Insight Into Heart Of Darkness Essay, Research Paper

There have been few novels that have had the ability to change my perspectives

about life and the world around us. Heart of Darkness, by Joseph Conrad, is not one of

them. Not because I disagree with or dislike his work. He can?t, after all, change my outlook

on life if he and I share the same opinions. One such thing is reflected in how our view

of Kurtz is not too far from Marlow?s own, in the beginning, middle, or end of the book.

This is, of course, not to say that our opinions and views of Kurtz do not change. Far

from it. However, as Marlow?s myopic views of Kurtz melt away in the light of truth

(which ironically revealed nothing but darkness), ours do as well.

Our view of Kurtz is that he is a great man. A man that defies description and

conventional beleif and methods. A man who ?all Europe? was responsible for the

making of. Put simply, Kurtz appears to be that last bastion of civilization in the ?Heart

of Darkness.? The reader begins to want to see Kurtz in order to experience his

greatness. Kurtz Kurtz Kurtz. It?s truly all one can think about. We HAVE to see Kurtz

so that we will find out just what all the hubbub is about.

As I said before, our views parallel Marlow?s. Marlow becomes obsessed with

Kurtz and reaching him to the point of what I thought to be an acute case of monomania.

Simply put, Marlow has witnessed brutality, savagery, hatred, prejudice, injustice, and

misery in the Congo. He has seen what ?civilized men? are capable of when the ties that

bind are cut. He then hears that ?all Europe contributed to the making of Kurtz.? ?Ah,?

Marlow thinks, ?Perhaps there is some civility out in this Godforsaken corner of the

earth.? Which explains why Marlow must see Kurtz. I think that Kurtz (or at least the

thought of him) was serving as an anchor for Marlow?s sanity or his soul, or perhaps

both.

These views, however, do not last for long. Upon reaching the inner station, we

realize that Kurtz is perhaps the most far-gone of all the Europeans in Africa (excepting,

perhaps the manager). We are made to realize that Kurtz is not a bastion of civility, but

he is still a great man, as Marlow comes to admit. Kurtz does everything. He takes what

he wants when he wants it. He acts on his whims. He steals, lies, cheats, has sex with

some, and kills others and performs ?unspeakable rites? that are apparently so depraved

that Marlow either cannot or will not discuss them. He has become a creature of chaos.

He has become a creature of evil. Although we realize that Kurtz is a monster, we still

recognize him as a great and respected person. The natives have deified him. That he

holds such influence over large amounts of people, both European and Native,

speaks very highly of him. Our views of Kurtz eventually come full circle: from a great,

good man, to a great, evil one.

Marlow has a lot of difficulty dealing with Kurtz and what has become of him. Or

perhaps I should say what he has become. For, you see, I am of the opinion that Marlow

IS Kurtz (which is why I said opposites attract earlier on). At least Kurtz is what Marlow

might have become. This bit of information is one of the main premises of the book:

what do you get when you strip away the varnish of civilization from a man? What

happens when you cut him from the society that made him. The answer? He becomes

himself. Conrad believed (as do I) that man is an evil creature by nature. We all have

evil within us, and if you were to remove us from the civilization that created us, then we

would become what we truly are. Kurtz made a deal with the devil; the devil within.

Marlow realizes this and the thought of it frightens him because he knows that the same

thing could very well happen to him, which is one of the reasons, I beleive that Marlow

expressed the ultimate truth at the end of the book with a lie. He saw what he might have

become, and he rejected it, because he couldn?t handle it or it frightened him, or both.

But Kurtz embraced it.

It is perhaps because Marlow realized that he was

Kurtz-through-the-looking-glass, so to speak, that Marlow was so drawn to Kurtz. It is

this attraction to Kurtz that causes Marlow to become biased in his opinions toward him.

Marlow is fundementally unreliable and partial in his capacity as a first person narrator.

He says damning things about Kurtz in some parts, but he always relents and always

stuck with him to the bitter end. Why? I think it is because of the bond that the two

shared, each one realizing that the other is what he might have become.

That being said, Kurtz?s tragic flaw is that he allowed the darkness to consume

him in his search for the Truth. Kurtz, I think, went into the Heart of Darkness to search

for the truth, and when the Truth found KURTZ, it ate him alive.

The villain of this story is not so easy to define. It is niether good nor evil. It is

the truth purely, and simply. Kurtz and Marlow both found the truth in different ways.

Kurtz, by engulfing himself in darkness and Marlow clinging to the white marble of his

civility like a baby to it?s bottle. They arrived at their conclusions at the same time,

although Kurtz was made to realize it first. When Kurtz?s Black and Marlow?s White

came together, it formed The Gray, the vast and empty nothingness that both men

experienced. It was life; hollow, nihilistic, empty, and pointless. This was the last thing

Kurtz ever saw. Oh, ?the horror? of it all. Too much truth can hurt. It utterly destroyed

both men. Sure, Marlow is alive, but is he really living? No, I do not think he is. The

truth shattered him and all of the precepts he held dear. He is a shell of a man and

nothing more, while Kurtz is even less than that. Sometimes there are things better left in

the dark.

Heart of Darkness is a journey, not to the center of the jungle, but rather to the

center of the soul. I must agree with Mr. Conrad about his beliefs on what humans

actually are. We may appear to be good natured and kind, but we are not. Evil is in us all.

If someone thinks of another as a ?good-hearted? person, they would do well to

remember that that ?good heart? is literally and metaphorically engulfed in darkness,

never to see the light of day. Humans are not good by nature. It is so-called civilization

that alters us. It is like a drug. The moment it?s effects are gone, you revert back to

what you are. Civilization creates white cloak around us. But if we were to part the

cloak and look inside what we would see would be truly? horrible.