Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Alex
- According to the typology test I'm a "solid liberal" (though, I'll go ahead and say that I self-identify as a socialist). My political leanings have been heavily influenced by my experiences as an Urban Studies student at UT Austin. I have not had many political experiences. I find more satisfaction in things like community organizing and direct action rather than taking part in politics. I'm taking the class mostly because it is required for my degree. I'm planning on bolting from this state as soon as I graduate next May, and I'm sure any class that gives insight the the Texas political system (joke?) will only strengthen my decision to do so. But I do think the class will be useful. As someone who aspires to be an urban geographer and hopes to encourage vast social and economic restructuring through research in the field, I believe that thorough knowledge of the Texas political system will provide a solid foundation of how to not go about bringing change.
The narration of this novel is certainly unconventional if not, at times, confusing. With an unknown narrator relaying a story told to him by Marlow who is telling this story about Mr. Kurtz, it’s easy to get mixed up with who exactly is the one narrating at that point in time, especially is you don’t pay attention to quotations. I remember thinking while reading, also, that even though this novel is fiction, these characters are able to recall all the events with incredible accuracy. I can understand the unknown narrator’s descriptions because he may be narrating as Marlow tells this story. But Marlow’s narration is incredibly detailed and inclusive of literary devices. I’m impressed! The unlikely eloquence and skill with which Marlow chronicles his experiences make it almost legend-like and that much more intangible to those of us lacking similar experiences. Mostly, however, the layers of narration add to the enigma that is Mr. Kurtz. One must go through the narrator and then Marlow to get to Kurtz’s story much like Marlow had to travel deep into the Congo to get to the actual Kurtz.
ReplyDeleteTo me it's always interesting, and telling, to see what others have to say about you, or how they describe you. The layered narration definitely allots for this, like on the first page when the unknown narrator introduces Marlow as having "sunken cheeks, a yellow complexion, a straight back, ...with his arms dropped, the palms of hands outwards, [resembling] and idol." (pg. 9-10) Marlow would not be as enticing had he himself told us “ I probably looked like an idol, nailing my cross-legged Buddha pose.” The unknown narrator also contrasts Marlow with the rest of the group and with other seamen who are more simple and less curious than Marlow, and his comments when Marlow breaks from the story and talks directly to the group are insightful. (The same situation applies for Kurtz too, how we learn about him from Marlow and others.) Had Conrad simply created Marlow as the base-level narrator, I don't think we would understand him as well. But, the layered narration also makes the characters harder to grasp, or more enigmatic, as Alex put it. We aren't directly inside their heads, and so we are forced to try to imagine and understand their feelings and motivations; to peer into the “Hearts of Darkness.”
ReplyDeleteInteresting points, Morgan. The layered narration definitely allows us to see the central characters through others' points of view, giving us a much more objective look at the events of the novel. And the fact that we aren't directly inside their heads forces us to search for the meaning and answers that Marlow is attempting to relay. Another effect of this is possibly that is forces participation on the readers' behalf. Marlow is constantly asking questions (rhetorical in nature, of course) such as "Do you see him? Do you see the story? Do you see anything?" (pg. 29) which, on the surface, seem to be directed towards the unknown narrator and other seamen aboard the yacht, but in reality are directed towards the readers themselves. Had this story been told directly from Marlow's point of view, he could have simply elaborated on the questions, negating the readers responsibility to search for more meaning in the process. That actually would have consequently given the novel less meaning.
ReplyDeleteI think the layered narration is implemented in the novel to make us not understand the story for its literal meaning, but rather for its metaphorical meaning. This confusion tricks us into thinking the story is better than it actually is because it makes us think harder than required to try to understand every aspect that may appear to be an important contribution to the overall significance. Rather, it may just turn out to be a random unneeded idea. The extra time spent attempting to comprehend the story makes the minor details stick in our minds. Due to the extra time spent trying to figure out the story, a connection is installed in our thoughts that makes our efforts to get a general idea of the story by linking situations of daily life into possible meaning translate into us mislabeling our own curiosity as a prolonging sense of wonder and amazement for the book. One excellent example of unneeded layering of narration and diction for that matter is when Marlow visits his aunt. “After this I got embraced, told to wear flannel, be sure to write often, and so on- and I left” (Page 17). Obviously the wording could have been different for the sake of making sense to the reader, but whatever, not my story… Alex had a good example when Marlow seems to be talking to some seamen but is actually speaking to the reader. If it was more obvious or better placed, it might be cool, but for me, it just made me think too hard and get a headache.
ReplyDeleteLayered narration is kind of like the Bible. You have people who wrote the book about a character when God is the one who the story is about. In the Bible you get glimpses of God through people who experiences miracles yet someone else is writing about the whole event. Same applies to the Heart of Darkness. You get insights about Mr. Kurtz through Marlow but the narration is told by an unknown character. I have to completely agree with Alex by saying that this causes a great deal of confusion. Yet Morgan also brings up a good point by adding that this lets the reader interpret the reading for themselves. On page 20, Marlow witnesses the slaves when they were “fed on unfamiliar food, sickened, became inefficient, and were then allowed to crawl away and rest” as though he was just describing an everyday event. He puts no emotions in it but he permits the readers to feel disturbed and uneased without the authors telling the reader to do so. Since the author uses layering narration and not giving the characters much depth with their thoughts, it is only up to the readers to uncover the emotions and hidden meanings in the book.
ReplyDeleteI like your connection to the Bible Lily, the narration is very similar to HOD. Also like HOD the Bible is pretty cut and dry story telling. No emotions are sprawled out but their absence let's the reader feel his own, thereby allowing many different interpretations.
ReplyDeleteI also agree. I think maybe Conrad purposely wrote the book in just three chapters. The book is left with so many interpretations because Conrad wants the readers to see it in their own light. This book could’ve been drawn out to be as long as the Odyssey but it was intentionally not done so. It makes it interesting to not be able to determine Conrad’s feelings on such an emotional topic such as imperialism. With a vague interpretation from the author and a layered narration, this makes the book a difficult read. But it nevertheless permits the readers to expand their minds.
ReplyDeleteNice discussion. Especially appreciate the reference to "legend-like" and the point that Marlow cannot describe himself with the same impact and have it come across believeable. Daniel, can you say "negative"? That's OK; you're entitled to your opinion.
ReplyDelete