Heart of Darkness - Racist?

[ktm5124]

So I'm re-reading Heart of Darkness right now, keeping in mind allegations from peers that the story's description of native Africans is racist. What I find most striking, and also perhaps very controversial, is how Conrad describes the natives as "prehistoric" - that is the very word he uses. This is a stronger and more poignant description than "uncivilized" or "primitive" - while it implies the other notions, it is also distinctly romantic. For no race or people is prehistoric, but Conrad is abstracting the natives into something more strange and frightening than the popular conception of them at the time as brutes. They are not just different; they are completely alien: walking ghosts from the irretrievable origins of humanity. One can see how this concept is romantic in its abstraction and frightening in its vision. At the same time, it is completely wrong; Africans had not been unaffected by the ages as Conrad asserts - they have their own culture, their own inheritance. It is wrong but it is romantic, and it adds a fantastic feel to the story. It is also not Conrad's conception, but Marlow's.

Do you think this conception of the natives as "prehistoric", incorrect but poignant, is at all offensive or racist? It adds to the story, and the story would not be the same without it. It would not have that fantastic feel. If you do find it to be offensive and racist, would you ascribe it to Marlow or Conrad? It seems to me that, in order to assert the book racist, it would have to be Conrad's prejudice as well as Marlow's.

[OrphanPip]

I've never understood how anyone could not consider Heart of Darkness racist, it is clearly racist.

You should read Chinua Achebe's lecture on the subject, he makes a very good case. The fact of the matter is that Conrad uses Africa, and its people, as tools and symbols to explore European issues. In the process he dehumanizes the African characters, reducing them to mere animals and savages.

The real question should be whether we think the artistic value of Heart of Darkness outweighs its faults. From it's position as an influential 20th century novel, I think it's an important work of fiction. We just shouldn't allow it's place as an influential work to blind us from its flaws. Spencer's Faerie Queene is blatantly anti-Irish and anti-Catholic, countless plays and novels are obviously sexist, and The Heart of Darkness is clearly racist. That doesn't mean we shouldn't read those works, they are a product of their time after all, but just keep in mind what the work is saying.

As to whether it is Marlow or Conrad who is the racist, Achebe pulls up a rather condemning description of the first black person Conrad had ever met: "A certain enormous buck nigger encountered in Haiti fixed my conception of blind, furious, unreasoning rage, as manifested in the human animal to the end of my days. Of the nigger I used to dream for years afterwards." Conrad's own writing outside of his fiction doesn't do much to exonerate him of the charge of racism.

Edit:

Achebe's original lecture on Conrad from 1975
http://kirbyk.net/hod/image.of.africa.html

An interview with Achebe I find gives another angle on his views near the end.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/feb/22/classics.chinuaachebe

[Silvia]

So I'm re-reading Heart of Darkness right now, keeping in mind allegations from peers that the story's description of native Africans is racist
It's fun, because when I read it I was told that it was an anti-racist novel because of its criticism of colonialism. And then Kurt's decision of "siding" with the natives, rejecting the Trading Company, the ambiguity of his "Exterminate all the brutes!" are all elements that point to that conclusion. However, I see why Conrad's description of native Africans might be considered racist.
I read Heart of Darkness alongside with Kerouac's On the Road, and I remember I was struck by the closeness of the two authors' conceptions of the black man, so much so that I had to tell my teacher about it.
On the one hand, coloured people are described in a very physical way: the black man is a body (I'd say that in Conrad the natives are a mass of black bodies). On the other hand, they are schamans, like the "wild-eyed, magnificent woman" that Marlow sees towards the end or Kerouac's black saxophonist. These are mistifications, idealizations of the "black soul" that reveal how little both authors knew about coloured people (which is comprehensible for Conrad's time but quite strange when it comes to Kerouac). They are never characterised as complex, individual human beings, so, in a sense, they are "aliens", as you pointed out. To me, this dehumanisation of the natives is, if not racist, undoubtedly prejudiced, which was inevitable for Conrad.
It is true that the story is filtered thorugh Marlow's eyes. It is usually wrong to identify the dramatic narrator with the real or implicit author. However, in this case, I think that Conrad's point of view coincides with Marlow's, partly because the novel is based on Conrad's autobiographical experience, partly because -it seems to me- the description of the natives, although it is Marlow's description, is rarely explicitly commented or pondered over by the narrator, which allows it to be Conrad's description as well.
I've just read Orphan Pip answer, and I rather agree with him.

The real question should be whether we think the artistic value of Heart of Darkness outweighs its faults. From it's position as an influential 20th century novel, I think it's an important work of fiction. We just shouldn't allow it's place as an influential work to blind us from its flaws. Spencer's Faerie Queene is blatantly anti-Irish and anti-Catholic, countless plays and novels are obviously sexist, and The Heart of Darkness is clearly racist. That doesn't mean we shouldn't read those works, they are a product of their time after all, but just keep in mind what the work is saying.

This is interesting. The fact that a novel has been exalted as a classic by the Western canon makes us (Europeans and Northamericans) partial towards it. We tend to ascribe its flaws to the historical context of the author so as to keep considering it a great piece of work, while we are not as readily incline to "forget" a novel which shares the same flaws but is not considered a classic.

[Alexander III]

As has been said above me, the question is not weather it's racist or not, but does it matter if it's racist ?

For our standards its racist
In the time it was written it wasn't, that was the general sentiments of the people, conrad was no more racist towards Africans than any other englishmen of the turn of the century.

I have read the novel and found it a great read, he uses the "savages" as a symbol, from a literary standpoint when reads one looks at them for what the author wanted them to represent.

Nonetheless, in art there are no morals, only beauty.

[OrphanPip]

Nonetheless, in art there are no morals, only beauty.

This is nice, in an abstract sense. However, art influences people, and art can have actual negative consequences. If we had some hypothetical novel, which was wonderfully written, but contains a highly repugnant message, I'm not sure it can still be considered quality art. If Hitler had been a better writer than he was, would you condone reading Mein Kampf?

[ktm5124]

OrphanPip, thank you for that interview. I read it and found Chinua Achebe's views to be distasteful. Here is what I find most unpleasant:



I am an African. What interests me is what I learn in Conrad about myself. To use me as a symbol may be bright or clever, but if it reduces my humanity by the smallest fraction I don't like it.


Achebe approaches the novel with the aim to learn more about himself and his culture. And in this sense the novel fails and appalls him. But I find it ridiculous for anyone to make this demand of a novel. The author is not obliged to teach the reader more about the reader's self. I feel that he author is obliged to teach something, but that this something is often a universal of life, an exotic culture, relations between people - more generally, the author's own wisdom and experience. And perhaps the author need not teach, but only relate. When we drink the experience of other men we become wiser. Achebe can think whatever he wants of Conrad's impressions of Africa, but they need not conform to a twenty-first century view. Novels are not to be held up to the gold standard of twenty-first century attitudes - these attitudes are formed from history that the novel had no part in.

Achebe should have approached the novel with the aim of learning about others - about Europeans, not Africans; about racist, uninformed, and overwhelmed European colonists; and if he kept this in mind, he would have learned something about others. By setting such unreasonable expectations from the novel, especially from a novel that does not even advertise itself as meeting those expectations, he goes into the novel with the intent of picking a fight with it. It seems almost selfish. It seems like he assumes this attitude not to learn about himself, or others, but to start a fight that could further his career, because after all he has "politically correct" America on his side, he is fighting an opponent far beneath his weight class. It also seems to be the least intellectually challenging project of all - to seek to learn about yourself from an author who has barely any exposure to your race. It really just seems like he wants to pick a fight, charged by some past-conscious vendetta.

[David Lurie]

An interview with Achebe I find gives another angle on his views near the end.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/feb/22/classics.chinuaachebe

Interesting link! even more interesting when you consider that the interviewer is Caryl Phillips - a black writer who has focused most of his books on the slave trade and on his own difficulties at being accepted as an Englishman in England, the country where he has lived since he was little more than a newborn. Phillips has lived racism but disagrees with Achebe's view of Conrad as a "a thoroughgoing racist".
At the beginning of Marlow's tale the voyage on the Congo river is compared to the travel along the Thames of a roman consul at the time when England was the heart of darkness, for me this is the central theme of the book: the frailty and affectedness of (the western idea of) civilization.
I don't see racism, I see an allegory, is it racist to choose Africa or whatever region of this and other possible or imaginary worlds to embody this allegory?

[OrphanPip]

I don't think the distinction is lost on Achebe. You suggest that we should suspend judgment of what the novel says about Africans, simply because they are a symbol being used to explore European issues. That's the kind of argument that Achebe has so often railed against. I think it's fine to say that the Africans in the novels are being used for a specific purpose by Conrad, but that doesn't mean the novel isn't saying something about Africans. In fact, that's almost worse than if the novel were saying explicitly that Africans are brutish animals; instead, it's saying Africans are useful props, like umbrellas or a stage backdrop.

What seems selfish here is not Achebe pointing out how this novel speaks negatively about Africans, but rather the fact that people seem to think it's OK to completely ignore that this novel says anything bad at all, because really it's all about Europeans. Well I guess that makes it all good, because if it's about Europeans then it doesn't matter at all that it contains black characters described as dogs standing on their hind legs. I may not agree with Achebe that Heart of Darkness is not worth teaching at all, but I'm fully behind him in the belief that the novel is thoroughly racist.

[Kyriakos]

I was thinking of picking up this novel.

How exactly does Conrad use black people as symbols?

I am interested in this, also due to the fact that i too have used black people as symbols in my work. There is nothing racist about it, since they become symbols, not humans, in the same way that a man who is made of the purest white colour would become a symbol of something.
And black skin can symbolise a lot of things, from dark thoughts, violence, secrets, underground existence, to absense of thought etc. It is usefull to note that symbolism is a parallel reality; such qualities may be projected onto black people, but obviously in reality they arent symbols but people :)

[Heteronym]

Heart of Darkness if full of ambiguities and contradictions. To say that it's racist, anti-racist, pro-colonialist, and anti-colonialist, is true and wrong at the same time. One truth arises from the novella: human beings aren't worth much. It's a very misanthropic novella that attempts to show that our conception of civilisation is built on a self-delusion that must be carried, by those that discover it, as Marlow does, as a secret burden for the benefit of the others. The novella is racist because Mankind is racist too. And Conrad, probably unwittingly but with valuable artistic insight nevertheless, shows exactly that.

[ktm5124]

I don't think the distinction is lost on Achebe. You suggest that we should suspend judgment of what the novel says about Africans, simply because they are a symbol being used to explore European issues. That's the kind of argument that Achebe has so often railed against. I think it's fine to say that the Africans in the novels are being used for a specific purpose by Conrad, but that doesn't mean the novel isn't saying something about Africans. In fact, that's almost worse than if the novel were saying explicitly that Africans are brutish animals; instead, it's saying Africans are useful props, like umbrellas or a stage backdrop.

What seems selfish here is not Achebe pointing out how this novel speaks negatively about Africans, but rather the fact that people seem to think it's OK to completely ignore that this novel says anything bad at all, because really it's all about Europeans. Well I guess that makes it all good, because if it's about Europeans then it doesn't matter at all that it contains black characters described as dogs standing on their hind legs. I may not agree with Achebe that Heart of Darkness is not worth teaching at all, but I'm fully behind him in the belief that the novel is thoroughly racist.

I am not sure if Conrad actually uses Africans as deliberate symbols. This is a reader's projection onto the novel. It is possible that, when Conrad himself went to Africa, this is the impression Africa made on him. I would imagine that it could be a rather traumatizing experience for the European colonists. Perhaps he is just relating his own impressions of Africa through Marlow. In this case we must admit that Conrad conceives of Africa as "prehistoric", "timeless", its people deprived of any cultural inheritance. They are not a symbol for the prehistoric, they just are that way, in the imagination of the author. If these are his true feelings, is he at fault for expressing them? What I don't like about the militant readers who strike a work for "racism" is that, at the same time, they are proposing that an artist may not express his feelings. If the feelings turn out to be racist, by twenty-first century standards, should we blame the writer for expressing these feelings? I do not think so.

Instead we should wonder why the author came to feel that way. In Conrad's case - or let's just say Marlow's case, since we know Marlow's story - he is a 19th century European adventurer who came to a foreign continent, about which very little was known, and about which he often wondered in his childhood (recall him imagining the Congo to be a snake). We cannot guess whether he had read any slave narratives, met anyone freed Africans, or witnessed anything to affirm the humanity of dark-skinned people. In other words, he had not the benefits that we have today. When he goes to Africa he finds the natives in chains, and he remarks on their ill health, their starvation. At times he avoids having to see them because there is clearly something unpleasant in the sight of men in chains. He becomes fond of his helmsman, who receives an arrow in the side, and for this we must give him credit. In fact, he describes the helmsman's dying gaze as a "claim upon distant kinship" (I paraphrase) which may move many readers. In this he is more advanced than his contemporaries who would not admit to any kinship with the natives. Seeing how uninformed he is of the natives, it is understandable that he would come to think such things of them. Twenty-first century readers who pass judgment on Conrad and Marlow have the benefits of accurate information, which Conrad and Marlow have not. Are we to blame Conrad for being uninformed, for expressing his impressions of a people unknown to him? If he had withheld his opinions, we would not have this novel. If he could have augured the sensitivities of the twenty-first century and worked his way around them, the text would have been dishonest.

I do not think we can blame Conrad for his impressions based on the information he had available to him. All of us would probably have though the same way as him at the time. I think it's a case where we simply shouldn't pass judgment.

[Alexander III]

This is nice, in an abstract sense. However, art influences people, and art can have actual negative consequences. If we had some hypothetical novel, which was wonderfully written, but contains a highly repugnant message, I'm not sure it can still be considered quality art. If Hitler had been a better writer than he was, would you condone reading Mein Kampf?

I see your point, but,

An artist's focus should be the creation of beauty, not a piece of work which should teach morals, Mein Kampf was written not to create beauty but for the world to see and follow the morals Hitler thought were correct. Thus a work created with the focus of beauty, may have some morality attached to it but it is never strong enough to turn people evil, If I become like Dorian Gray after having read Wilde's novel, I assure you the fault is my twisted self not Wilde's.

Oh and I see nothing wrong with reading Mein Kampf, it gives insight into the life and mind of one of the most critical figures of the 20th century.

I hope I dont offend when I say this, just stating an opinion

[ktm5124]

I see your point, but,

An artist's focus should be the creation of beauty, not a piece of work which should teach morals, Mein Kampf was written not to create beauty but for the world to see and follow the morals Hitler thought were correct. Thus a work created with the focus of beauty, may have some morality attached to it but it is never strong enough to turn people evil, If I become like Dorian Gray after having read Wilde's novel, I assure you the fault is my twisted self not Wilde's.

Oh and I see nothing wrong with reading Mein Kampf, it gives insight into the life and mind of one of the most critical figures of the 20th century.

I hope I dont offend when I say this, just stating an opinion

I read to learn, not just to be affected. Some books I read just for the sake of their art - Lolita, for example - but others I read to make myself a better person. I think that Heart of Darkness, though, one must read just for the sake of its art. There is not much to learn from it; one can only be affected. In this respect it is like Lolita.

I think you have excused Conrad much better than I have, and you have made me come to realize, perhaps, why I like reading it.

[OrphanPip]

I do not think we can blame Conrad for his impressions based on the information he had available to him. All of us would probably have though the same way as him at the time. I think it's a case where we simply shouldn't pass judgment.

I already said in my first post that Conrad is a product of his time. That doesn't exonerate the novel of racism. We don't just close our mind to the racism while reading the novel, we should acknowledge it is present, that it is part of the work, not try apologetically to defend the charges of racism. This obsession with defending Conrad's and The Heart of Darkness' obvious racism is just a product of readers not wanting to be associated with liking and reading something racist.

As for art for art's sake, I just don't buy it. No matter how often I've read Wilde's preface to The Picture of Dorian Grey. Art has value beyond having moralizing messages, and art need not have a moralizing, improving message, but that doesn't mean that all art is without message.

[ktm5124]

I already said in my first post that Conrad is a product of his time. That doesn't exonerate the novel of racism. We don't just close our mind to the racism while reading the novel, we should acknowledge it is present, that it is part of the work, not try apologetically to defend the charges of racism. This obsession with defending Conrad's and The Heart of Darkness' obvious racism is just a product of readers not wanting to be associated with liking and reading something racist.

As for art for art's sake, I just don't buy it. No matter how often I've read Wilde's preface to The Picture of Dorian Grey. Art has value beyond having moralizing messages, and art need not have a moralizing, improving message, but that doesn't mean that all art is without message.

But I think you are viewing racism as a definite thing, as if it could satisfy an objective definition. What is racist to some may not be racist to others. I myself don't perceive - and by that I mean feel and take offense to - the text to be racist. However, when my black friend drives me back from the suburbs to the city, and we are pulled over on suspicion of marijuana, or receive nasty looks from old white ladies - then I take offense. I feel pity for my friend and I hate those who persecute him.

It's very much a subjective thing, and I don't think one can say that a work is objectively racist. If Conrad were trying to convince the reader that black people are primitive, prehistoric, or barbaric, then I would agree, but he is not actively persuading, he is only relating an impression of the narrator's.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I see this novel as racist by our standards certainly, but I think it is one of those things that we must hold to its context. It is always dangerous to read the past through our 21st century eyes - though in many respects that can't be helped.

I'm not keen on the Achebe position either from what I remember, though I think his criticisms opened dialogues that perhaps needed to be opened, he doesn't take the context into position as much as he should.



As for art for art's sake, I just don't buy it. No matter how often I've read Wilde's preface to The Picture of Dorian Grey. Art has value beyond having moralizing messages, and art need not have a moralizing, improving message, but that doesn't mean that all art is without message.

I'd be interested to hear more thoughts about this if you have the time and inclination. What don't you buy exactly?

[Heteronym]

In the history of the arts, the view of art for art's sake is barely a century old. From time immemorial art has always had a social function. The sagas and epic poems kept alive a shared history, and recorded communal laws, social etiquette and traditions. In old Scandinavia a bard would recite, before a trial, the whole of the code of law, in verse, to refresh the memory of the judges. In medieval times, the guild artisans held high standards of quality for their work because it reflected upon the fame of their cities. Dryden and Milton used their poetry for propaganda - surely you've heard of "Annus Mirabilis" and "On the Late Massacre in Piedmont". Alexander Pope used his poetry for pedagogical purposes: "An Essay on Criticism", "Essay on Man".

And only a foolish reader would say that writers like José Saramago, Mikhail Bulgakov, Imre Kertész, William Golding, Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Günter Grass, Czeslaw Milosz, Naguib Mahfouz, Anatole France, Franz Kafka, Eça de Queiroz, Gustave Flaubert, Emile Zola, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Albert Cossery, Gabriel García Márquez, Voltaire, Toni Morrison, Carson McCullers, Ismail Kadare, and countless others haven't explored, above all, ethics and morality in their work. Most writers tend to live socially and politically militant lives. To say that they only write for the sake of art is a grave insult to them as people and writers. They know their social responsibility in illuminating Mankind with new ideas, new sensibilities, new ways of behaving and living and treating people.

There are many reasons not the take art for art's sake seriously. The first reason is that many great writers don't either. Dostoyevsky was a gambling addict who wrote in a frenzy, with little stylistical concern, in hope of publishing a hit to pay off debts. Little interest in style and linguistic tricks, a la Nabokov or Joyce, but a huge concern for morality. A social function lies within most writers. I'm sure there will always be a few who will read to marvel at linguistic tricks, but for the vast masses of readers, who live in a world where they struggle with ethical and moral values every day, what draws them to arts is what it can tell them about themselves as people.

[Silvia]

I second Heteronym.
I used to agree with the Art for Art's Sake motto, but then I read Booth's The Rethoric of Fiction and changed my mind.
Booth shows how hypocritical such a vision is. No matter how hard the author tries to hide himself and to be neutral/impartial/indifferent, his judgemet is still there and will reveal itself to those who look for it. Each work of literature wants to edify, be the author aware of it or not. Even those works who seem to pursue only pure beauty and intellectual qualities are somehow moral, as Booth points out talking of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man:

Compared to Dickens, for example, Joyce may appear explicitly amoral. Joyce's professed interests are beauty and truth. Conventional moral judgements are never expressed in his works, unless he does so with irony. Still, the strenght of A Portrait lies in the essentially moral quality of Stephen's discovery of his artistic vocation and in the integrity with which he pursues it. His rejection of conventional morality - the refusal of becoming priest...- is in fact interpreted as a sign of aesthetic integrity, that is to say, a superior morality... (my translation, hope it's clear enough)

[Heteronym]

Funny you mention Wayne C. Booth. He's written a book of literary criticism, The Company We Keep, which seeks to bring ethics back into the study of literature.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Art for art’s movement is not about denying the moral or the ethical implications of a work, it is merely concerned with placing these matters in their proper subservient position to that of the work’s aesthetics. It is concerned with giving the artist the ultimate freedom of expression, to create without the need to pander to other people’s opinions of what is right and what is wrong.

To deny the art for art’s movement is to deny the expression of the artist, which for me is the ultimate crime. If an artist is told what he can and cannot do because of someone else’s moral or ethical opinions then he ceases to become a real artist. To place barriers of morality upon the artist is a grave insult to the artist and to the art.

[Silvia]

To place barriers of morality upon the artist is a grave insult to the artist and to the art.
This last statement of yours I find it hard to agree with.
If the self-expression of the artist is the ultimate value, then art becomes worthless because there's no measure according to which we can judge it. The artist is free to express his ideas, no matter what they are, and no one has the right to judge them, because the supreme value is the right of self-expression which belongs to the artist more than to anyone else.
Popper once made the example of someone who thinks that the only way to express himself is to go 200Km/h with his new Ferrari on a crowded street. Has this person a right to do that?
@Hetheronym: Booth mentions that book in the second postface to The Rethoric of Fiction. Have you read it? I like him a lot. He can be very funny when referring to those critics who misinterpreted his statements...

[LitNetIsGreat]

I stand by it. I do not agree with placing limitations on the artist, the artist needs to be given freedom of expression. I did not say anything however, about nobody being allowed to judge that art, of course the art can be judged, but it shouldn't be judged on moral or ethical grounds. Instead of asking "is Conrad racist?" we should be concerned only with "is Conrad any good?" that's the point.

[billl]

Leaving aside Conrad for a second, I think it IS worth asking if a particular story written by someone is racist (actually racist, as opposed to an ironic commentary on racism or something like that). We would need to decide if such a book were appropriate for junior high reading lists, for example, or if a political candidate who recommends the book would be worth voting for.

As far as "placing barriers", of course, I don't think that it should matter whether the book (painting, etc.) were good or racist or whatever--for the most part, anyhow. Perhaps there would be some 'dangerous' art (e..g. Ferrari-driving performance art, pro-Nazi propaganda in post-war Germany, etc.).

[Heteronym]

Art for art’s movement is not about denying the moral or the ethical implications of a work, it is merely concerned with placing these matters in their proper subservient position to that of the work’s aesthetics. It is concerned with giving the artist the ultimate freedom of expression, to create without the need to pander to other people’s opinions of what is right and what is wrong.

To deny the art for art’s movement is to deny the expression of the artist, which for me is the ultimate crime. If an artist is told what he can and cannot do because of someone else’s moral or ethical opinions then he ceases to become a real artist. To place barriers of morality upon the artist is a grave insult to the artist and to the art.

Considering that more art has been produced before the art for art' sake aesthetic was conceived than after, I think you should rethink what you just wrote about freedom of expression. Dante's The Divine Comedy and John Milton's Paradise Lost 'pandered' to the moral opinions of their time.

And what do you mean about morality's proper subservient position? Who judges what's the proper place of what in a work of literature? You see, you're still thinking through art for art's sake aesthetics. If you try not to do that, you'll agree that there's no prescriptive reason to assign a specific importance to a specific aspect in a literary work. A writer is as free to give importance to morality as he is to beauty.

Bringing morality to a work of art does not mean to pander to popular morals. It means giving importance to the discussion of ethics. Because before being aesthetic creatures, men are social and therefore ethical creatures. And the search for how to act towards others certainly takes more time and importance in one's life than merely marvelling at beauty.

[ktm5124]

Leaving aside Conrad for a second, I think it IS worth asking if a particular story written by someone is racist (actually racist, as opposed to an ironic commentary on racism or something like that). We would need to decide if such a book were appropriate for junior high reading lists, for example, or if a political candidate who recommends the book would be worth voting for.

As far as "placing barriers", of course, I don't think that it should matter whether the book (painting, etc.) were good or racist or whatever--for the most part, anyhow. Perhaps there would be some 'dangerous' art (e..g. Ferrari-driving performance art, pro-Nazi propaganda in post-war Germany, etc.).

This seems terrible to me! You are suggesting that we stigmatize certain books. There is a huge difference between Conrad and Nazism. One is a hate crime, the other isn't.

Of course we shouldn't condone books that advertise hate crimes. But Conrad is no such author. There is no way we can teach students about 19th century British literature without teaching Conrad. Shakespeare, just like Conrad, is also racist at times. Should we remove Shakespeare from the reading lists?


Considering that more art has been produced before the art for art' sake aesthetic was conceived than after, I think you should rethink what you just wrote about freedom of expression. Dante's The Divine Comedy and John Milton's Paradise Lost 'pandered' to the moral opinions of their time.

And what do you mean about morality's proper subservient position? Who judges what's the proper place of what in a work of literature? You see, you're still thinking through art for art's sake aesthetics. If you try not to do that, you'll agree that there's no prescriptive reason to assign a specific importance to a specific aspect in a literary work. A writer is as free to give importance to morality as he is to beauty.

Bringing morality to a work of art does not mean to pander to popular morals. It means giving importance to the discussion of ethics. Because before being aesthetic creatures, men are social and therefore ethical creatures. And the search for how to act towards others certainly takes more time and importance in one's life than merely marvelling at beauty.

Christianity no longer motivates art as it used to. It still does, of course, but not to the same degree. Many of the past's great moralizing novels were in discourse with religion. I also find it disappointing that this discourse has been diminished, but that is beside the point.

Regardless, I disagree with your statement. First of all, art for art's sake is more than one century old. I can say that it dates back to Keats, at the very soonest, who articulated his idea of negative capability. Secondly, while the majority of world literature has engaged the question of ethics, one cannot deny that art without morals is a fashionable trend in the twentieth century onwards. It is not just Conrad. It is also Wilde, Nabokov, and far, far, more. One can look to today's television shows too to confirm it. Think of shows like Dexter, or films like those of Tarantino's. It has even infiltrated popular culture. Why do people watch Saw I, II, III, IV? Why do people read Stephen King? You can't just pull a veil over that which permeates our culture.

[Alexander III]

I have recently started reading Verlaine, and he is quickly becoming one of my favored poets. During the course of his life he would get drunk beat his wife or set her on fire, he also left her for a 17 year old boy, and he also happened to shoot that seventeen year old boy later. Now to say that who Verlaine was and his poetry, are two separate entities is balderdash, he, his life, was his poetry, that being said since the man was one hell of a sone of a ***** , does that mean his poetry should be discarded or considered inferior to other poetry based on ethical grounds ?

As for literature's role to teach ethics and morality, well thats a dangerous road, a road where art no longer is art, it becomes politics, religion, not art.

You use an example of Dante, dante is not read because of his message of morality, it is read for its artistic beauty.

Morals are for hypocrites,
Those who preach no morals are greater hypocrites than the former,
Yet at least they are trying to rid themselves of hypocrisy

[billl]

This seems terrible to me! You are suggesting that we stigmatize certain books. There is a huge difference between Conrad and Nazism. One is a hate crime, the other isn't.

Of course we shouldn't condone books that advertise hate crimes. But Conrad is no such author. There is no way we can teach students about 19th century British literature without teaching Conrad. Shakespeare, just like Conrad, is also racist at times. Should we remove Shakespeare from the reading lists?

LOL, I guessed you missed the first three words of my post. ;)

I can see where Achebe is coming from, certainly, but I think you might have a point about Conrad not intentionally wanting to spew hatred about people.

Also, do you think that it would be wrong to stigmatize a book for being racist? Do you consider a racist book a hate crime?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Considering that more art has been produced before the art for art' sake aesthetic was conceived than after, I think you should rethink what you just wrote about freedom of expression. Dante's The Divine Comedy and John Milton's Paradise Lost 'pandered' to the moral opinions of their time.

It is true that the art for art’s sake as a movement was a very brief affair (one which even Wilde himself outgrew or adapted to a large degree) however echoes of it can be found right back to the time of the ancient Greeks. It is Wilde himself who saw that aesthetics began with Plato, so the came before argument doesn’t really come into it or indeed matter at all.

There is no need to point me to artists who produced under less favourable conditions either, for that matter. I am well aware that a huge amount of art has been produced under less favourable conditions at times when freedom for the artist was limited for religious or moral reasons. The argument could even be made, I suppose, that setting the artist limitations on what they are allowed to produce focuses the mind, but I would not buy that argument to any serious degree. For me the artist should be allowed to compose, to paint, to sculpt to suit their own callings and desires. For me, the art should be left to the artist and not other bodies such as the state or church or public opinion to decide.

Anyway, are you trying to say that Paradise Lost or the Divine Comedy are not aesthetically pleasing? That those texts don't possess real beauty?


And what do you mean about morality's proper subservient position? Who judges what's the proper place of what in a work of literature? You see, you're still thinking through art for art's sake aesthetics. If you try not to do that, you'll agree that there's no prescriptive reason to assign a specific importance to a specific aspect in a literary work. A writer is as free to give importance to morality as he is to beauty.

I’m likely to see through the aesthetic position because it is the position that most closely relates to how I feel. Perhaps this is a reason why I love Wilde so much or maybe the reason that I love Wilde so much is that he lead me to see through the aesthetic position, I don’t know?

A writer certainly should be free to give importance to morality because the writer should be allowed to express whatever they want. However, for the reader, for me, I’m interested in issues of whether Conrad is racist or not yes, but I’m much more concerned with how I felt when reading it and if I thought it was any good. That’s the argument.


Bringing morality to a work of art does not mean to pander to popular morals. It means giving importance to the discussion of ethics. Because before being aesthetic creatures, men are social and therefore ethical creatures. And the search for how to act towards others certainly takes more time and importance in one's life than merely marvelling at beauty.

“Merely marvelling at beauty.” “The search for how to act towards others.”

Are you serious? Are you a reincarnated Samuel Richardson?

Art has a far higher purpose than to raise ethical questions for people to talk about on chat shows. People are free to read what they want and I’m not saying otherwise. People can read literature as a guidebook on how to live their life or to reinforce their own narrow views on the world if they want to, but please count me out of that one.


This seems terrible to me! You are suggesting that we stigmatize certain books. There is a huge difference between Conrad and Nazism. One is a hate crime, the other isn't.

Of course we shouldn't condone books that advertise hate crimes. But Conrad is no such author. There is no way we can teach students about 19th century British literature without teaching Conrad. Shakespeare, just like Conrad, is also racist at times. Should we remove Shakespeare from the reading lists?

This is what happens when morality interferes with the artist...

[billl]

It's also what happens when a post isn't read carefully.

[LitNetIsGreat]

It's also what happens when a post isn't read carefully.

Bill I wasn't criticising your post at all, I merely meant that pointless talk about morality always ends up leading to banning every book every written, at least one's that are any good anyway.

[billl]

Bill I wasn't criticising your post at all, I merely meant that pointless talk about morality always ends up leading to banning every book every written, at least one's that are any good anyway.

Thanks, Neely, I just didn't want my earlier response to that quote to get buried so quickly.
(Hope this doesn't bury your post, sorry...)

[LitNetIsGreat]

You can guarantee that someone is going to mention anti-semitism in relation to Shakespeare very shortly...

Edit: No worries Bill, I was about to add an edit on the bottom to make myself clearer about that remark but you got there before me.

Edit 2: bath time!!

[ktm5124]

It's also what happens when a post isn't read carefully.

Okay, so leaving aside Conrad, many would think that there is racism in Shakespeare. One can say that Shakespeare uses Othello's color of skin as a symbol. Therefore it's racist. Should we pull it from the reading lists then?

[billl]

Okay, so leaving aside Conrad, many would think that there is racism in Shakespeare. One can say that Shakespeare uses Othello's color of skin as a symbol. Therefore it's racist. Should we pull it from the reading lists then?

I'm strongly leaning towards "No". I haven't read or seen the play in its entirety, but my impression is that the character is portrayed in a way that seems every bit as human as Hamlet.

It seems like a play about "race", though, and I can see how some school districts or teachers with particular groups of students might find reason to be wary of it (unfortunately), if their students aren't prepared for it. Still, I think probably any class that could make it through, say, 2 or 3 other of Shakespeare's works beforehand would be ready to tackle the discussions that might come up while reading Othello.

[Heteronym]

Christianity no longer motivates art as it used to. It still does, of course, but not to the same degree. Many of the past's great moralizing novels were in discourse with religion. I also find it disappointing that this discourse has been diminished, but that is beside the point.

Mankind has only known Christianity for around 2000 years and has been a sociable, moral creature longer than. You seem to forget that religion is just an embodiment of man's need for an ethic guide to life. Morality manifests itself naturally in man's everyday life; it has nothing to do with religion. Since literature seeks to portray the human condition, it inevitably must have an ethical element.


Regardless, I disagree with your statement. First of all, art for art's sake is more than one century old. I can say that it dates back to Keats, at the very soonest, who articulated his idea of negative capability. Secondly, while the majority of world literature has engaged the question of ethics, one cannot deny that art without morals is a fashionable trend in the twentieth century onwards. It is not just Conrad. It is also Wilde, Nabokov, and far, far, more. One can look to today's television shows too to confirm it. Think of shows like Dexter, or films like those of Tarantino's. It has even infiltrated popular culture. Why do people watch Saw I, II, III, IV? Why do people read Stephen King? You can't just pull a veil over that which permeates our culture.

Conrad's work is rife with discussions about morality. Lord Jim and Under Western Eyes, for instance. Wilde's plays, like The Importance of Being Earnest, deal with moral questions like honest, truth and hypocrisy. And even a TV show like Dexter ultimately deals with remorse, guilt and conscience, by showing a serial killer trying to minimise his murder instincts by preying on criminals. Moral questions arise naturally in anything that has man's touch because man is a moral creature.


You use an example of Dante, dante is not read because of his message of morality, it is read for its artistic beauty.

Exactly. If you re-read my post, you'll see that I used Dante, and Milton, as examples of artists who can live in eras that oppress 'freedom of expression' and still remain great artists. Upholding the moral views of an era does not necessarily make an artist worse than a supposedly amoral artist.


Morals are for hypocrites,
Those who preach no morals are greater hypocrites than the former,
Yet at least they are trying to rid themselves of hypocrisy

Well, when you say that morals are for hypocrites, or better yet, when someone says that there are no morals or no need for morals, that itself is a moral judgement.

Morals are not for hypocrites. Morals are for human beings. Unless you can prove to me that you're immune to the cries of pain of a child, that you take pleasure in not helping a person run by a car, that you like to crush kittens' skulls, then I'd say that you're a moral personal. Of course you can say you're not and I'll have to take your word for it. But do you want to admit that? It's an interesting dilemma, isn't it?

[ktm5124]

So tell me, Heteronym, would you disregard authors such as Wilde and Nabokov? Would you disregard Keats's poetry?

[OrphanPip]

I'd be interested to hear more thoughts about this if you have the time and inclination. What don't you buy exactly?

I set off a bit of a storm.

However, what I meant, especially within context to the use of "art for art's sake" with Conrad, was that we have to look beyond merely the aesthetic merit of a work sometimes. Since Verlaine was mentioned later, we can take one of his poems like "Claire de Lune," which is simply a morose description of rich party goers under the moonlight, and appreciate it merely on aesthetic grounds. Likewise, we can appreciate Conrad for the quality of his writing and his influence on modernist prose. We shouldn't, however, forgive any message a work produces simply because of the quality of its delivery. I'm not ready to simply forgive racism on the basis of the aesthetic quality. This is not to say that I think HoD should be censored, merely that we should be aware of the racism in the work, and rightly condemn it.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I set off a bit of a storm.

However, what I meant, especially within context to the use of "art for art's sake" with Conrad, was that we have to look beyond merely the aesthetic merit of a work sometimes. Since Verlaine was mentioned later, we can take one of his poems like "Claire de Lune," which is simply a morose description of rich party goers under the moonlight, and appreciate it merely on aesthetic grounds. Likewise, we can appreciate Conrad for the quality of his writing and his influence on modernist prose. We shouldn't, however, forgive any message a work produces simply because of the quality of its delivery. I'm not ready to simply forgive racism on the basis of the aesthetic quality. This is not to say that I think HoD should be censored, merely that we should be aware of the racism in the work, and rightly condemn it.

Right OK, I'll let you off the hook. :santasmil

[Heteronym]

So tell me, Heteronym, would you disregard authors such as Wilde and Nabokov? Would you disregard Keats's poetry?

I never said that we should disregard anyone. I've read almost everything Oscar Wilde published.

I only argue that the importance of morality in art must be reevaluated. I do not mean to say that books should pander to popular morals, or that books should be blacklisted like in the days of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

What I maintain is that morality isn't as insignificant to the writer when he's writing as defenders of art for art's sake claim. Most literature engages in moral discussions and we must admit that they constitute a major part of the writers' purpose when writing. The moment a novel puts two characters face to face, a moral conflict erupts between them. If Flaubert isn't concerned with the moral implications of adultery, why write about it? If Conrad isn't interested in the effect of shame and guilt on behavior, why invent a figure like Lord Jim? Are we to believe that complex discussions of morality arise as mere byproducts of a pursuit of style and beauty? That they infiltrate the novel by stealth, behind the writer's back? "Oh how did that get there while I was polishing my metaphors?"

I don't reject the importance of style. I only believe that we must fight the contemporary view that style alone is the reason writers write.

[ennison]

Heart of Darkness is not racist. Achebe just couldn't read. Conrad's public attitude to the atrocious behaviour of imperialists is well documented. Reading Heart of Darkness requires alertness to the multiple narration technique and his use of irony.

[AuntShecky]

This topic was already discussed at length in two threads:

"Railing at Greatness"

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?59356-Railing-at-Greatness-Why-Critics-Educators-and-Readers-are-so-Touchy-These-Days&highlight=Railing%20Greatness

"Jungles and Deserts"
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?67685-Jungles-and-Deserts-An-Addendum-to-quot-Railing-at-Greatness-quot&p=1120188#post1120188

[ennison]

When I click on the second link I'm told it doesn't exist

[AuntShecky]

When I click on the second link I'm told it doesn't exist

That happened to me as well. I copied the link a second time and it seems to work now.
Try it again.

[kev67]

I suppose Heart of Darkness was racist in the way those old Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films were racist. In those films, the Africans were either savages or very expendable pall bearers. White characters could be baddies too, but their motives were made more understandable. When Tarzan killed off the white villains, it would usually be in the final showdown, and they would not usually be made to suffer the horrible, but ignominious executions that were inflicted on the poor pall bearers.

Still, Conrad was a 19th century ship's captain. I seem to remember reading he had sailed up an African river in a steamer. Perhaps many Africans did seem like savages to him. Their customs would seem alarming to someone with a 19th century, Christian background. They were illiterate. They believed in animism. They were often hostile to neighbouring tribe members. Their technology was relatively primitive. If Conrad had not believed Europeans were superior to Africans, that would have been an unusual view. If Conrad had attributed that belief to Marlow, that would have made him a rather unbelievable character. Marlow takes it for granted that the Africans are not equals, but considers that is because they have not been civilised by a superior culture.

[Matt Montopoli]

If Heart of Darkness is considered racist, then what should be said of all other novels that provide a critical analysis of a people or area? Conrad simply describes the treatment of the Congolese, and accepts what was being done, as was the custom in 1899, when the novel was published. If anything, the crux of the book is found in his critical analysis of Colonialism and how the white Belgians are the culprit for the Darkness in the title. Everywhere you see, he describes the Congolese as humble and pure, 'prehistoric' if one of the older posts on this thread is correct.
If someone immediately deems the novel faulty because Conrad portrayed the blacks in Africa as they were and that they were mistreated, then what the hell is the point? His aim was to present Europe with a true portrayal of Colonialism (and also the effects of lawless society and thusly the expression of every man's unconscious, but that's for another time). And just because he uses 'nigger' in the novel does not make him racist, although of course now, when we have numerous ignorant champions of equality storming the internet and there is an African-American President, that is not suitable, but back then, it was a name used by Americans and Europeans. But it is only a name.
If Conrad's real intent was to present the blacks as the wild savages all European society had pictured, and only THEN succumbed to racism, he would have, because he was a competent writer, but he didn't focus his critical eye on that. He turned on Colonialism and the whites, which raises another question: Was he racist towards whites due to how they treated the Congolese?
(And if your answer is yes, then my next question is: Really?)

[cafolini]

If Heart of Darkness is considered racist, then what should be said of all other novels that provide a critical analysis of a people or area? Conrad simply describes the treatment of the Congolese, and accepts what was being done, as was the custom in 1899, when the novel was published. If anything, the crux of the book is found in his critical analysis of Colonialism and how the white Belgians are the culprit for the Darkness in the title. Everywhere you see, he describes the Congolese as humble and pure, 'prehistoric' if one of the older posts on this thread is correct.
If someone immediately deems the novel faulty because Conrad portrayed the blacks in Africa as they were and that they were mistreated, then what the hell is the point? His aim was to present Europe with a true portrayal of Colonialism (and also the effects of lawless society and thusly the expression of every man's unconscious, but that's for another time). And just because he uses 'nigger' in the novel does not make him racist, although of course now, when we have numerous ignorant champions of equality storming the internet and there is an African-American President, that is not suitable, but back then, it was a name used by Americans and Europeans. But it is only a name.
If Conrad's real intent was to present the blacks as the wild savages all European society had pictured, and only THEN succumbed to racism, he would have, because he was a competent writer, but he didn't focus his critical eye on that. He turned on Colonialism and the whites, which raises another question: Was he racist towards whites due to how they treated the Congolese?
(And if your answer is yes, then my next question is: Really?)

A black man went to get his welfare check, and as he approached the counter, he said, "why don't you give this nigger your job. I would give you two thirds of my salary for you doing nothing. And I'd even let you call me nigger anytime."

[Drew_Dawson1]

Numerous accusations have been held at the book as racist, but personally, I feel that it may feel racist because of the time. The derogatory term "negro" and "nigger" were a common word used at the time, and held at today's standards would be racist, but this book was written when "nigger" was a common everyday word.
Another point is that the setting is at a slave camp. There is no physical way to get around the setting. Just because the setting is a slave camp does not make the book racist. At this slave camp, numerous of the leaders are cruel to the slaves, which is wrong and racist, but this was how slave camps worked.
Would you say that Uncle Tom's Cabin is racist because it involves slavery? No. Therefore, Heart Of Darkness should not be considered racist.

[KLyle]

I believe that the Heart of Darkness is not racist in that Conrad is being racist when he writes, however I believe he is depicting a viewpoint of many Europeans at the time, and telling their views of Africans. Conrad writes through Kurtz's words about how the Africans are a noble people, however Marlow still holds some views of racism and inferiority. Even in the scene where Marlow's boat is being fired upon, he talks about how childish the bows and arrows of the Africans are.

[ennison]

I wonder if it would be racist of me to describe the Highlands of Scotland in the Seventeenth century as having interesting and profound qualities as a civilisation but to have been trapped in arbitrary barbarism and brutality. No, just realistic.
I might like Wole Soyinka's tongue-in-cheek "Hurrah for those who have invented nothing" but reality tends to bite the arses of the virtue-signallers. Some cultures are clearly more advanced than others.