[First Last Name]
[Date Month Year]
Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (1898)
INTRODUCTION
Even his vilest critics cannot but respect the literary accomplishments of Joseph Conrad and his great work Heart of Darkness, which was published in 1898. Chinua Achebe, for instance, in her article “An Image of Africa” claimed that Heart of Darkness may as well be considered as one of those fortunate works of literature that must be considered as “permanent literature” (251). It has established a large collection of secondary literature revolving around the elements in the fictional narrative in the forms of essays and books, including books containing these essays. Expectedly, this literature contains diverse views about Heart of Darkness as critics both praise and criticize Conrad for “his views” in this short novel. In fact, one scholarly critic, J Hillis Miller even asked: “Should we read Heart of Darkness?” or “Should every copy be taken from all the shelves and burned?” (3). Consequently, both critiques – Achebe and Miller – that is, their critiques on the Heart of Darkness will be explored briefly in the next sections to shed light on the essential difference or differences in the manner they view this great work.
INTERPRETATIONS
Achebe’s Perception of Racism
The manner in which Achebe perceived the words of Conrad had a perceivable tinge of bias against racism. Her perceptions on the words that Conrad used in describing the African atmosphere feels strongly conditioned by a defensiveness even if, to an objective reader, no such meaning can be justly attributed. Her statement “pretending to record scenes” (Achebe 2) as a critique to the novel’s observant protagonist was a colored accusation to a rather clear attempt to report a scene faithfully as observed. Conrad’s descriptions were no “trickery” of style but an attempt to capture the mind of a stranger trying to make sense of an ancient-looking place from the eyes of urban civilization. To Conrad it is a matter of factual description. To Achebe, it must be something more. Her loaded interpretation explains her expected surprise when Conrad praised, in her own words “lavishes a whole page quite unexpectedly on an African woman”, to the mistress of Mr. Kurtz in pages 101-102 (3).
Miller’s Perception of Reading Value
Miller never lost sight on the fact that Conrad’s Heart of Darkness was a work of fictional literature, which the novelist used to critique the reigning imperialism, specifically a Eurocentric imperialist capitalism, during his time (13-14). His critique centered on the personifications of the “it” in the novel, the inescapable darkness that accompanies the imperialism of Europe in the ancient grounds of Africa (15). He explored the predominant literary conventions that Conrad used in the novel, such as parabasis, similes, ironies [“Heart of Darkness is a masterwork of irony” (6)], and ultimately prosopopoeias, which governed the strongest personifications found in the story. Overall, Miller viewed Heart of Darkness as Conrad’s way of sharing with the readers “a powerful exemplary revelation” of the capitalist and imperialistic ideologies, which carry with it racism and sexism, within the form and context of a vividly descriptive literature.
COMPARING TWO INTERPRETATIONS
One major difference between the interpretations resides in the participation of Joseph Conrad in his literary work. Achebe treated the novel as an autobiographical Conrad, accusing him of racism from the supposed racism in the mind of the characters as if Conrad is the character. Conversely, Miller remained faithful to the literary genre of the work and interpret the words in the characters as an integral part of the fictional story and the perceived European sensibilities of the characters as Conrad perceived it. He made it clear that the characters in the Heart of Darkness are not personifications of Conrad, but are that of the characters themselves.
Miller rightly warned readers, including critics, that displacing the two imaginary narrators as Conrad speaking for himself “either in the words of the frame narrator or in Marlow’s words” does not only err in misinterpreting the literary work as “history, autobiography, travel writing, (or) journalism” (5), but also do so in a harmful manner (17).
CONCLUSION
Even critiques have their own specific preconceptions that tend to bias their criticisms, imputing more than the author even intended to place in his words. Achebe’s racist interpretation of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness reeked with such undertones it seemed incapable of looking at the written words as objectively as a tabula rasa. Although Miller admitted that the short novel had layers and layers of meaning to be peeled off, the harsh condemnation on Conrad as racist was unfortunately misplaced by the folly of treating a fictional work as a nonfiction, attributing purely literary characterization as an attribution to Conrad’s personal worldview. Such an interpretation of Conrad’s work failed to do justice to such a great literary work.
Unlike Achebe, Miller’s critique on Conrad’s Heart of Darkness was objective and appropriately contextual, which made his insights on the work balanced and reliable. Objectivity is a characteristic that provides the necessary integrity in any critical work on literature. It is also something that critics must preserve and maintain to ensure a valuable output of the intellect and not a prejudiced verbalization of a misinformed emotional outburst in written words.
Works Cited
Achebe, Chinua. “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’”. Massachusetts
Review 1977, 18(1). (251-261). Reprinted in: Robert Kimbrough (Ed.), Heart of Darkness: An Authoritative Text, Background, and Sources Criticism. 3rd ed. London: W.W. Norton and Co., 1998. Print.
Miller, J. Hillis. “Should We Read Heart of Darkness?” Lecture. Aarhus University, 1998. PDF
