Was Melville alluding to wars with Native Americans in Moby Dick?

[prendrelemick]

Those Nineties to One Hundred chapters are fantastic, much of what we have been discussing on here are in there.

Homo-erotism.
Paganism.
Old Testement Christianity.
Visions of Hell.
Prophesies.
symbolism.
Monomania.
Ahab's choices.
And Whaleing.

I look forwards to Pompey reaching them in his read through...

[Pompey Bum]

Finished my third read already, prend. Which haven't we discussed?

[Pompey Bum]

The crew of Pequod seems to be so unique and yet, strange, that resembles one or another of those social groups Dostoievisky could create. So, maybe, there is a matter of literary "Perdigree" also behind his reaction to Rousseau. I am sure Melville fits in the dialogism model too, always taking past literature, voices and using them in oposite sites to express himself, It would not be stranger to think the most american novelist was also the most russian.

I'm a little skeptical about recreated literary pedegrees, but I'm sure Melville considered and responded to the ideas of his times (and obviously earlier ones). And perhaps he ended up being the "most Russian" of American writers. Ishmael is the sort of guy who could easily have lived beneath Raskolnikov, and a more nihilistic version of Ahab (say, someone just as obsessed) would have been right at home in The Possessed. And Melville was at least demonstrating the limits of the Augustinian theory of fate, although I don't think he had quite worked things out as far as Tolstoy did.

His first concern is probally what we do to be Christians/Deal with God, but that probally God is one thing (albeit in many forms), and Fate is God's will, therefore cannot be changed. So, I would say, no limited choice, but this does not go against Will, because what matters is how their perform. Somehow, Ahab and Ishmael fate is almost the same until the last two pages anyways...

I doubt Melville rejected the limited choice model of fate. If he did, that elaborate explanation of the loom and its symbolism must be entirely ironic. It could have been I suppose; I mean, Melville could have been saying, I used to think I had at least some say in what happened to me, but once I got in among those whales I understood it was all preordained. But I don't think so. The dangers of the voyage--even Ishmael's ultimate survival--seem more like the luck of the dice than God's will. And the stories of Father Mapple and Captain Boomer demonstrate that it is Ahab's choice (unaligned with God's will) that determines his destiny. I just think Melville is saying that there are limits to that kind of fate. Sometimes it's all chance and necessity. so limited choice governs Ahab's fate, but blind luck or God's inscrutable will governs Ishmael's. That's where I am with it at the moment.

[prendrelemick]

Finished my third read already, prend. Which haven't we discussed?

Well not much really, but my reread has faltered and I just keep going over and over that section -it's terrific stuff. In particular Ishmael's Dantesque vision of Hell in "The Try Works" where he falls asleep and turns his back on it. Then there is "The Doubloon" where various characters try and read the meaning of the image stamped on the gold coin and reveal traits of themselves and ends with Pip's unheard prophesy of doom. Plus the captain Boomer episode and the homo erotic sperm squeezing where the guys get oiled up.

[Pompey Bum]

Plus the captain Boomer episode and the homo erotic sperm squeezing where the guys get oiled up.

Heh. Stubb (my favorite character by far) also has some pretty funny banter with the men in his boat along those lines ("Pull! Pull I say! Don't ye want sperm?"--that sort of thing). I was thinking it's probably made for some good laughs in freshman women's dormitory or two.

There is also an utterly bizarre (and gross) scene in which Tashtego falls into a giant severed sperm whale head and is drowning in the spermaceti until Queequeg cuts gash in its side and delivers him like a child. You just can't make this stuff up.

[JCamilo]

I'm a little skeptical about recreated literary pedegrees, but I'm sure Melville considered and responded to the ideas of his times (and obviously earlier ones). And perhaps he ended up being the "most Russian" of American writers. Ishmael is the sort of guy who could easily have lived beneath Raskolnikov, and a more nihilistic version of Ahab (say, someone just as obsessed) would have been right at home in The Possessed. And Melville was at least demonstrating the limits of the Augustinian theory of fate, although I don't think he had quite worked things out as far as Tolstoy did.

I am being facetious with the most russian, but since Melville was overlooked by the american critics until XX century (even the early revision was about his merits as enterteiment novelist), his influence and status didnt went at the level of the Russians for the development of the modern novel. I think something similar happens with Emily Bronte and Wuthering Heights, also a novel with psychological shades of gray, some opening and unsetting realism. (Emily shadowed by the early feminism, Charlotte, and we well, a bit of the flaws of youth age, not her fault). It would be Natural if we said , for example, Melville to be a model of Conrad, but the truth it is less than real.

I doubt Melville rejected the limited choice model of fate. If he did, that elaborate explanation of the loom and its symbolism must be entirely ironic. It could have been I suppose; I mean, Melville could have been saying, I used to think I had at least some say in what happened to me, but once I got in among those whales I understood it was all preordained. But I don't think so. The dangers of the voyage--even Ishmael's ultimate survival--seem more like the luck of the dice than God's will. And the stories of Father Mapple and Captain Boomer demonstrate that it is Ahab's choice (unaligned with God's will) that determines his destiny. I just think Melville is saying that there are limits to that kind of fate. Sometimes it's all chance and necessity. so limited choice governs Ahab's fate, but blind luck or God's inscrutable will governs Ishmael's. That's where I am with it at the moment.

What Mallarmé would tell you? A throw of dice will never abolish chance.

I think, Melvile works in two levels of perspective (I think he is good at irony too), one is about individual choices and other is about fate. At some point, he wants to show individuals choosing their actions and suffering the consequences for it. At other, he seems to imply the consequences of their actions is part of design none can avoid. Freedom does not seem to be exactly a think so important to him, i guess because of that. (Not saying he was against freedom, but not something he was so elaborate as diversity).

In the end, I think to Melville there is the a Great Scheme and a small scheme. We can perceive the small, sometimes a glimpse of the big and that is important to him.

[Pompey Bum]

I am being facetious with the most russian, but since Melville was overlooked by the american critics until XX century (even the early revision was about his merits as enterteiment novelist), his influence and status didnt went at the level of the Russians for the development of the modern novel.

So the most American of 19th century authors was coincidentally the most Russian? That I can probably buy.

It would be Natural if we said , for example, Melville to be a model of Conrad, but the truth it is less than real.

Right. It is a beguiling falsehood. In fact, during my recent reread, I was struck with how unlike Conrad Melville's "brotherhood of the sea" was. In a Conrad novel the Europeans would have stuck together to the exclusion of others, and they would be trying to dominate one another like animals. Ahab is a little like a Conrad character when he concerns himself with keeping the mates under his thumb, especially when he uses his raw egotism to try to control Starbuck's (essentially weaker) conventional morality (and Starbuck does briefly consider killing Ahab). But Starbuck and Ahab do not hate each other and even cry together one time. In a certain way, Stubb is more of a Conrad character, but only because he is willing to embrace the world he finds it, "Live in the game, and die in it!" he tells Starbuck; but Stubb responds to all aspects of life--moral or immoral--with joviality. Sometimes he reminds me of Zorba the Greek. Who is jolly in a Conrad novel?

So given a choice between Russian coincidences and Conrad coincidences, I'll take the Russian.

I think, Melvile works in two levels of perspective (I think he is good at irony too), one is about individual choices and other is about fate. At some point, he wants to show individuals choosing their actions and suffering the consequences for it. At other, he seems to imply the consequences of their actions is part of design none can avoid. Freedom does not seem to be exactly a think so important to him, i guess because of that. (Not saying he was against freedom, but not something he was so elaborate as diversity).

In the end, I think to Melville there is the a Great Scheme and a small scheme. We can perceive the small, sometimes a glimpse of the big and that is important to him.

I'll have to give Melville's ideas about freedom some thought. But for the rest, I couldn't agree with you more. The trouble is that the grand scheme and the small scheme are twisted tightly together (even though they are separate modes) and Melville's irony makes it difficult to decide what he really believes. Ahab chides Starbuck for his belief in omens while accepting Fedallah's prophecies as blindly as Macbeth. Then he chooses to fight Moby-Dick while proclaiming that all is preordained. But okay, okay, choice and fate. I can see that much. Maybe someday I will see how he actually thinks it works in the story. I doubt I'll read this book again for another 10 years or so. Maybe I'll get it then.

[JCamilo]

So the most American of 19th century authors was coincidentally the most Russian? That I can probably buy.

In a way, it is something not flattering to the russians and Melville. It seems like "Fate". After the french, someone had to put together all those minor novels, the wannabe epic, the burgouise family story, the gothic, the social critic novel, the farse/adventure novels, etc and try to put them together in a new form. Dostoievisky, Melville, Tolstoy had to do it, either they could or not. Luck for them they could.

Right. It is a beguiling falsehood. In fact, during my recent reread, I was struck with how unlike Conrad Melville's "brotherhood of the sea" was. In a Conrad novel the Europeans would have stuck together to the exclusion of others, and they would be trying to dominate one another like animals. Ahab is a little like a Conrad character when he concerns himself with keeping the mates under his thumb, especially when he uses his raw egotism/ force of personality to control Starbuck's (essentially weaker) conventional morality; and Starbuck briefly considers killing Ahab. But Starbuck and Ahab do not hate each other and even cry together on once. In a certain way, Stubb is more of a Conrad character, but only because he is willing to embrace the world he finds it, "Live in the game, and die in it!" he tells Starbuck; but Stubb responds to all aspects of life--moral or immoral--with joviality. Sometimes he reminds me of Zorba the Greek. Who is jolly in a Conrad novel?

Yeah, Conrad is too european and a XX century man. The omens that Melville suggests are already reality for him. But both had a talent to use the perspective of the narrator to make suggestions and leave plenty of doubts without having to use the internal monologue, you know. How they set the mood and it is not just to fill the page, but pure manipulation, a way to guide the reader feelings. Ahab and Cpt.Kurtz have more similarities that differences I think. Both have some critical view on civilization or progress, so naturally they share some lineage from where they draw their characters. Of course, to Conrad Melville doubts about God are totally gone, but such is XX century.


Obviously, just like seemed natural the coming of the novels such as Moby Dick in XIX century that we would have novelists in XX century that took advantage of those new waters.

I'll have to give Melville's ideas about freedom some thought. But for the rest, I couldn't agree with you more. The trouble is that the grand scheme and the small scheme are twisted tightly together (even though they are separate modes) and Melville's irony can make it difficult to decide what he really believes. Ahab chides Starbuck for his belief in omens while accepting Fedallah's prophecies as blindly as Macbeth. But okay, okay, choice and fate. I can see that much. Maybe someday I will see how he actually thinks it works in the story. I doubt I'll read this book again for another 10 years or so. Maybe I'll get it then.

It is less about what he thought of Freedom (specially considering he lived during the Civil War, so eventually, you had to think about it), more like it is something not that important to him. He have characers who want or fight for freedom, but it is like you have characters who hunt whales. Just a surface of another story. As Fedallah, I always thought it was an obvious shakespearean touch by Melville. Anyways, what you say about twisting together the two schemes, yeah, it is pretty much what he loves to do. If you have oportunity to read Benito Cereno, you will see how he does it in the begining of the book. He uses the descriptions of the initial meeting between the two ships, to mix those omens from the great scheme and the considerations of the narrator, for the small scheme in such subtle way, that you think it is just a writer still unsure of how to give start to the story. Sadly, only after you finish the book, you are aware of his technique, as you discover what happened (or not sadly, who said you have to be aware anyways). There is echoes of Heart of Darkness, the calm description of the Thames in the frame story, that some way, bring shadows of the story in Congo, but since you do not like Conrad that much, I will leave it here. You should, jsut as you are not going to hunt whales again so soon, give other Melville's books a chance. Do not make him a one white whale writer

[Pompey Bum]

Ahab and Cpt.Kurtz have more similarities that differences I think. Both have some critical view on civilization or progress, so naturally they share some lineage from where they draw their characters.

Yes, good point about Kurtz. Was thinking more of a Conrad novel called Victory, in which white expatriates form a loose society that is ultimately governed by brute domination of one another. Some will do favors for other whites, but all (except the protagonist) accept the predatory nature of the world as a given. I can see Stubb thriving in that world. He would be one of those who would go out of his way to do a favor for someone, but confronted with an Ahab, a Kurtz, or even a Fedallah (who he thinks is the devil), his reaction is going to be: Yeah, that's just the way it is. Live in the game. But Conrad's vision is much bleaker. His atheism means people are just another kind of predatory beast. We have become the sharks.

If you have oportunity to read Benito Cereno, you will see how he does it in the begining of the book. He uses the descriptions of the initial meeting between the two ships, to mix those omens from the great scheme and the considerations of the narrator, for the small scheme in such subtle way, that you think it is just a writer still unsure of how to give start to the story. Sadly, only after you finish the book, you are aware of his technique, as you discover what happened (or not sadly, who said you have to be aware anyways). There is echoes of Heart of Darkness, the calm description of the Thames in the frame story, that some way, bring shadows of the story in Congo, but since you do not like Conrad that much, I will leave it here. You should, jsut as you are not going to hunt whales again so soon, give other Melville's books a chance. Do not make him a one white whale writer

My father likes Melville and also recommended Benito Cereno. I'm sure I'll read it, but it has to get in line. I don't dislike Conrad, by the way. I found Heart of Darkness a little over-rated, but Victory was powerful and moving. Nostromo and Lord Jim are in line, too, but I think I'm ready to come home from sea for now.

[JCamilo]

I have read Victory this year. And yeah, he is another side of spectrum. Bur I find Heart of Dakrness admirable. Truth to be told, until this thread I didnt link Heart of Darkness with Moby Dick and they have such similarity. I am starting to think people read Melville in secret

i really suggest Benio Cereno, Bartleby and Benito Cereno. The rest is irregular, but it is interesting. He was a very rich writer, very human also.

[Pompey Bum]

I have read Victory this year. And yeah, he is another side of spectrum. Bur I find Heart of Dakrness admirable. Truth to be told, until this thread I didnt link Heart of Darkness with Moby Dick and they have such similarity. I am starting to think people read Melville in secret

I was recovering from a fractured neck when I read The Heart of Darkness. My doctor was giving me these nasty painkillers that kept me from concentrating on books, so I had to switch to novellas. In other words, although I have read The Heat of Darkness (I say this as a middle-aged man who doesn't do street drugs), I was pretty stoned at the time. I should probably give it another chance.

Here is my old post on Victory if you are interested. I had just joined LitNet when I wrote it so bear with me if I said anything stupid.

I read Victory and enjoyed it despite some flaws. Conrad is an interesting case. While his works continue to be critically well regarded, I know many 21st century readers who disdain them. His works do contain crude racial caricatures with a general belief in European superiority and racial solidarity. They are relentlessly pessimistic and seem to preclude even the possibility of redemption--secular or otherwise--from what people naturally are. None of these things seem to sit well with "Millennial" readers and some of course should not.

Conrad is also disturbing. He understands how bullying works. He believes that beneath the veneer most human intercourse is a dominance and submission game. Those who try to cut a separate peace though intellectual or spiritual detachment, he believes, have lost "the readiness of mind and the turn of the hand that come without reflection." In such a world, "Thinking is the great enemy of perfection. The habit of profound reflection...is the most pernicious of all the habits formed by the civilized man." It also leaves one vulnerable to destruction (almost inevitable) by the less reflective. Why look into the blinding sun of such pessimism when it is easier (and more fun) simply to dismiss Conrad for his racism and jingoism?

I like Victory (which, in a Conrad novel, means I find Victory especially disturbing) because it deals with the supposed futility of building personal enclaves against Unreflective Readiness--red of beak and claw. I hasten to add that I do not agree with Conrad; but I like to hear what he has to say. In my view it is best to understand a dangerous position, especially if one opposes it. (And many, of course, don't oppose it).

Note: There are no big spoilers in what follows, but if you don't want to know the plot of Victory--without giving away the ending--you should stop reading now.

Much of Victory is set on a (psychologically allegorical) island near Indonesia, where a European former merchant named Axel now lives in relative isolation. He had first gone there on a business scheme with an oil company; when that failed, he preferred to stay on amidst the industrial junk piles rather than rejoin the community of his fellow merchants. Most of them find him a bit odd, but visit him occasionally, and do not especially judge him for his isolation. Axel's decision to remain apart from them is largely informed by his personal philosophy that human beings are fundamentally evil and that watchful separatism is a moral imperative.

On a brief trip from his island, however, Axel falls foul of one of the less savory members of the expatriate community, a violent lout called Schomberg (a minor but repeating character in some of Conrad's other stories). Schomberg has opened a cheap hotel and bar where he connives with the proprietors of a shady "female orchestra" to provide music for his guests. The band members--young women who were led overseas in the naive belief that they would be playing with a professional orchestra--are now being coerced under the threat of violence to mix among the clientele (and presumably arrange professional liaisons) during their breaks.

Axel, who is staying at Schomberg's hotel, comes to the defense of a woman named Lena, who refuses to play the whore, and is later sexually assaulted by Schomberg. Axel spirits Lena away to his island, where the two eventually become lovers. But Axel's involvement in the world he was supposed to have left has consequences: he becomes subject to a number of revenge schemes of the humiliated Schomberg. The worst of these involves a gang of three sadistic killers who reduce Schomberg's clip joint to a wholly owned subsidiary and make him their virtual slave. Desperate to rid himself of the predators--and hoping to kill two birds with one stone--Schomberg entices them to the island with the lie that Axel is hiding a fortune there. This sets the stage for a final confrontation between the unreflective readiness of the killers and the moral isolation of Axel, who has been unable to separate himself from the world without his love for Lena and the responsibilities it entails.

Thereafter Victory becomes something of an action thriller, exciting enough, though somewhat impaired by an oddly rushed ending--a little like an early movie in which the producers discover was they are about to run out of film.

As I said, I enjoyed Victory without agreeing with many of Conrad's ideas. His style reminded me a bit of Ford Madox Ford in some of its modernist elements. The final scene, for example, is told second hand, something that Ford, a one-time mentor of Conrad's (despite, oddly enough, being the younger man) would have appreciated. Victory reminded me even more of Graham Greene (who claimed to have been influenced by both Conrad and Ford), although in truth it lacked Greene's charm. If Axel had had even a fraction of a Greene anti-hero's flawed humanity, Victory would have been a much better book. In some ways, it seems too allegorical to be quite real.

But in the end Conrad is Conrad. There are many good reasons for not liking him, but for me, disagreeing with his ideas about the human potential for redemption is not one of them. I recommend Victory to any who dare to sail his seas.

Anyway, I'm glad you feel you got something new out of the Moby-Dick thread. I learned a lot, too. One last shot at the last scene: maybe it has more to do with the ship that picks Ishmael up than the "grand scheme" detail that he happened to survive. The Rachel was the ship Ahab refused to help when her captain begged for aid finding his missing-in-action son. Ahab did this with calculated selfishness, saying he would try to forgive himself. obviously did not treat the captain or his son as he would have wanted to be treated. Perhaps this was the sign of Ahab's final abandonment of Christ, which is followed by his utter destruction. In that context, the Rachel's captain's exemplary compassion in coming to the aid of the ship that had abandoned his son to death may be meant as a final contrast with the damned Ahab.

i really suggest Benio Cereno, Bartleby and Benito Cereno. The rest is irregular, but it is interesting. He was a very rich writer, very human also.

I'll add them to my ebooks, but I may not get to them for a while. I'm rereading Crime and Punishment now, and I'll probably try some more Conrad soon. I also read A Christmas Carol every December, and that will be here before we know it. So many books.

[JCamilo]

I was recovering from a fractured neck when I read The Heart of Darkness. My doctor was giving me these nasty painkillers that kept me from concentrating on books, so I had to switch to novellas. In other words, although I have read The Heat of Darkness (I say this as a middle-aged man who doesn't do street drugs), I was pretty stoned at the time. I should probably give it another chance.

Yeah, seems like you got prepared for Apocalypse Now and not Heart of Darkness.

Here is my old post on Victory if you are interested. I had just joined LitNet when I wrote it so bear with me if I said anything stupid.

Just one thing I often consider. Conrad is not an advocate of european superiority, rather an advocate of Civilization (which, sure, can be a lot of like do like england do on his time, but there is a slighty difference), because I think Conrad point is that european is "weak" and failed. I think he oftens reduces humans to "animals", because he is almost saying "this is hell, where we live". Specially in books like Heart of Darkness or Victory, those books with a clear conflict, no human model. We say we will find Ahab there, but will be an Ahab after the end of Moby Dick.

Anyway, I'm glad you feel you got something new out of the Moby-Dick thread. I learned a lot, too. One last shot at the last scene: maybe it has more to do with the ship that picks Ishmael up than the "grand scheme" detail that he happened to survive. The Rachel was the ship Ahab refused to help when her captain begged for aid finding his missing-in-action son. Ahab did this with calculated selfishness, saying he would try to forgive himself. obviously did not treat the captain or his son as he would have wanted to be treated. Perhaps this was the sign of Ahab's final abandonment of Christ, which is followed by his utter destruction. In that context, the Rachel's captain's exemplary compassion in coming to the aid of the ship that had abandoned his son to death may be meant as a final contrast with the damned Ahab.

Why Christ? Isnt Ishmael clearly a survivor that is rescued in the wilderness too? But yeah, should work as the whole plan of God, not exactly on the whale, but in the whole picture, as Rachel is somehow the mother of the god's tribe and Ishmael is rescued to her.

[Pompey Bum]

Yeah, seems like you got prepared for Apocalypse Now and not Heart of Darkness.

HA HA. I liked the novella better than the movie, though. It just didn't seem to be saying anything I didn't already know. And I wasn't sure about the scene at the end where Marlow lies about Kurtz's last words. Was that meant to be a comment on civilization? That it is essentially a pretty lie? How then could it have any power against "the horror"?

Just one thing I often consider. Conrad is not an advocate of european superiority, rather an advocate of Civilization (which, sure, can be a lot of like do like england do on his time, but there is a slighty difference), because I think Conrad point is that european is "weak" and failed.

I agree, but he also succumbs to the dumb-*ss racist pseudoscience of the day: phrenological and morphological typeology, racial memory, etc. Your point about a weak and failed Europe is interesting, though. The barely human alligator hunter in Victory works with a cruel, effete, and probably homosexual (female hating in any case) European who is an even scarier crook than he is. Although Jones (the European) is the boss and brains of the outfit, there is no moral superiority. Both are monsters.

I think he oftens reduces humans to "animals", because he is almost saying "this is hell, where we live". Specially in books like Heart of Darkness or Victory, those books with a clear conflict, no human model. We say we will find Ahab there, but will be an Ahab after the end of Moby Dick.

Yes, that's what he's saying. Civilization may or may not be the cure in Heart of Darkness, but in Victory hell is there is no place to hide. No man is an island, not because he owes his company to his fellow man, but because his fellow man is bound to come for his life sooner or later. Ultimately Conrad's atheism means that hell is all there is.

Why Christ? Isnt Ishmael clearly a survivor that is rescued in the wilderness too? But yeah, should work as the whole plan of God, not exactly on the whale, but in the whole picture, as Rachel is somehow the mother of the god's tribe and Ishmael is rescued to her.

Because "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" along with a father forgiving those who abandoned his son to death are an epitome of the Christian faith. So perhaps Ahab's small scheme story ends with his final renunciation of Christ's message in contrast to the captain of the Rachel. Maybe Ishmael is just a means of showing that.

[JCamilo]

HA HA. I liked the novella better than the movie, though. It just didn't seem to be saying anything I didn't already know. And I wasn't sure about the scene at the end where Marlowe lies about Kurtz's last words. Was that meant to be a comment on civilization? That it is essentially a pretty lie? How then could it have any power against "the horror"?

Well,I like the movie a lot, many aspects of what we should find in a movie, but there is something I like is how it captures the book spirit while changing quite a lot. I think Copolla was a very good reader for the book, if someone asks why this books persists, it is because of this essence Copolla noticed. I dunno if it is a lie, maybe we arent prepared for it (humans). I always think, that despite their capacity to work with ideas, novelists good as Conrad or Melville are great when they show not this idea, but the man affected by the idea. That is why someone like Henry James seems so precise and yet dull, he often show us his ideas ahead of the characters.

I agree, but he also succumbs to the dumb-*ss racist pseudoscience of the day: phrenological and morphological typeology, racial memory, etc. Your point about a weak and failed Europe is interesting, though. The barely human alligator hunter in Victory works with a cruel, effete, and probably homosexual (female hating in any case) European who is an even scarier crook than he is. Although Jones (the European) is the boss and brains of the outfit, there is no moral superiority. Both are monsters.

And Kurtz is clearly a fallen angel. A great man corrupted to the soul and I think Conrad meant to imply he was corrupted by africans or Congo, rather by his burden. But yes, Conrad is a man of his time. I can easily see how Chinua Achebe targeted so well a classicist. Conrad darkness only make it worst, because he seems like that kind of writer without compromisse. If he feels that something will be better fit for his book, he will go for it. However, Conrad seems to me one of those writers, while biased towards the metropolis, had a world's experience and is able to turn the board, because he does not feel as true the whole superiority story. He is not philosophical enough to discern what is wrong, to correct his mind and language, but his interest on humanity is genuine. A bit like Kipling (of course, there is something interesting about them not being exactly what would be a pure european, so it adds some perspective).

Yes, that's what he's saying. Civilization may or may not be the cure in Heart of Darkness, but in Victory hell is there is no place to hide. No man is an island, not because he owes his company to his fellow man, but because his fellow man is bound to come for his life sooner or later. Ultimately Conrad's atheism means that hell is all there is.

One of the worst points of Heart of Darkness (and how I think it is so well directed at europeans) is how there is not attempt to cure. Marlowe is not even well informed to make such attempt and he is one of the few characters with genuine good intentions, but even he lies to preserve a false image, but the only attempt to preserve something human or decent about Kurtz. No redemption, nothing.

Because "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" along with a father forgiving those who abandoned his son to death are an epitome of the Christian faith. So perhaps Ahab's small scheme story ends with his final renunciation of Christ's message in contrast to the captain of the Rachel. Maybe Ishmael is just a means of showing that.

Well, since i proposed that Ahab and pequod move away from Christ (and hence the whale is not christ), this rescue (which is another movement from Christ from Ahab) could mean Ishmael return. Albert I will point out, even if hebrew philosophy was not so forgiving as this one, the whole meaning of Ishmael and his rescue, plus a father able to forgive those who banished his son are part of OT (like in joseph story). But this idea is more simple to me, The path to hell is filled with good intentions, which meant they were abadoned. The path to hell is a path that leads away from Christ because he is the good (or the pure good) side of God. So, abandoning Rachel may work as this.

Maybe you are doing like Ishmael. He spend a good time trying to find God or maybe Jesus and starts to link them with any signal

[Pompey Bum]

Well,I like the movie a lot, many aspects of what we should find in a movie, but there is something I like is how it captures the book spirit while changing quite a lot. I think Copolla was a very good reader for the book, if someone asks why this books persists, it is because of this essence Copolla noticed.

The movie wasn't bad, but I was disappointed by Kurtz when he finally turned up. I found Dennis Hopper's character more interesting. I liked that character in the novella, too, although Coppolla
and Hopper didn't follow him very closely. In the film, he was sort of an overawed hippie dropout--dangerous but not too bright. I remember the Conrad character (the Russian) as being smarter and less predictable. He'd help you out, but then again he might kill you. He was more of a free agent. And he didn't get how incongruous he was--this weird loner out in the woods.

I dunno if it is a lie, maybe we arent prepared for it (humans).

One of the worst points of Heart of Darkness (and how I think it is so well directed at europeans) is how there is not attempt to cure. Marlowe is not even well informed to make such attempt and he is one of the few characters with genuine good intentions, but even he lies to preserve a false image, but the only attempt to preserve something human or decent about Kurtz. No redemption, nothing.

And Kurtz is clearly a fallen angel. A great man corrupted to the soul and I think Conrad meant to imply he was corrupted by africans or Congo, rather by his burden.

See, this is why the ambiguity of Marlow's lie is so frustrating. Maybe the point is that after his recent experience in the primal darkness, he clings to the redemptive force of civilization enough to care about a lady's feelings. That would fit in with the opening Turneresque image of light emanating from the Thames estuary and illuminating the darkness. Now he returns to the light and the hope it affords a dark world. Maybe. That interpretation works best if you see Kurtz as corrupted--as a fallen angel as you say.

But maybe there is nothing corrupted about Kurtz. Maybe Kurtz is just what human beings are without the pretty lie of civilization. Maybe his atrocities are the real human norm, and his illness is just his Europeaness: the part of him that cries, "The horror! The horror!" If that is the case, then perhaps Marlowe was not entirely lying after all. If "The horror! The horror!" expressed a revulsion at the darkness and a longing for the light, then calling for his fiancee may have expressed a similar yearning. He wanted the light of their promised life together (in civilization). But if so, the dying Kurtz was only grasping at illusion. That is because Europeans are as animalistic as anyone else.

Your interpretation seems to hold elements of both these arguments, but I don't see them as being very easily harmonized.