Thanks, Neely, I just didn't want my earlier response to that quote to get buried so quickly.Originally Posted by Neely
(Hope this doesn't bury your post, sorry...)
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...)
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!!
Last edited by LitNetIsGreat; 07-25-2010 at 05:51 PM.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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 for hypocrites,
Those who preach no morals are greater hypocrites than the former,
Yet at least they are trying to rid themselves of hypocrisy
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?
So tell me, Heteronym, would you disregard authors such as Wilde and Nabokov? Would you disregard Keats's poetry?
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.
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.
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.
This topic was already discussed at length in two threads:
"Railing at Greatness"
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ng%20Greatness
"Jungles and Deserts"
http://www.online-literature.com/for...88#post1120188
Last edited by AuntShecky; 01-08-2013 at 06:35 PM.
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.
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.
According to Aldous Huxley, D.H. Lawrence once said that Balzac was 'a gigantic dwarf', and in a sense the same is true of Dickens.
Charles Dickens, by George Orwell
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?)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote