The Untold Story of the Native Woman

I was extremely fascinated by the only strong female character that is mentioned maybe just two times in Joseph Conrad’s entire novel Heart of Darkness.

He first depicts her from a crowd of native people, which was code in my mind that she is important and I immediately began trying to put together a story for her. After setting the scene he introduces her “along the lighted shore moved a wild and gorgeous apparition of a woman.” Conrad seldom spoke of woman and often it was derogatory and the main character somehow saw this woman in a more positive light. It is as if he welcomes us to make up her role as the story moves along.

I was immediately drawn to this woman, I wanted to know who she was and what her part in the story was, but other than physical descriptions Conrad leads us the readers to write his own novel or in other words to have our own reader-response criticism.  

Reader-response criticism is simply stated in The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism as, “reading is really a process of combining what is physically in print with what you make up in your mind….texts never tell you absolutely everything, and when the author doesn’t give you a particular detail, you may supply it yourself.”

I initially thought that this woman was the infamous Mr. Kurtz’s “intended;” however, as we come to understand that he left a grieving fiancé at home. Although I was wrong about the mysterious native woman being his intended I still believe that they had a romantic relationship. It is written that she was more than upset at Mr. Kurtz sickly departure from the African Congo. How empowering is it that we get to be somewhat of a writer in such an amazing novel!

Then also from this same empowered woman that somehow empowers our own thinking and mental writing we find paradox in who she is. “She walked with measured steps.. treading the earth proudly… she carried her head high” she seems to have it all together and to be perfectly balanced. However, in the very next paragraph she seems to be falling apart, “Her face had a tragic and fierce aspect of wild sorrow.” His description leaves us with the impression that such a strong and controlled woman has no control at all, and that is the wonder of deconstruction. This native woman becomes so much more alive and real to us through the irony that she is both carrying her head high but fiercely sorrowful. Conrad uses deconstruction to also allow us to be the author alongside him, and for me it is proof of her love for Conrad.

You can also see more criticism for nameless native woman here. 

My sister and I on a little trip to Mexico; trying to accessorize like the native woman. 

"her hair was done in the shape of a helmet; she had brass leggings to the knee, brass wire gauntlets to the elbow , a crimson spot on her tawny cheek, innumerable necklaces of glass beads on her neck; bizarre things, charms , gifts of witch-men, that hung about her, glittered and trembled at every step."

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.

Whom Do We Blame?

Girls get a pretty bad rap in most societies. "You throw like a girl!" "Boys are stronger (smarter, more inclined to understand money, maps, you name it), it's science!" and similar phrases plague young girls' minds and raise them to believe that by natural, indisputable law, boys are generally better at everything except being nice and baking (I don't think I'm exaggerating). So who is to blame? All men? Nope! Women, then? I don't think that's fair. How did we get to this place? Literature provides a concrete and fascinating platform from which we can analyze the world's interpretation of what it means to be female. 

Here's a picture of me (far left) with my favorite female (my mother) and my favorite feminist (far right, my father) in Moscow, Russia after my 18 month church service in the Ural Mountains and Siberia. 

So in my last post about Heart of Darkness, I explored the ways in which we, as readers may be just as responsible for misconceptions about what it means to be "female" as Joseph Conrad, who penned the novel himself and has been highly criticized for the way in which females are portrayed. After reading a lot more about feminist literary criticism (see here for a great essay about it), Marxism, Freudism, and reader response theories, I'm looking at Heart of Darkness through a whole different lens... or a couple of lenses all at once, I guess.

Steven J. Venturino's The Complete Idiot's Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism provides thorough and accessible explanations for different literary criticism theories, and I will be referencing the kindle version (available here on Amazon) often in this post. As defined by Venturino, feminist literary criticism seeks to expose the effects of patriarchy (or a world controlled by men) and to advance equal opportunities for women (Loc 3178). Basically, feminist criticism assumes that all literary texts come from authors and historical settings that oppress women, regardless of the the author's gender or upbringing. Furthermore, a feminist critic's job is to expose the patriarchal nature of the world to the light of reality, and then to undo an oppressive view of women that has been drilled into our minds since birth, unbeknownst to us. (After all, "political and social forces can succeed best when they don't look like force at all" (Loc 3178). That's the genius of patriarchal society, it appears to be normal and natural!) 

In Conrad's Heart of Darkness, there are three female characters who basically serve to embody the traits that aren't already taken by the main characters, which are: naivety, innocence, ignorance, gentleness, and ignorant but hysteric emotion. Marlow's aunt gives ridiculous, naive advice that Marlow scoffs at, Kurtz' mistress' main character traits are her beauty, wealth, and frightening influence over Kurtz and the natives, and Kurtz' betrothed has basically no idea what's going on and is only soothed from her feminine fussiness when lied to. Critics blame Conrad for these two dimensional characters who paint female as simply the opposite of male, who power stands at the center of the universe. However, feminist theory as a whole, much like Marxism, blames society itself. 

Furthermore, according to reader response theory, it isn't Conrad or society who defines what these characters mean, but the reader. I've got a problem with that though; please tell me another way I could interpret Conrad's opinion on women based off of this novel? The characters are primarily male, and their attitudes toward women showcase annoyance--as if the women are meant to be puppetted by the men, and when they act out, they are a burden to everyone else. I used to think that Conrad might be signaling that men were a part of the problem for women's ignorance (because of Marlow's final thoughts about lying to Kurtz' betrothed), but when I look at it again, Conrad didn't put a single female character in the novel who consciously contributed something worthwhile to the plot. 

To a degree, I disagree with reader response theory that I share equal weight with the author for how his work is interpreted, because Conrad left me with little choice. For this misrepresentation of women specifically, I blame Conrad more than society as a whole or society during Conrad's life or anything else.