Perhaps seminal in its first writing and perhaps influential in the downfall of the Congo Free State as personal property of the King of Belgium, this novella does not stand the test of time. It projects native Africans as less human, promotes colonialism as a way of lifting a continent into a time of revolutionary enlightenment Rome once saw London as the heart of darkness, and according to Marlow, by the Victorian Age, it was clear that Roman colonization could be credited with civilizing England. Apparently there was no thought as to how the Saxons might have developed if left to their own devices .. and no appreciation of how Africa might have developed if its people had been treated with as much (admittedly limited) dignity by traders as, for instance, the powerful Chinese and Japanese were.

Yes, I know I am in the minority, but I fail to see the excellence in a piece of writing based on its dark atmosphere and suggestion of psychological horrors brought on by loneliness, malaria and other diseases. (And, I wish someone would do a historical study on what mental illnesses these fortune hunters actually had when they got to the new world of Africa.) A truly timeless piece of literature stands the test of time and distance. This tale does not, and is redeemable only by its historical socio-political influence, and as a written record of the universal dehumanization and disregard of the African people by the West at the time. ( )

A novel about the destruction of a people and a land at the hands of colonial power. A novel about evil in its most human form. Heart of Darkness is not racist as some have ridiculously suggested. It is a novel that argues against the vile deeds wrought in Europe's colonies. It is a novel that argues the relative nature of morality. I don't necessarily agree with all of its conclusions, but it is brilliant. ( )

Conrad created an interesting character in Kurtz but the novel somehow falls short of being more than "just" a good read. ( )

one of the better old books I've read, but the overuse of the whole "heart of darkness" metaphor (it's mentioned on almost every page it feels like) and the story-within-a-story form really detract from an otherwise powerfully written story. ( )

Amazingly, I'm reading this for the first time in my 40's. But I can't imagine I would have understood it very well when I was younger. Mr. Conrad makes ample use of Africa as a symbol of darkness but the real darkness doesn't lie in the external world. It has always lain in the depths of the human soul. It doesn't take living in a savage land to find oneself unmoored from goodness and right. Anytime external restraints are lifted is the time when man must grapple with his own soul and what he can do and what he will do. Mr. Conrad's capturing of that truth and all the horror of that truth is masterful. ( )