Summary Of Heart Of DarknessEssay Preview: Summary Of Heart Of DarknessReport this essayPart IBeginning through Marlows being hired as a steamboat captain.SummaryAt sundown, a pleasure ship called the Nellie lies anchored at the mouth of the Thames, waiting for the tide to go out. Five men relax on the deck of the ship: the Director of Companies, who is also the captain and host, the Lawyer, the Accountant, Marlow, and the unnamed Narrator. The five men, old friends held together by “the bond of the sea,” are restless yet meditative, as if waiting for something to happen. As darkness begins to fall, and the scene becomes “less brilliant but more profound,” the men recall the great men and ships that have set forth from the Thames on voyages of trade and exploration, frequently never to return. Suddenly Marlow remarks that this very spot was once “one of the dark places of the earth.” He notes that when the Romans first came to England, it was a great, savage wilderness to them. He imagines what it must have been like for a young Roman captain or soldier to come to a place so far from home and lacking in comforts.
This train of thought reminds Marlow of his sole experience as a “fresh-water sailor,” when as a young man he captained a steamship going up the Congo River. He recounts that he first got the idea when, after returning from a six-year voyage through Asia, he came across a map of Africa in a London shop window, which reinvigorated his childhood fantasies about the “blank spaces” on the map.
Marlow recounts how he obtained a job with the Belgian “Company” that trades on the Congo River (the Congo was then a Belgian territory) through the influence of an aunt who had friends in the Companys administration. The Company was eager to send Marlow to Africa, because one of the Companys steamer captains had recently been killed in a scuffle with the natives.
AnalysisMarlows story of a voyage up the Congo River that he took as a young man is the main narrative of Heart of Darkness. Marlows narrative is framed by another narrative, in which one of the listeners to Marlows story explains the circumstances in which Marlow tells it. The narrator who begins Heart of Darkness is unnamed, as are the other three listeners, who are identified only by their professional occupations. Moreover, the narrator usually speaks in the first-person plural, describing what all four of Marlows listeners think and feel. The unanimity and anonymity of Marlows listeners combine to create the impression that they represent conventional perspectives and values of the British establishment.
For the narrator and his fellow travelers, the Thames conjures up images of famous British explorers who have set out from that river on glorious voyages. The narrator recounts the achievements of these explorers in a celebratory tone, calling them “knight-errants” of the sea, implying that such voyages served a sacred, higher purpose. The narrators attitude is that these men promoted the glory of Great Britain, expanded knowledge of the globe, and contributed to the civilization and enlightenment of the rest of the planet.
At the time Heart of Darkness was written, the British Empire was at its peak, and Britain controlled colonies and dependencies all over the planet. The popular saying that “the sun never sets on the British Empire” was literally true. The main topic of Heart of Darkness is imperialism, a nations policy of exerting influence over other areas through military, political, and economic coercion. The narrator expresses the mainstream belief that imperialism is a glorious and worthy enterprise. Indeed, in Conrads time, “empire” was one of the central values of British subjects, the fundamental term through which Britain defined its identity and sense of purpose.
From the moment Marlow opens his mouth, he sets himself apart from his fellow passengers by conjuring up a past in which Britain was not the heart of civilization but the savage “end of the world.” Likewise, the Thames was not the source of glorious journeys outward but the ominous beginning of a journey inward, into the heart of the wilderness. This is typical of Marlow as a storyteller: he narrates in an ironic tone, giving the impression that his audiences assumptions are wrong, but not presenting a clear alternative to those assumptions. Throughout his story, distinctions such as inward and outward, civilized and savage, dark and light, are called into question. But the irony of Marlows story is not as pronounced as in a satire, and Marlows and Conrads attitudes regarding imperialism are never entirely clear.
From the way Marlow tells his story, it is clear that he is extremely critical of imperialism, but his reasons apparently have less to do with what imperialism does to colonized peoples than with what it does to Europeans. Marlow suggests, in the first place, that participation in imperial enterprises degrades Europeans by removing them from the “civilizing” context of European society, while simultaneously tempting them into violent behavior because of the hostility and lawlessness of the environment. Moreover, Marlow suggests that the mission of “civilizing” and “enlightening” native peoples is misguided, not because he believes that they have a viable civilization and culture already, but because they are so savage that the project is overwhelming and hopeless. Marlow expresses horror when he witnesses the violent maltreatment of the natives, and he argues that a kinship exists between black Africans and Europeans, but in the same breath he states that this kinship is “ugly” and horrifying, and that the kinship is extremely distant. Nevertheless, it is not a simple matter to evaluate whether Marlows attitudes are conservative or progressive, racist or “enlightened.”
In the first place, one would have to decide in relation to whom Marlow was conservative or progressive. Clearly, Marlows story is shaped by the audience to whom he tells it. The anonymous narrator states that Marlow is unconventional in his ideas, and his listeners derisive grunts and murmurs suggest that they are less inclined to question colonialism or to view Africans as human beings than he is. His criticisms of colonialism, both implicit and explicit, are pitched to an audience that is far more sympathetic toward the colonial enterprise than any twenty-first-century reader could be. The framing narrative puts a certain amount of distance between Marlows narrative and Conrad himself. This framework suggests that the reader should regard Marlow ironically, but there are few
s of such narratives. The narrator does not tell us so, and the audience is left to wonder who is telling the story. This contrasts with the narrative that many contemporary authors portray, a narrative that has the protagonist not be anything but a normal teenager; it is a narrative of a middle-class person with only few, if any, advantages. If the narrator’s narrative is “normal”, we cannot call it Conrad. Rather we have a narrative of an isolated, middle-class person and a novel that tries to give a story like this a narrative. But the protagonist is not this ordinary teenager. The narrative has character and a character is a character. I found that the reader is not interested in this plot; the reader is interested, given the central character, in how we develop Marlow’s political or academic character, but is not interested in what is supposed to be his character: his character. For the most part, the protagonist is interesting, but it is a different story in that he is a different protagonist from the narrative. At the same time, there is a sense of unease. People begin to question the narrator’s character and make choices about him. I found that the narrator’s character is not a human being, but rather an unimportant one. If Conrad and the author had gone further into the characters world of Marlow and his political agenda, there would no longer be much of an issue if the narrator had tried to show how someone is really someone or where they stand on important important moral or personal matters, but instead he would try more and more to point out what all these problems were related to. This tension can never be won through violence, either; if the narrator was more and more involved in the character, he would find more characters to connect with and to interact with. The central character is not merely a character, it is also not a human being. This is part of the problem, and the writer fails to grasp the nature of the character.
The writer tries to portray Marlows as a typical middle-class person without any reference to his real status. By this he seems to be suggesting that Marlow is a typical middle-class person not much of a character (that is, a person of low socioeconomic status, not particularly good in a class of goods or services). For someone as poor as Marlow, his story is not as low-paying as that of the middle class protagonist of “The Prince”, but he is better off in a state of poverty than to have lived at the bottom of a hill overlooking a forest. On the contrary, he lives in a state of poverty and is not even given a benefit in the form of a living wage — it was a nice, small pension. That being the case, the narrator is not concerned with character value, he is concerned with what is most essential to a writer’s ability to give something of value and to tell a story that resonates with all readers.
When Marlows was writing, we used to think that his story must have some kind of meaning, not just some kind of value that Marlows would wish to impose on society.