Scan barcode
chriskissel10's review
dark
emotional
mysterious
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.25
dhilderbrand's review
2.0
Another depressing, horrific story. I get the complaints about extended metaphors although I liked them
jessiker's review
2.0
Interesting to dive into a book of purely pointless observation and apathy, which seems to be Conrad’s outlook on life in general. Some critics call him an ‘honest questioner’ and many more a ‘bloody racist’ which I would say is more or less accurate of a man completely at the mercy of wherever ‘fate’ decides to place him to observe.
This is not a work of soul searching heroics, idealism vs. reality, or the question of man’s place in the world, but a dark glimpse at the de-humanization even the name of a place can hold. “The horror, the horror.”
This is not a work of soul searching heroics, idealism vs. reality, or the question of man’s place in the world, but a dark glimpse at the de-humanization even the name of a place can hold. “The horror, the horror.”
ashlee_green's review
2.0
Very quotable. Lot's of interesting ideas. Feels more like the author had something he wanted to talk about but knew people would read a lecture, but they would read a story, so he buried a lecture in a story. This is the third time I've read this for a class, and I'm finally getting why everyone keeps making me read it. I enjoyed it more this time around, but only because I was reading it with the intention of pulling ideas/themes out of if, instead of trying to follow the story.
qiaosilin's review
3.0
Heart of Darkness is a book that has really put me on the fence. I don't really know what to make of it. First, let me give you a small summary: The narrator is on a boat on the Thames listening to Marlow tell a story about his journey up the Congo River in search of an elusive ivory trader, Kurtz.
I'm going to be frank: Kurtz is the most interesting character that came out of this book. Marlow seems less of a character and more of a narrative frame. I never really felt that Marlow was a character or a person, just a window into how the late 19th century viewed Africa. And let me tell you, it is not a pretty view. Almost every bad adjective is used to describe the Congolese and nicer ones were ascribed to the Europeans, or white people. There are only two Africans who have speaking roles, and even those are minimal (one of them being the famous "Mistah Kurtz--he dead."). Marlow points out that all the Africans are cannibals and it's amazing they haven't eaten each other yet because they're all so thin. Just wow. Also, Conrad overuses the n-word, at least in my opinion. I understand that in 1899 the n-word wasn't as taboo as it is today, but that doesn't make it any less racist.
So does this mean that Heart of Darkness is a racist book? I'm going to have to agree with [a:Chinua Achebe|8051|Chinua Achebe|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1294661664p2/8051.jpg] ("An image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's Heart of Darkness", Massachusetts Review, issue 8 (1977)) on this one: yes, it is. So then why is it constantly considered one of the greatest short novels of all time? The answer for this question is more contextual.
As a writer, Conrad has immense skill. He manages to incorporate Victorian ideals and flawlessly change them into Modern ideals. And if you're not paying attention, it's hard to notice the subtle tone shifts throughout Marlow's tale. This has a way of masking the racism. Also, Heart of Darkness was written at the turn of the 20th century, and even though a lot of people hate this argument I'm still a stern believer that literature needs to be read within the context of its artistic movement/historical happenings. That means that Heart of Darkness, while racist for our standards, wasn't racist back then. The attitudes towards Africans portrayed in the book was the ubiquitous attitude of the time. I'm not saying it's right, I'm only saying that's the truth of it.
I don't believe Conrad was being vehemently racist, but I do think this novel is a product of its time. Should we still read and/or study it? This is where I'm on the fence. Studying it for a university class to learn style, tone and the interesting psychoanalysis happening in part III, I say go ahead. Reading it for fun? Yeah, maybe not so much.
I'm going to be frank: Kurtz is the most interesting character that came out of this book. Marlow seems less of a character and more of a narrative frame. I never really felt that Marlow was a character or a person, just a window into how the late 19th century viewed Africa. And let me tell you, it is not a pretty view. Almost every bad adjective is used to describe the Congolese and nicer ones were ascribed to the Europeans, or white people. There are only two Africans who have speaking roles, and even those are minimal (one of them being the famous "Mistah Kurtz--he dead."). Marlow points out that all the Africans are cannibals and it's amazing they haven't eaten each other yet because they're all so thin. Just wow. Also, Conrad overuses the n-word, at least in my opinion. I understand that in 1899 the n-word wasn't as taboo as it is today, but that doesn't make it any less racist.
So does this mean that Heart of Darkness is a racist book? I'm going to have to agree with [a:Chinua Achebe|8051|Chinua Achebe|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1294661664p2/8051.jpg] ("An image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's Heart of Darkness", Massachusetts Review, issue 8 (1977)) on this one: yes, it is. So then why is it constantly considered one of the greatest short novels of all time? The answer for this question is more contextual.
As a writer, Conrad has immense skill. He manages to incorporate Victorian ideals and flawlessly change them into Modern ideals. And if you're not paying attention, it's hard to notice the subtle tone shifts throughout Marlow's tale. This has a way of masking the racism. Also, Heart of Darkness was written at the turn of the 20th century, and even though a lot of people hate this argument I'm still a stern believer that literature needs to be read within the context of its artistic movement/historical happenings. That means that Heart of Darkness, while racist for our standards, wasn't racist back then. The attitudes towards Africans portrayed in the book was the ubiquitous attitude of the time. I'm not saying it's right, I'm only saying that's the truth of it.
I don't believe Conrad was being vehemently racist, but I do think this novel is a product of its time. Should we still read and/or study it? This is where I'm on the fence. Studying it for a university class to learn style, tone and the interesting psychoanalysis happening in part III, I say go ahead. Reading it for fun? Yeah, maybe not so much.
iriwindel's review
3.0
Some parts were surprisingly good - I liked the writing on the whole; the sense of continuousness, of clearly being a story told to an audience rather than a written account. The imagery, and the flow of the language were over all not bad. That being said, I sometimes struggled to follow the story and find meaning, as well as keeping track of where he was moving in the tale, both geographically and in time (partly because I was tired). The constant onslaught of racial slurs was not exactly enjoyable either, but as literary critics always say; one has to keep in mind what the conventions were at the time of the work being written and published etc etc. I might need a deeper reread to be able to fully make sense of this novel, but it'll probably not happen any time soon - there are simply too many better and vastly more entertaining works of fiction to be enjoyed.
More...