Conrads Intent In Heart Of Darkness :: essays research papers

Distilling the DarknessIn analysis of Heart of Darkness, much is made of Conrads intentions in telling histale. People search for a virtuous lesson, a strict social commentary, an absolution for theevil of the dark jungle. It isnt there, and thats not the point. In works of philosophy ( bid The Republic), or works of governmental theory (likeSocialism Utopian and Scientific), or works of natural science (like The Origin ofSpecies), this sifting of important and clear ideas from the mess and confusion ofexperience is what writers like Plato, Darwin, or Engels are doing. They experience theworld in all its messy confusion, and then they attempt to abstract from the mess, bycareful selection, a system of ordination principles which other people can comprehend andmake use of. In more figurative words, they are trying to shed the light of intelligenceupon the dimness of experience.As, primarily, students and teachers, we naturally look for the conveyance of suchideas in any material we encounter. We miss that books like Heart of Darkness arefundamentally different in intent and we continue searching for that lesson from which tomake a rational response to the story. Even literary professionals seem often to fall into the error of neglecting or interpret the novelists purpose. Consider, for example, the criticism leveledagainst Heart of Darkness by Paul OPrey in his introduction to the Penguin edition. He writes It is an irony that the failures of Marlow and Kurtz are paralleled by acorresponding failure of Conrads technique--brilliant though it is--as the vastabstract darkness he imagines exceeds his capacity to analyze and dramatize it, andthe very inability to portray the storys central subject, the unimaginable, theimpenetrable (evil, emptiness, mystery or whatever) becomes a central theme. Mr. OPreys sentence is somewhat impenetrable itself, but his complaint is thatConrad wants to evoke an abstract notion of darkness, but he doesnt manage toadequately go under it or analyze it. He then goes on to quote, approvingly, another critic,James Guetti, who complains that Marlow never gets below the surface, and is deniedthe final self-knowledge that Kurtz had. In other words, according to Mr. OPrey and Mr. Guetti, Conrad has somehowfailed in his attempt to delineate the horror that is Kurtzs final vision, failed to penetratethe darkness that Marlow evokes, failed to give a precise name and shape to the dark andtragic human condition. Mr. OPrey and Mr. Guetti want, as all good academics want,clarity, definition, intellectual coherence, order, a well-stated and well-argued thesis they