Underneath Imperialism

In our class’s study of reviews for Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, I have noticed a significant trend in the idea that Conrad’s sole purpose in writing the novel was to portray the evil nature of imperialism. While this is a valid argument, I would argue that Conrad’s purpose was less about imperialism itself and more about how the materialism of the people of England in the 19th century allowed for imperialism to prosper. Conrad shows the materialistic nature of multiple characters: the Swede captain discussing a man who hanged himself as if it's a common occurrence rather than a tragedy, the Doctor who exams Marlow making light of men being changed from the inside rather than the outside when "going out there", the two men plotting to hang a man for the purpose of keeping their positions. For the sake of length, let’s take a closer look at the two main characters, Marlow and Mr. Kurtz.

Materialism: a way of thinking that gives too much importance to material possessions.
Obviously, Dr. Pepper is more important to me than a friendship with my roommate.

As the main character and narrator of Heart of Darkness, Marlow begins his story by speaking of how he came to acquire his position as captain of a steamboat traveling down the Congo. He states that his desire to be captain was so great that he sought the influential help of his aunt in finding the position. When he received news that a position was open – because the previous captain was killed in a fight with a native – he showed no empathy toward the previous captain, but was instead excited to accept the captainship. In his conceit he even states, “I got my appointment – of course. I got it very quick.” Marlow was so enthralled with the mystery and adventure that awaited him in the Congo that he even ignored the conspiratorial feeling that began to pervade his mind when he signed the contract to not reveal “trade secrets”. Marlow’s materialism lands him in the Congo unprepared to witness the terrible on goings that occur.

Mr. Kurtz is a mystery to Marlow and the reader for most of the novel, but eventually we learn that he is a trader that has set himself as a leader over the natives by brutal force. Kurtz’ greed for ivory lead him to act in this uncivilized manner and eventually consumed Kurtz to the point where he suffered death by illness. His materialism is directly linked to imperialism because he becomes the worst sort of man in the “heart” of the Congo by mistreating the natives. Even when Kurtz was dying he said to Marlow, “this lot of ivory now is really mine. The Company did not pay for it. I collected it myself at a very great personal risk.” He spoke as a possessed soul – possessed with the greed for ivory and not a care for how he got it.

A Man or a Journey?

   In the classic literary novel, Heart of Darkness, author Joseph Conrad is well-known for his incorporation of deep symbolism.  There are symbolic themes of dark versus light, wilderness and civility, and as I read the book, I noticed that Conrad even used characters to represent his motifs.  One of the most prominent characters in the book, Mr. Kurtz, seems to symbolize the dark journey in and of itself.

The narrator of the tale, Marlow, describes how he began the adventure with an intense desire to discover. As to what he wants to discover, even he is unsure, but he feels and inexplicable yearning to get out of the old routes of his life and into the wilderness of what is now the Congo.  From the beginning, he is told of a man just as mysterious as the waters he is about to enter—a Mr. Kurtz, who has a rumored wealth of knowledge, expertise, and ivory from his travels.  Marlow craves to simply hear the man speak, and says later on in the story, “I was cut to the quick at the idea of having lost the inestimable privilege of listening to the gifted Kurtz” (Conrad 67).   At this point, Marlow has never met the man, yet thinks of him with the same sense of desire he has to navigate the unknown territory.  Both Kurtz and the land represent riches, adventure, knowledge, mystique, glory; the latter the source of untold resources, the former an example of the fame awaiting those who manage to tame them.

                Kurtz’s fate also follows the pattern of disenchantment that Marlow comes to experience as the journey goes on.  As Marlow sees the bloodshed and horrors of the “civilizing” they are doing throughout the land, he realizes that the adventure he has sought is far from noble and simply ends in ruin.  Kurtz is the physical representation of this.  When Marlow finally meets him, (his “coming to grips with reality”), he sees Kurtz as an influential man who has been indoctrinated in the local savagery and obsession with lucrative ivory.  He describes his first impression of Kurtz as follows:

“The wilderness had patted him on the head, and, behold, it was like a ball—an ivory ball; it had caressed him, and—lo!—he had withered; it had taken him, loved him, embraced him, got into his veins, consumed his flesh, and sealed his soul to its own by the inconceivable ceremonies of some devilish initiation” (68).

               

Both Kurtz’s life and Marlow’s adventure in the darkness come to an end, and both are spoken of in ironic reverence and adoration back home in the city.  Marlow is known as one who has braved the unknown and come home a survivor, yet is severely broken and damaged as a result of the trip.  He tells no one of these horrors, letting them believe what they’d like.  He does the same with Kurtz’s memory.  He refrains from describing Kurtz’s madness and dark habits in the jungles, instead allowing his friends and loved ones to cling tightly to the high esteem they have for the dead man.

                Now bringing this back to our day: many Internet users are like the city people of Marlow’s day.  They see those who dare to explore and exploit the facets of the Web as brave and slightly foolhardy. Some people are like Marlow, who are interested in the journey and set out to try their luck in the darkness.  Then there are others who, like Kurtz, embrace the Internet and its components wholeheartedly and are able to profit immensely from it.  But these are they who sometimes lose contact with reality and allow the online world to transform them into a monster who, seemingly normal to those around them, are internally lost in the obsessive and captivating wild into which they have entered.

Like Carving a Path Through the Congo

There are times when I am given a book to read in class, and by the end of that book I immediately understand why that book is important and why it resonates even until this day. Heart of Darkness was not one of those books.

Heart of Darkness, I will openly admit, seems like the kind of book that was once considered very posh and important because it pretty much says that colonialism is hypocritical and bad, and in our modern time casts a large and not-at-all-ominously named "Company" into a questionable light. It seems as if the only reason why we consider it a classic is because it is old, and it reminds us of the mistakes once made in the past against native peoples.

Heart of Darkness is not well written, in my opinion. For the time, it was probably excellent and exciting and horrifying, but I don't think that this is the case anymore. It makes me think of a phenomenon that I like to refer to as "Nostalgia Goggles." We are found to be wearing Nostalgia Goggles when we think a thing is good and important now, because it was good and important at some previous point in history and for no other reason. We usually see this is mediums such as Film and Video Games. The Maltese Falcon was a good movie for its time, and did a lot of things right. However, if you were to re-release that movie with the exact same dialogue, film quality, camera direction quality, and other aspects of the film, it wouldn't be considered good by the majority of people, unlike when it came out.

From reading the reviews on Goodreads and elsewhere, I feel that Nostalgia Goggles have been keeping Heart of Darkness alive while the general consensus of the book comes out to "meh." It's okay. It might mean a lot to you if you're into it, but a lot of people won't like it at all. Yet, we put so much stock into it that one review puts it like this: " Heart of Darkness is one of those classics that you have to have read if you want to consider yourself a well-educated adult. "
Why?
I could learn most of the important lessons of the book by brushing up on the history of colonialism, and would likely be more educated about world events and important matters than if I read Heart of Darkness. 

This is not to say that all that is old is automatically bad. There are films and media that withstand the test of time. I just don't think that Heart of Darkness is one of them.