Light in the Darkness

“...No, it is impossible; it is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one’s existence, - that which makes its truth, its meaning - its subtle and penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live, as we dream - alone...”

~ Joseph Conrad Heart of Darkness

We are what we have met. Every experience, every person leaves an imprint upon our heart that once left can never be removed. A child is pure, innocent, unmarked; however, with age comes pain and joy, memories that once etched can never be erased. Unfortunately, the unruly hand of fate plays a part in how we are shaped. A person has the ability to either enrich a life or slowly and painfully tear the pieces of life slowly away until the victim is left with a shell - an exterior self.

It is these people that have molded my perception of the world. The world, although a place of light, is also filled with impenetrable darkness that once seen can never be truly shaken. Because of this, when reading Conrad’s novella, I narrowed in on the utter darkness that Marlow repeatedly relays to his audience.

The passage I chose is spoken by Marlow in his frustration that no matter how passionate one retells their story, their life, it can never fully be grasped by the listener. A dream once retold loses much of the whimsical qualities experienced by the dreamer - a dream is never fully experienced with anyone but the dreamer. Much like this, life is lived with others, but is only truly experienced alone.

I don’t think that the interpretation of this passage has changed much since 1910. Although different eras, life’s interactions have not evolved exponentially. People are still impressionable, pain is still pain, and experiences once lived can never fully be recounted outside the prison that is the human mind, incessantly struggling to attain light in darkness.

Us and Them

"I turned to the wilderness really, not to Mr. Kurtz, who, I was ready to admit, was as good as buried. And for a moment it seemed to me as if I also was buried in a vast grave full of unspeakable secrets. I felt an intolerable weight oppressing my breast, the smell of the damp earth, the unseen presence of victorious corruption, the darkness of an impenetrable night."
- Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness

When reading the novel, I can certainly see where Conrad is coming from with the idea of the perpetual darkness at the core of man and nature. Not necessarily true evil, but the inability or lack of desire to understand another person or to form a sympathetic connection with an individual. Because the African people were not even seen as so much as people, the colonizers found no trouble in taking over them. Conrad attempted to show the British reader of 1910 the wrongs of colonization. That reader’s context comes from a place of having experienced the times of the African colonization. The British reader of 1910 views the passage with a greater experience of colonization than I do, so Conrad’s message could’ve had a more applicable, straightforward effect to them. They could see the above passage as expressing the evil of colonization, but my context of the story is different. Although I can see the point of the Imperialism stuff, I can’t exactly apply it so easily to my situation.

Since I have been a bit of an outcast throughout life, I naturally relate the passage to modern society. I look all around and see Conrad’s “victorious corruption” in the hearts of so many, not only in the politicians and bigwigs, but also the people I see around me every day. I feel like the lack of desire to understand another permeates society. Through reading the story, I see myself and others that have been discounted for this or that. I see people attempting to “colonize” the differences of others.

I would say that it is extremely difficult to explain the exact context through which anyone views the world. My current perception has been molded by not only every single experience of my lifetime, but also by some amount of inherited personality. It’s hard to say, “Those people saw it that way, and people here and now see it this way.”

BRIGHT, SUNNY, & HAPPY vs. dark, night, & depression

Which one makes you feel better? BRIGHT(happiness) or DARK (depression)??

Throughout my life, i have been give many opportunities. So, I always have been mainly a bright, happy person. I read the world and question, " why isn't everyone happy and positive?" Now don't get me wrong, I know there is turmoil in the world, and many negative aspects of life. By why not thrive on the positive things around you? There has to be AT LEAST one positive thing going on around you, even if it doesn't directly involve you. Some examples are someone smiling, singing, or even the sun just shining.

My look on life made me question Conrad's novel harshly. I did not understand or like the fact he always emphasized on the "darkness." The passage I'm going to focus on is every single paragraph that involves the one word- "darkness." Although it was mentioned about a trillion times in the book, that one word always had the same effect on me. the effect it had on me was sadness, and depression. The rest of the real, common interpretations of this word would probably be ignorance, or the savages being in the "dark" of what was really occurring in the society. For some reason, I could not get passed the sadness I felt EVERY time Conrad used that word. Since I was raised in a happy, bright environment, I cannot help but be taken aback by the word "darkness."

BE HAPPY GUYS AND SMILE :) you might make someone else's day better.

Ivxtaposed

"I was thinking of very old times, when the Romans first came here, nineteen hundred years ago--the other day....Light came out of this river since--you say Knights? Yes; but it is like a running blaze on a plain, like a flash of lightning in the clouds. We live in the flicker--may it last long as the old earth keeps rolling!"

When I first read Marlow’s reference to the Romans, my view of the book instantly changed. It was like upping the contrast and sharpening the value of a picture on the computer; I could look at the rest of the book in a different, clearer way—at least clearer for me.

I studied Latin all through high school, and along with the language came the culture and august legacy of the Roman Empire. When I saw just the word Romans, inevitable associations and images came to mind. A mighty conglomeration of conquered lands, a plethora of wealth, a pervading lust for life... And inevitably those images became juxtaposed with the images the novella in my hands gave me. Even with that minute shout-out to the ancient empire, Conrad had to have had a reason to mention the Romans in the first place, in a text clearly writing against European colonialism in Africa.

There are indeed parallels I see between the Romans’ conquering of land and the Europeans’ own “conquering” of Africa. The European enslavement of the Africans, for example, is comparable to the Roman enslavement of vanquished nations. I began to see the African “criminals” as prisoners of war, a war of confusion, made from European greed and African fear of the lightning-wielding white men. Subjugated to harsh labor and harsher working conditions, they brought (under the circumstances) as much wealth and satisfaction to their white superiors as they could, in the form of a trickle of ivory.

And yes, despite the toil and wild, genuine emotions Marlow saw in the natives, Marlow did nothing to lessen or stop their maltreatment. The Europeans obviously did nothing either; but in their ignorance, they did not see as Marlow did, so long as they were spared any bodily harm and got the treasure they wanted—ivory. The Europeans in that regard reminded me again of the Romans; so long as the spoils kept sailing back to Rome, the plebeians were satisfied, and the slaves knew and remained in their place, there was not a care in the world for a Roman.

A British reader from the time period Heart of Darkness was written would probably catch the Roman reference as well, since the Romans had no small influence in history. History, however, had not takeninto account Europe’s ventures into Africa, and thus had not yet been shelved with the past for future generations to compare. A British reader would probably think highly and maybe even proudly compare Europe’s “expedition” with the ancient empire. I, a modern American reader, can see the flaws and comparisons between the Romans’ and Europeans’ excursions, and thus not be outraged like a British, 20^th century reader, but enlightened by one man’s perspective on a controversial institution.

What is My Context??

The lens through which I view the world is a very interesting one. Growing up in a strictly Christian household, where we went to church every Sunday, I can definitely say that this portion of my childhood makes up a great part of the glass through which I view the world. I was always one of the kids in school that “didn’t do that” one thing that everyone else did. I would not in the least say that I was brainwashed, with my churches teaching, because I was always given the opportunity to speak and think for myself, but I would say that what I learned definitely kept me grounded and alert for the coming world. I now view the world from the perspective of a Christian, fully committed to the work of God. Now you’re probably thinking, “why did I have to read this guys blog?” You may in fact think of me now as a religious fanatic who has no real sense of the world. I would argue the complete opposite. I would say that I know exactly what it is that I believe and stand firm on that.

Anyway, getting to the point of the question: How has this Christian, Oakland Californian lens made up the way that I view the world? Well I would definitely say that it has influenced the decisions that I’ve made, as well as not made. It has influenced the way that I think about people of different races and socio-economic statuses and all the like. Even the schools that I have gone to affect the way that view the education system. Sadly, the educators that I have had all told me that the education that I have gotten is of a far greater caliber and quality than other surrounding schools.

“The earth seemed unearthly. We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there -- there you could look at a thing monstrous and free. It was unearthly, and the men were -- No, they were not inhuman. Well, you know, that was the worst of it -- this suspicion of their not being inhuman. It would come slowly to one. They howled and leaped, and spun, and made horrid faces; but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity -- like yours -- the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar. Ugly. Yes, it was ugly enough; but if you were man enough you would admit to yourself that there was in you just the faintest trace of a response to the terrible frankness of that noise, a dim suspicion of there being a meaning in it which you -- you so remote from the night of first ages -- could comprehend.”

After reading this passage I was completely appalled by Marlow’s inability to act. He fully realized and recognized the humanity in these “conquered people,” and although they were different they still deserved some kind of respect. Marlow knows that along with this realization and admission comes some type of responsibility. This responsibility includes some type of acting against the injustice being dealt to the natives.

A typical British reader may have had the exact same sentiment as Marlow. He may have felt, deep inside himself, that what was going on in the Congo was wrong and those “strange people” that were being conquered were in fact humans. In partial recognition of this humanity, they would have unfortunately continued on with their lives. Perhaps along with this paralyzing response they may have also felt slightly guilty. Essentially, engulfed in this interpretation to this passage is a sense of entitlement. Although, there is a partial recognition of humanity, there is yet injustice.

Colorful "Context" Lenses

"But there was in it one river especially, a might big river, that you could see on the map, resembling an immense snake uncoiled, with its head in the sea, its body at rest curving afar over a vast country, and its tail lost in the depths of the land. " -Marlow, Heart of Darkness

With the many years since this books release, the mystery in the Congo has lessened a considerable degree, thanks in much part to people like Marlow. However, that leads to a change in the context of this passage. Hindsight being what it is, it is easy to look back and think that those pioneers were just superstitious and that really just wanted to stay home and be comfortable. Whereas people might have seen this passage as a deep and thought provoking statement when the book came out, I see it as more of an old mans fears of the unknown being something he is now intimately familiar with.

Something is only a mystery as long as people decide that they would rather not know anything about it. When someone finally moves towards the unknown they are seen as foolish. Thanks to these fools humans found the Americas after years of thinking that there was nothing there, we have discovered the power of flight, and we have generally been the inquisitive creatures that we have been made to be. With the many years of such things, my lenses are scientific in nature, lending to a disbelief in the mystery a river could hold. This detracts from the statements power and the foreshadowing that it implies.

This science lens affects more than just a story and its context. It lends itself in may ways to how I act to MOST things, though not all.

When Heart of Darkness was published, the Congo was being discovered and people still thought of Africa and its inhabitants and savage and in dire need of taming and domestication. The land and the ivory were worth than the people who rightfully owned the land. People who read this passage might have thought, "Conrad is quite ahead of his time. All those extra adjectives aren't a bore at all!" I'm sure that this was a very ominous thing to say and it lended an atmosphere of anticipation that made the reader want to continue with his exploration of the land with Marlow.

Being biased as I am (there's no other word or it) takes away the wow factor any older books might have had on people who read those same books at my age one hundred years ago, and it usually tends to ruin the story for me as well. Without that sense of amazement, the enjoyment such a book could give me is minimal. Those extra adjective don't help either.

Southern WoMentality

Perhaps the most famous Southern woman of all texts, Scarlett O'Hara of Gone With the Wind

My lens on the world would have to be my South

ern upbringing. Born and raised in a small, close-knit, Cajun town in southern Louisiana, I have learned the traditions of a Southern Woman. This mainly has to deal with how I interact with other people, regardless of their upbringing. I have always been taught to say “Yes, Mam” and “No, Sir” to anyone older than me and that it is the woman’s responsibility to cook, clean, and look like you love doing it. My southern roots almost force me to greet everyone I see out of habit. I guess I see the world through quixotic approach rather than a cynical one, but as time goes on and I learn more about others in the world and myself, I find myself being able to see better both sides of spectrum.

This affects how I see Conrad’s novel because in some ways I can relate to how the women in the novel are seen as in an illusion of the world. Sometimes I like to (idealistically) think that the world is a good place rather than a bad place, although history provides a strong counterargument.

“It’s queer how out of touch with truth women are! They live in a world of their own, and there had never been anything like it, and never can be. It is too beautiful altogether, and if they were to set it up it would go to pieces before the first sunset.”

This passage is different now than a 1910 approach because after years of struggling for women’s rights, there have been strong gains for feminists. However, I still feel like there are some women that would rather have their blinders on and bake cookies all day. That doesn’t mean they are stupid or anything like that, I think that some women are fainter of heart than others to make a stand against the ego of the male-dominant parts of society. Now I’m not exactly sure where I fall in this subject. I like to think somewhere in the middle, leaning towards learning about the world in order to have informed opinions and an objective outlook on life. But I must admit that sometimes it would be easier to block out the bad things in the world.

Another World, Another View

The world is a diverse place and one can say that each person holds different experiences of the same events. What I view the world to be may be very different from how the person who sits next to me in class views it or the person who stands behind me in the line at a book store. However, if one looks at what forms an individual’s thoughts, one will find religion, family, heritage, the time period, and society to be among the main elements that form character and views.

I believe it is because of my family, religion, friends, and heritage that I have a certain taste in music, a certain love for books, a faith consisting of a loving God, and an ardent passion for social justice. More often than not, my thoughts and feelings are what color my vision of how I “read” the world. However, I believe that my feelings and thoughts of what I believe to be good or bad were formed in my upbringing. Furthermore, it is because of one’s initial and consistent exposures that one’s thoughts, beliefs, and views are formed.

Also, I believe it is because of my religion and heritage that I find the European colonization in Africa during the early 1900s to be immoral and corrupt. It is because of the time period that I live in that I find Conrad’s novel to be far from racist and inappropriate; in fact, I find it to be a needed rebellion, and an admirable act of defiance against what others at Conrad’s time believed to be acceptable. He was willing and able to speak of the horrors of his time, to hold a mirror in front of a society that was unwilling to hear of the injustice it was partaking in.

However, what I view today and what I consider to be immoral, corrupt, a necessary rebellion, or appropriate may be different in the eyes of those who lived in the time of Joseph Conrad.

“It was unearthly, and the men were—No, they were not inhuman. Well, you know, that was the worst of it—the suspicion of their not being inhuman. It would come slowly to one. They howled and leaped, and spun, and made horrid faces; but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity—like yours—the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar. Ugly. Yes, it was ugly enough; but if you were man enough you would admit to yourself that there was in you just the faintest trace of a response to the terrible frankness of that noise, a dim suspicion of there being a meaning in it which you—you so remote from the night of first ages—could comprehend. And why not?”

(The above quote can be found in the first section of Part 2)

Although some may be horrified at Joseph Conrad’s words, I find them to be a clear depiction of what much of society viewed colonization to be during his time. They viewed the natives of the Congo as inhuman, another resource to be abused to the utmost form, and at times, an impediment to other valuable resources such as ivory.





Many today may argue that Conrad’s words were those of a racist; however, I believe his words were far from what he personally believed. Instead, I believe he wanted to record the injustice that he himself had seen during his time spent in the Congo.



In the above quote, I sense that Marlow is beginning to question what humanity is and if being civilized can be a sound basis for defining humanity. However, what is considered to be truly civilized? If a British reader living during the year of 1910 were to have read the above quote, I assume he or she would have agreed with the idea of suspecting the natives to be inhumane as something naturally true.






A person living in 1910 would have viewed a kinship to a native of the Congo as something terrifying, beyond incapable of being true, or, as Marlow had stated, something “ugly.” A British reader of 1910 would have agreed with that much that was within the above passage. However, I believe a British reader of Conrad’s time would have disagreed with what Marlow seemed to be questioning towards the end of the quote: “…if you were man enough you would admit to yourself that there was in you just the faintest trace of a response to the terrible frankness of that noise, a dim suspicion of there being a meaning in it which you—you so remote from the night of first ages—could comprehend.” In my opinion, Marlow seems to suggest that there is in fact a connection between the British readers of 1910 to the natives of the Congo who were considered uncivil, ugly, and barbaric. That although the natives may show rudimentary characteristics that are raw and similar to the origin of man, he emphasizes that it is the natural actions that all man can connect to because it is similar to the origin of man. Marlow himself asks towards the end, “And why not?” when discussing the possibility that one may just find a connection to the seemingly barbaric nature of the natives. I believe if any British reader of 1910 were to suspect that Conrad was suggesting something as having a connection or similarity to the natives of the Congo, he or she would have condemned Conrad and denied such claims. During the 1910s the British saw humanity and civility as something that was similar to theirs. The unfamiliar was not considered humanity. However, as a person of today, I believe that diversity is what does and should unify humanity. I believe that my interpretation is essentially different from those who lived in 1910 because the people of today view humanity and civilization as diversity.