³I felt an intolerable weight oppressing my breast, the smell of the damp earth, the unseen
As readers we face the inevitable challenge of tackling the questions many do not want to
spend time answering. It can be such a frustrating paradox when the most intriguing questions
also hold the most subjectivity. It is a difficult task to pick apart a seemingly simple question for
eternity while never really knowing if your answers hold any validity and then always be
confronted with a thousand counter arguments. This task can often be so tedious and tormenting
that giving up becomes very desirable but the true survivors are the critics that stay strong and
work towards the impossible. Joseph Conrad¶s short fictional story
has
become the epitome of a well planned out experiment for these critics. It was written more than
100 years ago and new arguments are continuously being made every day. With so many grey
areas, the short novel is begging for a little relief, something many can at least nod their head to
become a somewhat accepted claim over many different genres of criticism. The concept of
oneself comparing itself to the other figure becomes a beginning point for this evil, this darkness.
Many critics are trying to see a universal point in that Conrad was trying to assess the darkness
as not desirable and make it represent all things evil and mysterious. The irony of this claim
would be the darkness of the natives skin, if Conrad was a racist this would align with this idea,
if he was not it might serve as a point to see their darkness giving the white man a catalyst to
become evil. In this discussion we will proceed with the latter of the two explanations. With all
c c cccEvans
this talk of evil one might be questioning who in the novel is this representing? Is it Marlow,
Kurtz, the natives, the Europeans, Conrad, all of them, none of them? Are they all? Are their
different degrees of it? Who essentially succumbs to this form of the darkness? Whose heart is
darkest? These are all important questions in which the answers will become clearer with a
deeper analysis. To posses the authority to declare who is what, one must deeply understand the
concept of evil. To get a more rounded approach it is beneficial to look outside of
into both other novels, critiques and historic events. Only then does one have the
ability to see how these ideas can connect many others in Conrad¶s work.
As humans we possess the ability to navigate our own destiny, we choose our actions, our
speech, we often have the power of free choice. We all possess the power to do marvelous acts of
kindness but we also have the choice to do terrible ungodly awful things. This freedom we
possess gives us the ultimate power to shape what we do in life. When this power has been
stripped away, when humans band together to oppress, dehumanize and take away another¶s
ability to choose, pure evil is manifested by selfish humans and their power hungry need to
´ critic Jennifer Lipka discusses how these situations (Imperialism, Slavery,
genocide, etc) can reveal a human¶s most unflattering attributes. The shaping of the masterminds
of these evil plans and their mindless followers seems to come from a combination of our
³Real horrors do fill the pages of Heart of Darkness, be they heads on stakes or the grove
of death. Yet the message of the work is that the real horror has been internalized and lies
within the heart, the heart of darkness. Marlow himself makes a distinction between the
c c cccEvans
outside threat of danger and terror to the most extreme terror, which is the product of the
At points Marlow tends to blend together the real and the unreal (hence why it can seem
dreamlike at points). He says ³For a time I would feel I belonged still to a world of
straightforward facts; but the feeling would not last long´ (Conrad 78). This could be a coping
mechanism to downplay the horrific things he is experiencing. It seems to work at first but as the
novel goes on Marlow begins to realize the truth of his surroundings, and even more horrifying
the reality that he is silently watching. Why doesn¶t he help? He could be worried about losing
his job (but his quest for an occupation isn¶t the reason why he wanted to go to Africa in the first
place), or is afraid he will be punished for trying to help. It is easy to criticize Marlow for saying
so much against imperialism because he doesn¶t take much action against it, but really when
thinking about it, how many people would? In an attempt to explain Marlow¶s actions, or rather
lack of actions it is necessary to look at it from a psychological point of view. Lipka uses
Freudian Julia Kristeva knowledge to better understand this. Kristeva makes an intelligent point
The abject resembles the sublime with its ability to carry one away, making one lose
control (or, as Marlow or Conrad might say, restraint) over one's self. However, the real
horror of the abject is that it makes known that there is a certain truth, a certain reality,
that if acknowledged by a person will annihilate them (Kristeva 250) (Lipka 33).
ignoring the cries of the helpless? Going back to the theory of evil in all humans, every person
has the makings to act selfishly and brutally unkind. If there weren¶t social institutions like
c c cccEvans
morality and concepts of what being civilized entails would most humans act barbaric like
Kurtz? Or would many sit by the wayside as Marlow does? If love and goodness were the
inherent qualities social institutions would cease to be needed, but we do need them because
people are not born with morality. Some would argue that we are not born with evil intentions.
Instead they could insist that we are only acting upon Darwin¶s theory of survival of the fittest,
but it is this exactly which causes one group to oppress and dehumanize another thus forming
evil doings. Seeing others as different and as competition breeds hatred and leads to the need for
control. To fulfill this need one seeks to be a master of puppets, able to brainwash and be in
complete control of others. The concept of the I and the other goes hand in hand with survival of
the fittest, they intertwine to create vicious humans such as Kurtz. Conrad writes ³All of Europe
contributed to the making of Kurtz´ (123). At the time of the fight for Africa European
imperialism was reaching its peak. The effects of imperialism influenced Europeans to
momentarily shed their morality in lieu of the ultimate battle for territory and resources. This
fight is what brought about the evil and dehumanizing actions from the Europeans.
It is hardly hidden that Kurtz represents the actions and behaviors of one who succumbs
in full to the influence of imperialism. He is manipulated by his internal urge to control and the
external influence to work for his country. In her article
notion a step further by comparing Kurtz to the ultimate evil; the devil. Kurtz could represent
The association of the whites in Africa with devils becomes clearer and clearer as we
delve more deeply into the text. The Belgian Congo, on one level, is certainly meant to be
hell« and Kurtz, like Dante's Lucifer, is found at the very center of the darkness. Kurtz
c c cccEvans
resembles the Lucifer of the Bible, who fell through pride (though even after his fall he
remained fatally attractive), and this pride, the pride that demands worship and feeds off
the abuse of others, leads not just to the fall, but eventually to the Apocalypse. Conrad's
message to the European colonizers in this book is thus very, very strong (4).
Kurtz not only represents evil but he also shows the process of how evil can corrupt others into
manipulation. The reader can already tell that Kurtz is experienced at subjecting his influence
upon the natives. This is shown through many depictions in the book. Kurtz is described to have
³The power to charm or frighten rudimentary souls into an aggravated witch-dance in his honor´
(Conrad 60). He can easily control the natives by threats and brutality. Trench-Bonett calls this
quotation an act of Kurtz making himself be worshipped (3). However when Marlow arrives he
is the true test because he is seen as only slightly inferior to Kurtz. When he is willing to stay
silent and passive he lets Kurtz/ Europe/Imperialism win. Marlow can be seen as both a foil and
she takes the position of seeing Marlow as an opposite. She explains her theory by
stating
Both men are subjected to a moral test; by means of their re-action the
resemblance and the basic difference between them are made clear. Forced by the
wilderness to recognition of his kinship with primitive man, and granted the
opportunity to gratify his primitive lusts to their absolute full, Kurtz succumbs
completely forced to the same recognition, "what thrilled you was just the thought
of their humanity-like yours-the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and
passionate uproar," and granted some-thing of the same opportunity, Marlow does
c c cccEvans
precisely the opposite, does not succumb, does not "go ashore for a dance and a
Instead of Marlow, Ridley uses The Helmsman as a foil for Kurtz. She compares them by saying
both lived without restraint and both realized ³The Horror!´ in their final moments of life
(Ridley 47). Ridley chooses to see Marlow¶s innocence rather than convict him. We have
reached the point where it is the ideal time to discuss the quote that is used in the title. The full
quote is
I turned to the wilderness really, not to Mr. Kurtz, who, I was ready to admit, was as
good as buried. And for a moment it seemed to me as if I also was buried in a vast grave
full of unspeakable secrets. I felt an intolerable weight oppressing my breast, the smell of
the damp earth, the unseen presence of victorious corruption, the darkness of an
Marlow sees himself slowly going down the way of Kurtz; his inevitable doom if he fully gives
in to the corruption. Ridley gives Marlow more credit than most. She assumes that Marlow still
remains in the light for not participating in the horrors as the helmsman and Kurtz do, other
readers are not so sure, this seems to be letting Marlow off quite easy. To be fair Marlow does
seem to possess guilt in many passages. He realizes what is fully going on, he describes it
beautifully but almost as if he was on the outside; as if he isn¶t standing right there able to do
something about some of it. In psychological terms Marlow is actually participating in a semi-
common phenomenon known as the bystander effect. The bystander effect does not sustain one¶s
innocence; on the contrary it condemns them. Since this effect is common it also supports the
theory that this evil/ ability to do nothing in the face of absurd violence could reside in our
c c cccEvans
human nature. The possibility that humans only do good deeds from external influences/
institutions is a sad and scary thought. Since Marlow is a clear example of this effect it is hard to
see him as good/ the opposite to Kurtz. It is more likely that he represents the level of evil before
Kurtz. He is the subject that European imperialism is testing. It is safe to say he passes their test
and fails the one that would clear him as an inherently good human. He is part of a theoretical
study to see if he will become a product of the banality of evil, to see if Marlow will willingly
The banality of evil is a phrase made by a political theorist named Hannah Arendt. She
created this phrase with the infamous Adolf Eichmann in mind. Arendt, a Jewish girl who left
Germany in the midst of World War Two, wrote on article on Eichmann¶s trial. Eichmann was
the one of the main Nazi¶s behind organizing The Holocaust, but it is said he had never actually
facilitated any of the killings himself. While attending his trial Arendt made many interesting
observations. She notes that Eichmann did not come off as monstrous and he uses the excuse of
just doing his job. She also notes that he was trying to use the German public to scapegoat his
own actions. He felt he didn¶t hold as much of the blame because many people in society were
endorsing the final solution. When hearing these findings of Arendt¶s one can imagine the image
of Marlow juxtaposed with Eichmann. One of her most substantial quotes can be related to many
The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many
were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly
normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of
judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together.c
(Arendt).cc
c c cccEvans
It seems that the bystander effect and the concept of the banality of evil can often go hand in
hand. Marlow even admits his fault by acting in accordance with Kurtz. It is clear he understands
because he guilt¶s himself into saying how he picked his own nightmare. He exclaims "I did not
betray Mr. Kurtz--it was ordered I should never betray him--it was written I should be loyal to
the nightmare of my choice. I was anxious to deal with this shadow by myself alone--and to this
day I don't know why I was so jealous of sharing with anyone the peculiar blackness of that
Towards the end Marlow has an epiphany of what is happening. He is not fully submerged into
the darkness but his soul is tainted. When the novel commences the reader can perceive
Marlow¶s innocence but as he takes this journey his experiences slowly but surely make his
character less desirable. Marlow¶s guilt must be seen, Kurtz is often given all the blame but it is
characters like Marlow who deserve some of it. Critics have been beginning to acknowledge this,
$ %
Birgit and Daniel Maier-Katkin talk about how Marlow is left with no blame after Kurtz
seemingly becomes the one and only villain. They assert that ³The narrative¶s excessive
fascination with the primitive manifestation of evil, as is represented in the encounter with the
antihero Kurtz, detracts attention from more significant representations of ordinary evil that
make abusive regimes possible´ (Maier- Katkin 587). Men like Eichmann allowed the atrocities
of The Holocaust to unfold and Men like Marlow watched the dehumanization of the natives in
the Congo. With comparisons put in this way their morals seems one in the same. Eichmann was
To officially denounce Kurtz, the Helmsman, and Marlow one must be able to judge the
instances of dehumanization for themselves. Language plays a large part in the prejudice against
c c cccEvans
the natives. One of the words Marlow uses to describe the African natives is rudimentary, which
is commonly defined as elementary, primitive, and even incompletely developed. One of the
most insulting lines is when Marlow utters that the Africans are ³rudimentary souls.´ It is
conceivable that Marlow is claiming the Europeans superiority, their exceptional, developed, and
civilized souls in comparison to the natives. It is not only Marlow¶s adjectives that get him into
trouble; it is also his lack of acknowledging humanity in the Africans. The combination of these
is what ultimately depreciates him. When describing he is obsessed with blackness, Marlow uses
the obscenity nigger profusely, and contrasts the darkness of the natives with pure ivory skin of
the Europeans. His imagery often shows the Africans as masses not worthy of faces or individual
characteristics. When describing a native Marlow says ³A black figure stood up, strode on long
black legs, waving long black arms" (Conrad 77). In addition to the theft of individuality the
Africans are also deprived of speech. There are only a few instances in the story in which an
African speaks. It is beneficial to examine Conrad¶s similar nature toward women in
Women are also only figures in the novel, without possessing names, or any intelligent
characteristics, they come across as less human. The superiority of the white European male is
woman´ (72). She is demeaned to the point of an apparition; a ghost of a woman. The European
women are still neglected but they are not apparitions, they are not seen as just objects. The
Intended does not have the courtesy of having a full persona or name, but she still has a title, and
an unabashed relationship/ claim to Kurtz. These are things the African mistress will never
possess. A gender critic Johanna M. Smith explains Marlow¶s attitude towards femininity in an
interesting light she says Marlow possesses the ideology that woman and men live in ³separate
c c cccEvans
spheres.´ This separation is the catalyst for the ³Masculine Imperialism´ (Smith 196). Marlow¶s
treatment of women and Africans contradicts his anti-imperialist views because he has
imperialist/ patriarchal influence in his actions towards these two groups, and he silently watches
their oppression.
Marlow¶s silence is not the only significant quiet in the novel. The natives silence also
possesses a great meaning. Africa can often be seen a contradicting foil to Europe¶s superiority.
Europe¶s languages are spoken eloquently and with great care while Africa¶s many wild and
native dialects are hushed in order to observe languages deemed superior to their own. Conrad
may have chosen to deny the Africans the right of speech because he himself went through a
time where he was not allowed to speak in his native tongue. Conrad was growing up in Poland
when Russia invaded and forced all the Polish to abandon their language and learn to speak
Russian. This snippet of his autobiography can give new insight into the deprivation of speech
from the natives in the novel. Trench-Bonett adds that ³Conrad clearly understood, in a visceral
way, how language can make you the ³other´ and he mistrusted it under the best of
circumstances´ (6). Why would Conrad deny the natives speech if he was really sympathizing
with them? Again, Trench- Bonett enlightens by revealing that Conrad purposely did this. ³The
Africans in
in Conrad¶s works, is never what we are told by the characters. It is always what we actually see´
(6). Hence the Natives silence actually being a strong characteristic in their favor, you can trust
the scenarios because they don¶t speak, when they can¶t talk they cannot deceive. The Europeans
in the novel have the power to be deceitful and manipulate. Their ability to speak gives them
The intent of this analysis was to broaden the reader¶s perspectives when looking at
Joseph Conrad¶s Heart of Darkness. There is seemingly no end in sight for the vast questions and
critiques of different genres in terms of this novel, but many can see how the concept of evil and
its manifestation in the heart of this novel might soon gain enough ground to be acknowledged as
universal between all of the contrasting critiques. The Maier Katkin¶s sum up the distinctions
depictions of the origins and nature of evil: the base primitive, perverse allure of evil in
the human heart; the heart of darkness in the soul of civilization; and finally the banal evil
resident in the day-to-day conformity of ordinary, decent people like Marlow´ (586).
cIt is clear that Conrad uses evil and the degrees of it as a mechanism to help one distinguish it in
our real world. Maybe we can even see this darkness in our society, our peers, and even
ourselves. He challenges the bystanders to do something, and the followers to say something. It
seems that he does not want us to become the Marlow¶s and Kurtz¶s of our time. Hopefully as
this concept gains acceptance so too will the ultimate lessons Conrad is trying to teach.
c c cccEvans
Works Cited
Penguin, 2006
'
. New York: St. Martin's, 1989.
Jennifer Lipka. "The Horror! The Horror!": Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness as a Gothic
Novel." 40.1 (2007): 25-37. () #"'%. Web. 26 Apr. 2011.
<http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/conradiana/v040/40.1.lipka.html>.
Maier-Katkin, Birgit, and Daniel Maier-Katkin. "At the Heart of Darkness: Crimes against
Trench-Bonett, Dorothy. ³Naming and Silence: A Study of Language and the Other in Conrad's