture the cadaverous appearance of these black prisoners and the way they are treated by picturing the chain and iron collars around them. Judging from Part 1 of the story, imagery will continue to be a major element later on.
posted by Anthony M.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Crime and Punishment Journal Entry #1
At the beginning of Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky introduces Raskolnikov as a young man full of scorn, contempt, and pride. Though he is a poor student and is dressed in tattered rags, Raskolnikov feels no sense of embarrassment, for he views himself to be superior to the filth in his neighborhood; infested with drunks and prostitutes which may be the source to his misery and irritable moods. Raskolnikov is described to be a man that wants to isolate himself from the society he is surrounded by, yet the lack of human compassion he has in his life forces Raskolnikov to attempt to be compassionate himself, as inferred from chapter 2. After meeting Marmeladov in a tavern and indulging themselves with alcohol, they retreat back to Marmeladov’s home, where he is greeted with scorn from his wife because he has used all the money for his alcoholic needs. Raskolnikov stands there, observing the sufferable conditions the family is forced to endure, with children wearing tattered clothes, crying, and the wife being sick, yet a very proud and empowered woman. Overwhelmed by remorse and compassion, Raskolnikov manages to sacrifice some money and places it on the windowsill. It is at this moment that readers can acknowledge that despite Raskolnikov’s hasty judgments and scorn for society, he is still able to feel compassion for those in horrible conditions. Yet that compassion is short lived, as he soon replies, “What a stupid thing I’ve done. They have Sonia and I want it myself,” as he begins to regret giving the money to the Marmeladovs, for they have their daughter Sonia who is able to prostitute herself to support the family. In this chapter, readers can understand that Raskolnikov attempts to be compassionate, yet his impaired judgment of an inferior society causes him to further detach himself from the human world.
Posted by Jennifer J.
Posted by Jennifer J.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
