While reading part two of Heart of Darkness, I was definitely noticing Conrad’s unique style of keeping the book ambiguous and unclear, though I’m not sure what the purpose is. For, example, when the Manager and his uncle were having that serious conversation, and they found out that Marlow was listening, they didn’t do anything to him. Why not? They uncle seemed so cruel and powerful, so why not punish Marlow for eavesdropping? Was he intending for Marlow to overhear, or was he thinking of punishing Marlow later?
This part also brings out the conflict and differences between the native people of Africa and the imperialists. At one point of the story, Marlow explains that he is very used to the wilderness, and the lives of the primitive natives. Marlow describes the surroundings of these people as “unearthly” but the he said that the people were not “inhuman”. Human and earth is clearly defined by the functions of western civilizations. Marlow sees that there really isn’t much difference between a savage and a civilized person who does the same work, but they are classified according to the societies they come from. Anyways, throughout the chapter I felt like Marlow knew so much about the natives, but that thought died when he said the natives wouldn’t attack, and a fight broke out instead.
I’m feeling that Kurtz is going to be an important character, though I’m not sure what that importance may be. He definitely seems like an higher authority because everyone is so concerned about his existence or non-existence and the whole point of the trip is to go meet him. So far he remains ambiguous to me and hopefully his character will get clearer in part three.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wonder if Conrad if leaving the book ambiguous and unclear, to keep the reader unclear about Kurtz. Not only does Conrad seem to want to the keep the reader unsure over Kurtz, but keep a certain mood and keep the reader unsure just as a seaman is of the sea.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. The reason for Conrad's ambiguity is in it self ambiguous. Just about everything is left open for any sort of interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI also was curios about the conversation between the manager and his uncle. I didn't quite see the whole point to the entire conversation.
I think that Marlow's behavior just shows how he feels towards the Africans. He is torn in both directions. In one sense he empathizes with them, but in another, he sees what is happening as a just cause.
I think you made a very good point about the classifications according to society. I was also kind of weirded out by all this unclearness and ambiguity in the book. I understand that an author must leave something to be interpreted by the reader and for him to make his own conclusions; but everything?
ReplyDeleteConrad uses a lot of mysterious and ambigious in the story that make the readers kind of confuess. I think he just let readers to figure out.
ReplyDelete