Heart of Darkness question
11-25-02 | 10:33 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heart of Darkness question
How are the Africans viewed by Marlow, Kurtz, and the Europeans?
This is my take on it so far:
Marlow views them as inferior people, but he disapproves of the treatment they get.
Kurtz sees them as tools.
Europeans view them like animals.
Am I way off?
This is my take on it so far:
Marlow views them as inferior people, but he disapproves of the treatment they get.
Kurtz sees them as tools.
Europeans view them like animals.
Am I way off?
11-26-02 | 12:35 AM
#5
New Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
throughout the book marlow hints at the africans being superior to the Europeans (ie cannibals resisted to eat them) and obviously he is against them being treated as 'dogs'
kurtz more or less thinks of them in the worst ways possible. as in the basest of subjects? he performed sacrifices with them, he beheaded them and abused them in every way possible. the jungle has corrupted his soul till there is no goodness
Europeans are like the station manager. not as bad as Kurtz i would say. but still.. bad. They came to the jungle under the false ideals of "freeing them," showing them civilization and christianity. still they treat them horribly
kurtz more or less thinks of them in the worst ways possible. as in the basest of subjects? he performed sacrifices with them, he beheaded them and abused them in every way possible. the jungle has corrupted his soul till there is no goodness
Europeans are like the station manager. not as bad as Kurtz i would say. but still.. bad. They came to the jungle under the false ideals of "freeing them," showing them civilization and christianity. still they treat them horribly
11-27-02 | 11:01 AM
#6
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got a question, too.
I got in a discussion about this book with my Philosophy instructor while we were studying Schoepenhauer. He says that Kurtz was the strong one and Marlow was weak.
He reasoned that Kurtz embraced his 'animal side' and became king of the savages. Marlow was weak because he chose to go back to society and forsook his chance to become a god.
I say that Kurtz was weak, because he was a slave to his company, and slowly he regressed to the darkness and thus became a slave to his emotions and the cannibals. Kurtz was strong, because he was able to see the senselessness of being a god, the insanity of the jungle (of course, he will always be haunted by seeing both worlds), and his own desire.
Needless to say, he's an existentialist and I'm just discovering Rand, so there is a conflict of interpretation. I just want to see what the consensus is from this group.
I read this book several years ago, so if I am incorrect on certain details or I mixed elements from AN and HoD, I don't deny it.
I got in a discussion about this book with my Philosophy instructor while we were studying Schoepenhauer. He says that Kurtz was the strong one and Marlow was weak.
He reasoned that Kurtz embraced his 'animal side' and became king of the savages. Marlow was weak because he chose to go back to society and forsook his chance to become a god.
I say that Kurtz was weak, because he was a slave to his company, and slowly he regressed to the darkness and thus became a slave to his emotions and the cannibals. Kurtz was strong, because he was able to see the senselessness of being a god, the insanity of the jungle (of course, he will always be haunted by seeing both worlds), and his own desire.
Needless to say, he's an existentialist and I'm just discovering Rand, so there is a conflict of interpretation. I just want to see what the consensus is from this group.
I read this book several years ago, so if I am incorrect on certain details or I mixed elements from AN and HoD, I don't deny it.
