Examine the comparisons Marlow continues to make between the various peoples he encounters: European traders, cannibals, natives, etc. What is the significance of these comparisons? Why does he continue to make them?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Ok I guess I will start us off. When I was reading through this prompt, the first thing I thought of in terms of the comparisons Marlow makes is that he portrays the colonizing whites and the natives in completely different ways. He sets up the whites as being the superiors and the natives as the inferiors. Over time, he continues to make these comparisons to show how these two groups of people can never be grouped together as one because they are completely different. Although he does sympathize with the natives, he constantly puts them down simply because he has no real understanding. This goes back to question number 6 on the reading quiz. He describes the natives as the oppressed. One example was when they were getting ready to leave the station with Kurtz and he points out the natives as "a mass of naked, breathing, quivering, bronze bodies" (62). He portrays them as a savage people and lets his ideas oppress them because of this lack of understanding.
When Marlow talks about the whites, on the other hand, he has a completely different mood. Marlow describes Kurtz in a high light by saying: "The point was in his being a gifted creature, and that of all his gifts the one that stood out pre-eminently, that carried with it a sense of real presence, was his ability to talk, his words..." (43). Marlow represents the whites, especially Kurtz, as being an intelligent and gifted people. He also recalls one of the things Kurtz said in his report. Kurtz mentioned that whites “must necessarily appear to them [savages] in the nature of supernatural beings-we approach them with the might as of a deity” (45). He is showing that whites have the idea that they need to appear superior to the native people. This comparison between the two is significant because it shows that Marlow never really understands the mission to civilize the natives. He just views them as a savage people and doesn't attempt to understand their culture.
I agree with Mary Kate on the fact that Marlow demonstrates the white man's superiority when compared to the natives and that by doing so he demonstrates his misunderstanding of the natives. I also think though that he makes comparisons between the white men he meets, and through the comparisons and descriptions of the men he meets he finds some truths regarding human nature.
During his trip through the Congo Marlow comes across two types of white men, the one who overcomes the fear of the unknown for personal gain and the one who overcomes the fear of the unknown to seek adventure and understanding, and throughout the book he makes comparisons between the two.
One of the first men Marlow meets is the brick layer, and upon meeting him Marlow quickly compares him to one that is driven by greed. Marlow notes the only real feeling the man held "was a desire to get...ivory" (21), illustrating that the man is one who braved the unknown to due to a driving desire for wealth and fame. However, Marlow continues to describe the man illustrating that the selfish nature of man holds no value to society. Marlow compares him to "papier-machez" stating that he could "poke his forefinger through him, [to] fing nothing inside"(23). By comparing him to thin and fragile paper that holds nothing illustrates Marlow's discovery that the selfish nature of humans is insecure and holds no importance or significance to the progress of society. Marlow sees the majority of the white men as being driven by selfish desires. He states "[the] land [was] invaded by these mean and greedy phantoms"(63), comparing the white men to faceless and transparent "phantoms", holding no noble intentions due to their "greedy" nature.
On the other hand Marlow encounters unique white men. They are unique because the do not succumb to the prospects of greed but seek to understand. One of these men is the young Russian he meets before physically encountering Kurtz. The Russian's understanding of the native's attack on the steam boat symbolizes a stark comparison between the greedy and the ones who seek understanding. The Russian states "They are simple people...they meant no harm...one good screech will do more for you than all your rifles"(49). On the boat none of the white men could understand why they were being attacked, however the Russian provided insight by stating "they meant no harm" demonstrating his understanding of the native's culture and tactics. He even knew that the sound of a whistle works better at fending them off than guns, demonstrating civilization's inability to progress the Congo due to the ignorance of the greedy white man, and instead understanding serves as a more useful tool to making progress. This Russian also left an immensely positive impression on Marlow at his departure Marlow states "Ah! never, never meet such a man again"(58). His gratified and hopeful tone demonstrates that the Russians desire to seek understanding left with a sense of hope that perhaps progress could come through understanding and not the ignorance of greed.
So, Marlow makes comparisons between the two types of people he meets in the Congo, the greedy ones and the enlightened ones that seek understanding. The seeking of understanding, that is instilled within the human nature of the few, provides a hopeful vision towards progress. While, the greediness of human nature proves to hinder understanding.
I agree with Mary Kate on the fact that Marlow demonstrates the white man's superiority when compared to the natives and that by doing so he demonstrates his misunderstanding of the natives. I also think though that he makes comparisons between the white men he meets, and through the comparisons and descriptions of the men he meets he finds some truths regarding human nature.
During his trip through the Congo Marlow comes across two types of white men, the one who overcomes the fear of the unknown for personal gain and the one who overcomes the fear of the unknown to seek adventure and understanding, and throughout the book he makes comparisons between the two.
One of the first men Marlow meets is the brick layer, and upon meeting him Marlow quickly compares him to one that is driven by greed. Marlow notes the only real feeling the man held "was a desire to get...ivory" (21), illustrating that the man is one who braved the unknown to due to a driving desire for wealth and fame. However, Marlow continues to describe the man illustrating that the selfish nature of man holds no value to society. Marlow compares him to "papier-machez" stating that he could "poke his forefinger through him, [to] fing nothing inside"(23). By comparing him to thin and fragile paper that holds nothing illustrates Marlow's discovery that the selfish nature of humans is insecure and holds no importance or significance to the progress of society. Marlow sees the majority of the white men as being driven by selfish desires. He states "[the] land [was] invaded by these mean and greedy phantoms"(63), comparing the white men to faceless and transparent "phantoms", holding no noble intentions due to their "greedy" nature.
On the other hand Marlow encounters unique white men. They are unique because the do not succumb to the prospects of greed but seek to understand. One of these men is the young Russian he meets before physically encountering Kurtz. The Russian's understanding of the native's attack on the steam boat symbolizes a stark comparison between the greedy and the ones who seek understanding. The Russian states "They are simple people...they meant no harm...one good screech will do more for you than all your rifles"(49). On the boat none of the white men could understand why they were being attacked, however the Russian provided insight by stating "they meant no harm" demonstrating his understanding of the native's culture and tactics. He even knew that the sound of a whistle works better at fending them off than guns, demonstrating civilization's inability to progress the Congo due to the ignorance of the greedy white man, and instead understanding serves as a more useful tool to making progress. This Russian also left an immensely positive impression on Marlow at his departure Marlow states "Ah! never, never meet such a man again"(58). His gratified and hopeful tone demonstrates that the Russians desire to seek understanding left with a sense of hope that perhaps progress could come through understanding and not the ignorance of greed.
So, Marlow makes comparisons between the two types of people he meets in the Congo, the greedy ones and the enlightened ones that seek understanding. The seeking of understanding, that is instilled within the human nature of the few, provides a hopeful vision towards progress. While, the greediness of human nature proves to hinder understanding.
While I think both Mary Kate and Conor have good points, I also think he continues to compare groups of people because he is evaluating the stereotypes taught to him as a young European: civilized whites vs. uncivilized. I think that Marlow is developing his opinion that white men can be just as savage as the natives, and so he develops sympathetic feelings towards the natives because other whites are not as open minded. He realizes that white men can be terribly violent when he over hears another man on the steamboat says "We will not be free from unfair competition till one of these fellows is hanged for example" (Conrad 29). Marlow jumps up to reveal himself shortly after this statement in shock of the brutality of the conversation. This incident bends his mind towards the thought that the Europeans and natives really aren't quite as different as he always thought. This thought is further realized after spending some time with the cannibals on the boat. He thinks of them as "fine fellows...men one could work with, and [he] is grateful to them", (31). The fact that he calls them men shows he has developed greater respect for them and realizes they are not just animals beneath the white man.
I agree with both Mary Kate and Conor and I think they've brough tuo some good points. The compasrison of the whites to the natives as well as the comparison between the greedy ones and the enlightened ones, as Conor said, is also depicted in the novel. I believe the superiority of the white man over the natives depicts the extreme authority with which the white man leads the land. As Mary Kate brough up earlier, number six on the reading quiz clearly states that Kurtz portrays the realtionship between the colonizing whites and the natives as God and worshipper. This is a clear indication of how much difference in authority and respect there really is between the natives and the whites. The great authority that the white man has over the natives on the island is depicted: "In a hurried, indistinct voice he began to assure me that he would not take these...symbols-down. He was not afraid of the natives ; they would not stir till Mr. Kurtz gave the word"(53). In this quote, Mr. Kurtz represents the great power and authority the white man possesses over the natives of the island. Marlow continues to make this comparison throughout novel bevause it is a very important factor in the events that occur on the island and it is simply a relaity which cannot be ignored.
Another interesting connection I saw was between the native men and women of the island. Marlow seems to regard the women differently than he does the men. He states: "Dark human shapes could be made out in the distance, fitting indistinctly over the border of the forest...along the lighted shore moved a wild and gorgeous appartiton of a woman. She walked with measured steps, draped in striped and fringed cloths, treading the earth proudly ...she was savage and superb, wild eyed and magnificient..."(55-56). When Marlow observes a savage woman rather than a savage man, he does not portray the same image to the reader about the savage. He seems to describe the women more humanely than he does the men. He also states later: "Her face had a tragic and fierce aspect of wild sorrow and dumb pain.."(56). This depicts that Marlow does regard the men differently than he does women, because he considers them to be more humane and does not only call them savages, but superb as well. I believe that Marlow makes this comparison in order to portray how gender may play a role in the events that take place at the island and whether this gender distinction is justified or not.
Our group thinks that everyone did a good job identifying and discussing the comparisons, but for the most part the significance of the comparisons and why he continued making them was not discussed. Also, the discussion was hindered because no questions were asked and not everyone in the group participated. Overall, everyone presented many good ideas, but they can all be explored further.
1. How do the comparisons Marlow makes between white traders and the natives further our understanding of Marlow and his beliefs?
2. Nina brought up the point that Marlow referred to the stereotypes he learned when he was younger, so what made Marlow re-evaluate those stereotypes and begin to change his opinions?
In response to the comments made, I think that we did explain the significance of his comparisons, but maybe we didn't go into enough detail as to how his comparisons changed his own beliefs.
The comparisons Marlow made between the white traders and the natives tell us that Marlow probably wants to make a difference, but fears what the whites may do to him if he sympathizes with the natives. Very early on in the story, Marlow describes seeing a native look at him with “a kind of blind, white flicker in the depths of orbs, which dies out slowly” (14). When he saw him, he “found nothing else to do but to offer him one of [his] good Swede’s ship’s biscuits [he] had in [his] pocket” (14). He changes over time as he spends more time with the natives and experiences their stereotypes. As time goes on, he too develops a stereotype toward the natives.
When Marlow gets ready to leave the Inner Station, he observes that the savages “shouted periodically together strings of amazing words that resembled no sounds of human language; and the deep murmurs of the crowd, interrupted suddenly, were like the responses of some satanic litany” (62). Marlow’s mind is changed as a result of being around the whites for as long as he was. In the beginning of the story, he wouldn’t have referred to the words of the natives as part of “some satanic litany.” In the beginning he may not have been accepting, but he was curious. His mind is made up at this point as to who the natives really are.
Another thing that is understood comes from his continued description of the whites. He describes them once again in a high light as he has done before. One can understand that Marlow truly believes in the idea of god and worshipper. He referred to Kurtz as a god because he once said, “Nevertheless I think Mr. Kurtz is a remarkable man” (57). He said this regardless of the manager saying, “Mr. Kurtz has done more harm than good to the Company” (57). He lets these new beliefs cloud what is real. He doesn’t see that the whites are just trying to get personal gain and are not trying to do something good for the natives. Also, because he praises Kurtz and the white men, he is not accepting of the natives because of their stereotypes.
I want to pose a couple questions, too. Do we think that if Marlow didn’t have the same people with him on the trip to the Congo, would he have the same beliefs of the whites vs. the savages? This brings up the idea of whether the environment changes Marlow’s character or if he had it in him all along. And does anyone have more evidence to support the point that Marlow’s viewpoint of the natives changed over time?
I believe i found some evidence that could answer some of Mary Kate's questions and support some of the points she made.
Mary Kate states that Marlow is blind to the real truth that the whites are not trying to help the natives, but are only exploiting their resources at the native's expense. She also states that by the the end of the book Marlow only holds a curiosity towards the natives and seeks understanding. However, I believe due to his actions when he leaves the inner station upon the steamboat with the whites and Kurtz, his actions demonstrate that he realizes the greedy and horrific intentions of the whites, and has more than just curiosity for the natives but also sees that within them their is humanity, and that they are not just animals.
Marlow came to understand that the blowing of the whistles scares away the natives, and when he was departing from the inner station he blew the horn to scare away the natives in order to protect them from the white man's rifles. Marlow states "I pulled the string of the whistle, and i did this because I saw the pilgrims on deck getting out their rifles with an air of anticipating a jolly lark" (62). Marlow blew the horn in order to scare away the natives and force them out of the range of the white man's rifles. This act illustrates that Marlow realizes as as well as anticipates that White man's evil actions in the Congo and is not blind to it. Also in this act of defense for the sake of the natives Marlow is demonstrating that he doesn't just see the natives with curiosity, he also sees them with humanity. By saving them he is showing that he cares for the native's well being and their right to live within the world. By viewing them with precious lives that ought to be protected Marlow sees them with humanity.
His same action also answer Mary Kate's question regarding whether the environment in which Marlow is in affects his beliefs towards the native and the whites. When he blew the whistle a white man called out "Don't! Don't frighten them away" but Marlow, despite the order to stop "pulled the string time after time" (62). This demonstrates even though he was surrounded by the whites he disobeyed their orders in order to aid the natives. Demonstrating that Marlow's environment did not affect his beliefs at this given time. It also sheds light on the possibility that his experiences in the Congo, more than his environment affected his beliefs and actions.
So some questions that came are whether his environment, meaning who he was surrounded by, or his experiences affected his beliefs in the Congo? And what Comparison's does he make that illustrate his changing to his experiences?
Everyone has brought up some good points as well as questions relating to whether or not Marlow is affected by his environment and whether his experiences in the Congo have affected him and how they have affected him.
I agree with many of the points Conor has brought up concerning how Marlow's attitude changes towards the natives over time. I do believe that Marlow not only becomes sympathetic towards but also attains a better understanding of the natives during his stay in the Congo. Marlow begins to understand that the natives are just as intelligent as the white man, but the difference between them and the white men is that they have souls that have "gone mad" in the wilderness. Marlow proposes that perhaps it is due to the environment that the natives lives in that causes their souls to be different than the souls of white men. He states about one of the natives: "...his intelligence was perfectly clear ...But his soul was mad. Being alone in the wilderness , it had looked within itself , and , by heavens! I tell you, it had gone mad...He struggled with himself,too. I saw it, I heard it. I saw the inconceivable mystery of a soul that knew no restraint, no faith, and no fear, yet struggling blindly with itself"(61). Marlow has clearly attained a better understanding of the natives and why they might appear far more different that the white man than they really are. He identifies the environment as the cause of the difference that does exist between the natives and the white men.
I also believe that Marlow's experiences in the Congo also greatly affected him. Prior to his visit to the Congo, Marlow was similar to many of the other seamen but after his visit to the Congo, Marlow clearly exhibits a great change in his character. Upon returning to his home, Marlow states: "I found myself back in the sepulchral city resenting the sight of people hurrying through the streets to filch a little money from each other, to devour their infamous cookery, to gulp their unwholesome beer, to dream their insignificant and silly dreams...They were intruders whose knowledge of life was to me an irritating pretense, because I felt so sure they could not possibly know the things I knew...their faces, so full of stupid importance"(66). Marlow clearly has a change in his personality and his priorities change. the world he used to have great importance for, barely has any importance for him now.
A question I want to bing up is how Marlow's stay at the Congo impacts him, and changes his view of the world, and whether this change is harmful or beneficial to him?
I really want to respond to Huda's question first before leading into any of the comparisons that Marlow has had over the times.
Huda asked if Marlow's experiences in the Congo were beneficial or detrimental to Marlow's view of the world. It seems that Marlow's experience made Marlow more of a man than he already was. He was a person of character and one who understands what people are talking about and about the things that other people go through. One of these times is at the end of the story when Marlow is speaking to Kurtz's lover. After saying that Kurtz's final words were her name, Marlow says, "But I couldn't. I could not tell her. It would have been too dark -- to dark altogether..." (72). Instead of saying the truth, Marlow said something that aided the situation instead of telling the truth and being detrimental towards the mental stability of Kurtz's lover. Another instance of Marlow saving someone from impending doom is the entire book. The narrator tells the story of what Marlow is saying; constantly listening to every word Marlow says and then making small side comments. The narrator says so at the end after Marlow's story. The narrator says, "[It] seemed to lead into the heart of an immense darkness" (72). It was an "immense darkness" that the men were leading themselves into and Marlow assisted all of them by telling his story of his darkness. Marlow aided the people and helped calm their nerves of what might happen but it is unsure if they are more ready to lead into the serpent's mouth and into the heart of darkness. Marlow knows that any words towards the crews case would help because even the doctor from the beginning knew of the Congo. It seems I lost the page and cannot find the quote but we all know it. The doctor tells that men go mad after the Congo and Marlow's words only assist anything that is to come to the men who are a part of this journey.
To answer Mark's second question, when Marlow sees the natives linked together he describes them as "I could see every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots in a rope; each had an iron collar on his neck, and all were connected together with a chain whose bights swung between them, rhythmically clinking...but these men could by no stretch of imagination be called enemies. They were called criminals" (13). Marlow saw the natives as savages and their appearance instantly made him think they had done wrong. As Marlow continues to walk on he begins to realized that the natives are not criminals but are simply being treated poorly by the whites. "They were dying slowly-it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now, nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish gloom...fed on unfamiliar food, they sickened, became inefficient, and were then allowed to crawl away and rest"(14). This sight of the natives being treated badly softens Marlow and he begins his long process of realization that the natives are not people to be hateful towards; they are just simply being mistreated because they are unfamilar to the white traders.
To answer the questions together because I think Marlow's opinions about the two groups further our understanding because we compare them to the traditional opinions of Europeans represented by others in the story. Marlow evolves from the beginning of the story by starting out as a clueless European (In terms of understanding native Africans) with a desire to expand his horizons to a person with enough first hand experience with the natives to create his own opinion that the natives are not as different or "savage" as other Europeans lead him to believe. He expresses that despite the fact he thought the cannibals would act like "hyenas prowling amongst the corpses", but they restrained themselves and "there was the fact facing [him]," (38). Marlow has changed because he no longer just believes what he hears, but he goes against the popular belief and gives the cannibals the benefit of the doubt because they had given him no reason not to be trusted. He was not deterred by rumors, which in my opinion shows incredible growth. He sees the Africans as people more so than any other European so far, and the quote above illustrates how most people just think of them as animals or hyenas, but now he has the facts to prove otherwise. Marlow's constant comparisons between the white people's opinions he has known his entire life to the new information he has learned about the natives since coming to Africa expresses his open minded attitude as opposed to other whites who continuously treat the natives like "savages". It almost seems as though this realization separates Marlow in his mind from others because he no longer agrees. This idea relates to the quote I used in my previous post on pg. 31 about how thankful he is to the natives as his work companions on the ship. This illustrates the bond he is creating with the natives. Also the other quote I used on pg. 29 about how surprised Marlow is about the brutal statement made by the white ship crew members is one of many examples in the story that illustrates the separation he feels with the white men's opinions.
Also a question I would like to propose is does anyone else feel like the outburst at the end of Part 2 where Marlow is questioned about his story illustrates a separation with European society due to difference of opinion?
Post a Comment