Chinua Achebe
This is an excerpt from a New Yorker article from 1995 in which the author, David Denby, struggles with the same questions that we do.
Here he expresses Chinua Achebe’s problems with the book. (Achebe is a Nigerian professor, poet,
novelist, and more. He is one of the most outspoken critics of Conrad’s book.)
Here he expresses Chinua Achebe’s problems with the book. (Achebe is a Nigerian professor, poet,
novelist, and more. He is one of the most outspoken critics of Conrad’s book.)
Here is a link to the full article. It is a long but interesting read. You don't have to read it all, but I do
want you to consider what Achebe has to say, in part, about Heart of Darkness. Read and then comment. Return and comment on a classmate's post. (The following 2 paragraphs are directly taken from the article. I have no idea why the layout looks so weird.)
want you to consider what Achebe has to say, in part, about Heart of Darkness. Read and then comment. Return and comment on a classmate's post. (The following 2 paragraphs are directly taken from the article. I have no idea why the layout looks so weird.)
Achebe believes that “Heart of Darkness” is an example of the Western habit of setting up Africa “as a foil to Europe, a place of negations . . . in comparison with which Europe’s own state of spiritual grace will be manifest.” Conrad, obsessed with the black skin of Africans, had as his real purpose the desire to comfort Europeans in their sense of superiority: “ ‘Heart of Darkness’ projects the image of Africa as ‘the other world,’ the antithesis of Europe and therefore of civilization, a place where man’s vaunted intelligence and refinement are finally mocked by triumphant bestiality.” Achebe dismisses the grove-of-death passage and others like it as “bleeding-heart sentiments,” mere decoration in a book that “parades in the most vulgar fashion prejudices and insults from which a section of mankind has suffered untold agonies and atrocities in the past and continues to do so in many ways and many places today,” and he adds, “I am talking about a story in which the very humanity of black people is called in question.”
Chinua Achebe has written at least one great novel, “Things Fall Apart” (1958), a book I love
and from which I have learned a great deal. Yet this article on Conrad (originally a speech delivered
at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, in 1975, and revised for the third Norton edition of the
novel in 1987 and reprinted as well in Achebe’s 1988 collection of essays, “Hopes and Impediments”)
is an act of rhetorical violence, and I recoiled from it. Achebe regards the book not as an expression
of its time or as the elaboration of a fictional situation, in which a white man’s fears of the unknown
are accurately represented, but as a general slander against Africans, a simple racial attack. As far as
Achebe is concerned, Africans have struggled to free themselves from the prison of colonial discourse,
and for him reading Conrad meant reentering the prison: “Heart of Darkness” is a book in which
Europeans consistently have the upper hand.
and from which I have learned a great deal. Yet this article on Conrad (originally a speech delivered
at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, in 1975, and revised for the third Norton edition of the
novel in 1987 and reprinted as well in Achebe’s 1988 collection of essays, “Hopes and Impediments”)
is an act of rhetorical violence, and I recoiled from it. Achebe regards the book not as an expression
of its time or as the elaboration of a fictional situation, in which a white man’s fears of the unknown
are accurately represented, but as a general slander against Africans, a simple racial attack. As far as
Achebe is concerned, Africans have struggled to free themselves from the prison of colonial discourse,
and for him reading Conrad meant reentering the prison: “Heart of Darkness” is a book in which
Europeans consistently have the upper hand.
I can understand his point of view in regards to reinforcing white superiority and perpetuating prejudice against Africans. There were a lot of passages where Conrad describes the Africans, and his methods of doing so were very outdated and vulgar; however, I don't believe his intentions were to degrade Africans. I feel as though, to an extent, Conrad had to take on the persona of someone coming into the business for the first time, which required him to take on the voice of prejudice. At this time, many people viewed Africans as uncivilized and uncouth, so to describe them the way he did was necessary to telling the story. In instances like this, I feel as though we need to put our minds in the context that the story was written. It exposed the hardships encountered by the Africans, as their homes were invaded and they were enslaved; it didn't do much to make the Europeans out to be heros but instead the villain.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I can see how some people might believe that Conrad is racist, but I think that Conrad took on this persona in the book to expose what was taking place in Africa; and I think that it was necessary to do this. Heart of Darkness probably wouldn't have been as impactful if he didn't do what he did.
DeleteI agree with T'nyah with the idea that the way Conrad described the Africans and the treatment of them was vulgar. I do believe it was necessary to the story to see and understand the poor treatment of the natives; however, this does not justify it. I'd be lying if I said I didn't think Conrad showed some racism throughout the book, but like T'nyah said, we have to put ourselves in that time period. Back then, it was acceptable to treat Native Americans poorly. They didn't think it was inhumane to keep them as slaves, therefore, I don't think Conrad meant to come across as racist. What I don't agree with is when Achebe states "the very humanity of black people is called into question." I believe that Heart of Darkness is calling the humanity of Europeans (white people) into question. Just like we saw with the painting in one of the last blogs, white people did whatever they had to in order to better themselves. This caused a lack of compassion towards the Native Americans. Throwing slaves overboard for the sake of money is the type of inhumane actions that should be looked at. Overall, this was an interesting take on the book.
ReplyDeleteYeah I agree; I feel like it was more of calling in to question the nature of Europeans and their blatant disregard of human life. It was more of a criticism on the spectrum of making people realize how evil their actions were, and showing that it wasn't a missionary cause, it was one simply for profit.
DeleteHonestly, I feel that Achebe is being somewhat unfair to the book and to Conrad. If someone were to read certain sections of the book, the sections that Achebe chose to focus on, then I think it would definitely come across as racist; but if you look at the book as a whole, I think that it questions the Europeans and their treatment of the Africans more than just the Africans themselves. At one point in the article, Denby states that Achebe dismisses certain aspects of the book like the grove-of-death passage; but this is a very important part of the book that shows the terrible treatment of the Africans, and it is unfair of Achebe to disregard this. Yes Heart of Darkness describes very atrocious things taking place and portrays what was probably a very typical mindset during this time period, but I think it was necessary to show people what was happening; and I don't think Heart of Darkness would have been as successful without this. I remember, in one of the CommonLit articles that we read, it talked about how photographs of the atrocities taking place in Africa led to it stopping. One of the photos it talked about showed a father looking down at the feet of his daughter who was tortured and killed, but the photograph wasn't taken to show support of these terrible actions, but rather, it exposed what was happening so that people could put a stop to it. I think that this is what Conrad did with Heart of Darkness. He exposed the Europeans in Africa so that people knew about it and could possibly put a stop to it. I think that this is a key part of the book that Achebe has dismissed.
ReplyDeleteYou read my mind. I chose to read the book with the purpose of exposing chaos and horrible things. It's not fair to pick apart a book that is meant to highlight specific things over the span of the entire story and only look at bits and pieces of the text. It seems as if the author of this article set out to place Conrad in a bad light.
DeleteFor me, I feel like this point of view lacks the recognition of when the book was written. It came out in 1902. Times were completely different. I don't think it's fair for me to use my 2020 judgement on a man who lived in the late 1800s and mid 1900s. Like I said already, the world was a totally different place than it is today. Sure, some very questionable things were said in the book, but I choose to look at it from a place of exposing atrocities, rather than partaking in them.
ReplyDeleteI get that, it's hard to pick apart someone's reviews and writings from so long ago. Especially because Heart of Darkness was written more than 100 years ago, it feels like reviews have to be written with careful consideration of the time and writing style.
DeleteLike some others, I believe that the book is more of an attack on Europeans rather than Africans. The horrific ways of people such as Kurtz was called into question and scenes of grotesque horror were described, all caused by Europeans. That being said, I can see where Achebe is coming from. Being part of the culture, he has a much more personal connection with the writing than I ever could. Clearly much of the interpretation of this novel varies based on who exactly is reading and what the reader has knowledge/experience of. As Sean said, I think that a lot of different viewpoints can be gathered depending on what section is read.
ReplyDeleteThat's how I feel because it calls more attention to the awful things Europeans did in Africa. I also agree that Achebe does have a more personal connection to the writing, which makes his opinions stronger than others. Additionally, I feel that how someone interprets the novel depends on who is reading and their views or beliefs.
DeleteAs everyone has said, Conrad uses negative diction to be able to fully depict to the reader the harsh treatments of the Africans. While these comments may be seen as racist, I do not think that is their intention. He utilizes them to clarify the conditions in Africa to the audience. Like Sydney and T'nyah said, people's opinions can change over time. I feel as though Achebe should have focused more on the book as a whole instead of certain sections, but I do understand that some parts of Heart of Darkness evoke stronger emotions from people than other parts. It is not right or fair to Conrad because if people read only select parts the do not get the full story. This may cause people to think Conrad is racist. I believe that people deserve to always know the full background or story of something in order to form a stronger opinion. As Sean said, it does not do the reader any good to leave key details out like the depth of European involvement in Africa.
ReplyDeleteI'd think Achebe would know the whole background of the novel, but I do agree with how he might have focused on certain sections. I don't think what Achebe said is unfair to Conrad, because it really is just a critique of a dead guy's book which can be taken with a grain of salt.
DeleteConsidering Achebe's qualifications, I think that he has valid criticisms of the book. While we should take into consideration the time frame, I think it is a fresh take. I agree with Kiki how she says that it is a book basically about Achebe's culture. I can see how the book would be an attack when looking at the extent of racism during the turn of the century. I do not believe that Conrad is racist, but the way certain characters act shows this blatant racism. I also agree with Sean that the book, along with photography, serves/served to expose the actions of the Europeans and put the whole operation to a stop. Yet, I still think it is ok for Achebe to call the book something that questions the humanity of black people. Conrad literally called the natives creatures in while describing their condition.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Conrad's descriptions got dicey at times. However, while Achebe has some valid points, I don't think it is right for him to blatantly oppose Heart of Darkness given Conrad's background. Achebe certainly has a different view on the book than most.
DeleteI agree with Matthew, the portrayal of African American's was definitely questionable throughout the novel. I can see where Achebe is coming from, but I do not agree with him. As T'nyah said, Conrad had to assume the mindset of Europeans who had not yet been exposed to the horrible practices in Africa. He had to connect to his audience, which would not have been possible had he written a power article that only attacked European business in Africa. If taken out of context, certainly the book could be taken as racist. However, with the context of the time period and Conrad's experiences, Heart of Darkness is an persuasive, informative novel for Europeans who did not know what was happening in Africa.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about Conrad having to get into the mindset of the Europeans. This was his strategy to connecting with the time period. It makes sense that if you read this book with no knowledge of the situation or the time period, it would be seen as racist. Though we see it as racist, we live in a much different time period. The things that were acceptable back then would be horrific actions today.
DeleteWhile I understand that any representation of racial imbalance of power can be interpreted as an allowance of that sort of thought, I think that the more important thing to remember is that combating hateful mindsets requires an understanding of how and why they originate. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" is a quite from Aristotle that comes to mind. Ignorance of issues such as slavery and abuse is not an effective strategy for working towards a solution to discrimination and hateful treatment of those different than us. It is ignorance of hate that perpetuates hate. It is uncomfortable to talk about, but it is a necessary extension of empathy in order to work towards a better future. Conrad merely provided a window through which the broader public can look to see what the dangerous possibilities were.
ReplyDeleteI never really entertained that idea as a possible motive for Conrad's representation of race, but it could have been a subtle, secondary-ish reason. I think that if the main reason was meant to show dangerous possibilities, he would have been more explicit with his descriptions and possibly mades even worse situations in the book. It definitely fits though and that quote from Aristotle is definitely something the reader should do.
DeleteLike everyone said, Conrad definitely uses some vulgar and overly derrogatory language and comments in the book. While he might have been slightly racist, I think it was more to criticize or expose the brutal colonizers because he outlined how they thought through himself. As for Achebe, while I certainly don't agree with a renowned professor not taking a step back and analyzing the book from other perspectives, I can understand why he hates and criticizes it. For him, the whole book must be a huge insult to him, his heritage, and his ancestors.
ReplyDeleteI think John is right. It's easy for me with modern views and insight to call Heart of Darkness a brutal take on African colonization. But for someone whose life has been directly impacted by European influence in Africa, it's not as easy. Although I do think not taking a step back and thinking about the deeper desired effect is a little bit ignorant, but hey I'm not an African literary genius so I probably don't know what I'm talking about.
DeleteI may be giving Conrad giving too much credit, but follow for a second. We need to think about the framework of the book. The story is actually a story within a larger, yet less detailed story. Marlowe is not Conrad and the author goes out of his way to characterize Marlowe as an independent individual with his own flaws and beliefs. We see the story through the eyes of this simple ship captain, not an omniscient narrator that describes the story from a distance. Marlowe does not claim to be extremely intelligent person, or even that he is superior for having seen what he has. We are looking at this tale through the eyes of a flawed and simple man. I think the views are purposefully made to be like those of what a common man would be in the time. So for Achebe to call the descriptions used in the book racist is completely fair. The views are racist and honestly brutal in some parts, but I believe it is necessary to make a separation from Conrad and his character. What I do think is unfair is to call Conrad himself a racist because I believe what he was doing was intentional. Although I might be giving Conrad too much credit and Achebe was right about Conrad's words.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Geno here. Often, in class we are reminded that the narrator of a text is not always the same as the author. That applies even in 1st person texts, so it follows that this "story within a story" format would only serve to separate the novel's perspective from the author's perspective even more.
Delete