Greetings, everyone. The responses to Achebe's response to Conrad and Heart of Darkness were predictably interesting. Maybe the best way to give you a representative sampling would be to present two distinctly differently responses. This could be an example of "he said, she said," except for the fact that it's in fact a case of "she said, she said" (Annie from the a.m. class, Lindsay from the p.m. class).
ANNIE: "My position is that I agree with virtually everything Achebe says, including his arguments that Conrad was a racist (I would actually take it a step further and add that he is also a misogynist and flat-out misanthrope but will not digress for this piece). Looking at the novella stylistically, I appreciated Achebe reasserting F.R. Leavis's criticism of "adjectival insistence" and how it is "engaged in inducing hypnotic stupor in his readers," because I was blaming the ridiculously long paragraphs for that. A reader can get so lulled into this story that you do not notice immediately that at no point in the story does an African simply speak. Their only language is incomprehensible grunts, yelling and singing. None are physically attractive. And while all earn a little pity, none receive genuine help. Marlow not only tosses the body of his steerman into the river, unapologetic to the rest of the African crew, he also notes how those same crewmen are likely starving, without making any effort to alter the situation. As Achebe quotes, he likes them in their place (as he does women). I find the argument that Conrad was a man of his times tiresome. When he wrote Heart of Darkness, the "dark side" of imperialism was nothing new. England had been controlling Indian with a very heavy hand since 1858. And with Frederick Douglass having completed his famous two year lecture tour of Britain between 1845-47, the American Civil War, and the global popularity of books like Uncle Tom's Cabin, Conrad's "times" were much more progressive than he chose to be."
LINDSAY: "While I do consider parts of Heart of Darkness questionable in regard to Marlow's portrayal of the African natives, I do not regard either the text or Conrad as racist. Achebe's arguments are not quite persuasive, albeit they are interesting. I found the tone of his argument to be irritating and charged with a somewhat patronizing quality towards both the reader and Conrad. True, he is attacking Conrad's work, but it is a little over the top and hard to take seriously. Also, his arguments were weak in my opinion, particularly in response to those in Conrad's defense. The distinction between Marlow and Conrad is all too important when questioning the racial implications of Heart of Darkness, but Achebe dismisses it, arguing that if Conrad felt differently he should have shown it. Well, I do not know what he has in mind by "an alternative frame of reference," but my own judgment was sufficient in judging the characters, and if Conrad had indeed added a noble, morally straight perspective the integrity and effect of Heart of Darkness would have suffered. Achebe seems insulted that Conrad does not emphasize the equality of the Africans, but I do not know why anyone, upon meeting such drastically different humans of which they have never had knowledge of, would be contemplating issues of equality. Marlow's reaction is appropriately realistic, especially in an era before information was as accessible as it is now. Achebe's final paragraph led me to believe that his roast of Conrad was motivated more by a desire to "reveal" how deep racism pervades Europe, and he decides the purpose of Heart of Darkness is subservient to his own mission. Assuming that the novel "celebrates the dehumanization" is more than a stretch; I read nothing in the text that celebrates anything. Conrad uses Africa as a "backdrop" for literary purposes, not to dehumanize; he could have used many other places in the world, I'm sure, but he chose one he was personally familiar with. I can not believe that anyone could be so strangely passionate about that argument, because it seems to have no bearing. Did he read Heart of Darkness? I'm sure he did, but with the idea that he wanted to be insulted, perhaps. To me this is an essay using Heart of Darkness as a vehicle to make a statement that is related to the novel in certain respects, although Heart of Darkness is not solely about Africa, which is not racist, and using the modern standards of political correctness to analyze a work of literature written when it was not necessary to tiptoe around such correctness in order to not be sued."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I suppose one thing the various responses make us realize is that we can't brush off the issues by saying "it's only a story." Regardless of what you think of Achebe's arguments, they remind us that literature like this is embedded in the world, that it has both power and repercussions. Aware that literature has been complicit with colonialism (perpetuating and spreading stereotypes, committing what Edward Said calls "epistemic violence" against colonized peoples, etc.), Achebe himself said that "literature is not a luxury for us" (I'd again recommend that you read some of Achebe's fiction -- perhaps especially his 1957 novel Things Fall Apart -- which as a whole seeks to nurture and celebrate African perspectives outside of Western/colonial perspectives).
ReplyDeleteStill, it does seem to put us on a slippery slope when we criticize writers for what they don't write. Some of the things Conrad's critics ask for relative to Heart of Darkness would require a different novella, a different guiding character and consciousness, a different story, etc. The contemporary (black) Caribbean/British novelist and essayist, Caryl Phillips, asks "Is it not ridiculous to demand of Conrad that he imagine an African humanity that is totally out of line with both the times in which he was living and the larger purpose of this novel?"
Many of you in your responses felt that the accusation of racism must necessarily be problematic given how unsparingly Marlow ravages the white characters/imperialists in this book. Many of you also made the crucial point that we must be very careful (more careful than Achebe is, probably) in collapsing the author's views into the views of his character/narrator.
Nevertheless, our relationship with this tale remains uneasy, and we emerge from it, probably, with a keener awareness that we must be aware of the power (and hidden assumptions) of language, alert to the subtleties of authorial and narrative point of view, and mindful of the complications of representing the other.
I agree with you Eric, I feel that in order to give such a strong critique, I would have to read this book several times over and throw myself into a study of all the history that surrounded the book.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I have a problem with criticism because I think that ignorance can get in the way of things. we must see all perspectives, which means we must delve into every angle.
We students, we humans, ought to continually strive to learn learn learn so we can further diagnose and completely understand all perceptions of characters, writers, and persons in our lives. Without taking careful consideration of our words and opinions we risk the chance of offending others. Yet, on the other hand, perhaps offense isn't so bad; At least it awakens opinion, and encourages others to stand up and argue what they hold to be truth.
The Phillips quote is especially poignant I think. We cannot demand someone to write something they have not experienced when they are writing a novel of this type. Conrad had a purpose in writing this story and he painted the picture that he saw. Most Europeans would have had the same view. It isn't racist, it just is.
ReplyDeleteI agree that in order to completely comprehend Achebe's point of view, one must first read his work. In contrast I also agree with the statement that literature is not to be taken lightly (although I do think it is a luxury of our species), and that is why after reading his rude and ignorant response to HOD, I have no faith that any of his other lit would be worth the investment.
ReplyDeleteThis is the tough thing about the ambiguous usernames -- I don't know with whom I'm conversing, necessarily -- but to "worthless words," I wonder if you're not overstating things and undervaluing the rhetorical nuance of Achebe's essay by referring to it as "rude and ignorant"? That seems to be the same kind of exaggerated language of attack that marks the least compelling aspects of Achebe's argument (e.g., his using "thoroughgoing racist" to describe Conrad unfortunately detracts from what is otherwise a mostly well-reasoned essay).
ReplyDeleteWhen Achebe says "literature is not a luxury for us," the "us" of course refers to Africans (or perhaps more widely to colonized peoples). We must remember that he was not reading Heart of Darkness in a vacuum, but against a backdrop of an entire tradition of Western literature that time and again has represented Africans and the colonized as lesser beings relative to the Europeans. Because it was not until the latter part of the twentieth century that Africans started being able to contest the representations of Western "classic" literature and to tell their own story, there undoubtedly would be a little more impatience with the celebratory climate that tended to surround Conrad. When you've seen your people rendered in dehumanizing and stereotypical terms time and again, you'd naturally be less inclined to have patience with a white narrator who describes he and his cohorts as "wanderers on a prehistoric earth," toiling "on the edge of a black and incomprehensible frenzy," encountering a bush "swarming with human limbs in movement" and with nary a sign of an authentic indigenous culture.
We can strongly take issue with Achebe at times in his essay (and I certainly do), but it's also hard to refute him in his more nuanced moments, such as when he argues that Conrad/Marlow "neglects to hint ... at an alternative frame of reference by which we may judge the actions and opinions of his characters." That is, one can argue the novella never refutes the notion that the Congo needs an imperial presence to lift it up into a higher state; rather, it just needs a more benevolent and successful imperial presence than has prevailed to date. I guess what I'm saying is that I just don't see the "rude and ignorant" part -- I see a lot more ambivalence. But that's just me. Perhaps (hopefully!) this will be continued ...