Where do I begin? Alas, Conrad! You break my heart (of darkness). For all your incredible imagery and your mastery of the macabre, I cannot get past your odious racism. Here, there, and everywhere. Hook, line, and sinker.
Some would argue that it is sophomoric to read a hundred-year-old text through a "modern" lens. After all, the characterization of African people as quaint, sub-human creatures with "rolling eyeballs" was commonplace back in the day. None of this PC drivel about how n***er is a bad word. Well, let me tell you, I'm sure people from the Congo reading it back then would not have appreciated Conrad's characterizations. And, as a black person reading this novel now, I admit that I don't consider it brilliant or canonical at all. I consider it an insult.

(here's somebody good to back me up: http://kirbyk.net/hod/image.of.africa...) ( )

Didn't like it the first time. Didn't like it the second time. ( )

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. ( )

Lush language is the key differentiator of this remarkable polemic against atrocity. The framed narrative distances the author from the views expressed so it is hard to know whether Conrad shared the racism and sexism of Marlow, his protagonist. Taken at face value, the account of white colonists going to collect ivory from a white manager who has ruthlessly suppressed his black suppliers endorses white supremacy but not the ill-treatment of the lesser beings. Marlow objects to Kurtz's abuse of the 'savages' in much the same way that the English of the time protected dogs and horses. ( )

Well, I hate to do it, but I'm taking the rating down to 4 out of 5 stars. I'm not sure why, but this time around, Joseph Conrad did not manage to induce the same level of fascination as he did the first couple of times I read this book. Maybe because the last time I read it was for a class, where we got to discuss it so much.

It's the story of Marlow, the classic man of the sea, and his trip down the river Congo to find Kurtz, the company man said to have native. But instead of being drawn into the story, this time I felt like Conrad was deliberately keeping the reader at arms' length. Marlow is telling the story, and an unnamed male listener is telling the reader what Marlow says. Then Marlow tells the listener who tells us what Marlow says somebody else says. Still with me?

Maybe the point of all those layers was to make the reader question the story a little more, to ask one's self how much you really know about someone else if all you know is what they say.

Anyway, it was good to read it again, but not as great as I remembered. I'm not sure why, but it must be a change inside me, because I *LOVED* this book back in college. ( )

This book definitely put forth some very interesting notions, and Conrad clearly can deftly weave his words and create well-crafted sentences. But I found some parts... a lot of parts, something of a chore to read, and despite my careful reading, I still ended up with only a rough sketch of what I supposed it was about. Perhaps that's what's the charm, perhaps I have a limited understanding, I don't know. Perhaps I should pick this back up in a few years and see if it clicks for me then, but for the moment, I can't hold a very high opinion of this novella and can only thank Conrad for making it 100 pages. ( )

Despite being a mere 100 pages long, parts of this book were as frustrating to slog through as the African jungle. Nevertheless, I'm glad I made it to through the wilderness to the palpable "horror" at the end. A book so deliciously overwrought with symbolism, I almost wish I had to write a paper on it. ( )

"Mr Kurtz, he dead!" This novel is full of enticing and harrowing sentences like that. I found the novel dark and brutal, and Conrad's prose style led me along as if through the dense foliage of the Congo. Only when I finished the book did I start to wonder about everything that it said; whilst reading I was taken in by the mesmeric quality of some of the description. Reading 'Heart of Darkness' was not an enjoyable experience, but it was a disturbing one, which is something far rarer. ( )

The copy I read had a fantastic introduction, and contained footnotes referring to Conrad's own trip to the Congo, showing how much of this is autobiographical. I would recommend this version to anyone who, like me, read it own a whim with no real knowledge of how influential this writing was at the time.

In fact, my fictional reading of this subject is quite expansive, but my factual knowledge is poor. Reading this copy enabled me to be whisked away on a story and yet pad out my limited knowledge.

Marlowe is a sympathetic character, born of his time and yet forward-thinking, as is, I guess, Conrad. The images of unexplored Africa as a blank area on maps is exciting, and goes some way to explaining the intrepidation and fear that led these very male explorers to give the impressions that they did of such a peaceful, country.

Highly recommended. ( )

Battle between civilized and uncivilized man. Didn't like it. ( )

This book is racist and sexist, but it's extremely interesting to think about.I could write a lot about it, but I'm reading it for class and have done plenty of that. Just wanted to record that I've read it recently. ( )

This book is racist and sexist, but it's extremely interesting to think about.I could write a lot about it, but I'm reading it for class and have done plenty of that. Just wanted to record that I've read it recently. ( )

See Hearts of Darkness at From Word to Word

Wow - what a book. It's short - 117 pages, and I wanted it to be longer. I was savoring every page. The descriptions were amazing.

I was a little worried after reading 7-8 pages, it was very bleh. But as soon as Marlow started to get into his story, it was wonderful.

This story is told to the narrator, who is on a boat with Marlow, sitting on the Thames, waiting for the tide to turn. As they are waiting, Marlow tells his story about going up the Congo River, and his meeting with Kurtz, an agent of the company, renowned for finding so much ivory.

I had to read aloud this passage when I came across it:

He was a lank, bony, yellow-faced man, with big intense eyes. His aspect was worried, and his head was as bald as the palm of my hand; but his hair in falling seemed to have stuck to his chin, and had prospered in the new locality, for his beard hung down to his waist.

And this short book is filled with this! Turn the page, and it is filled with a description of the river, It was the stillness of an implacable force brooding over an inscrutable intention. It looked at you with a vengeful aspect.

This book is more about the narrative and the symbolism than the story. It starts out with Marlow musing about how the Romans found England to be when they first arrived - dark and uncivilized. And then segues into his trip up the Congo. And ends with him visiting Kurtz' fiance.

I didn't realize at first that Apocalypse Now was based on Heart of Darkness. I first saw that movie when I was 16, and I sat through it twice in the movie theatre, and that movie was about 2.5 hours long! In reading this, it's obvious Kurtz is the same. They talk about his method "being unsound" and his last words were, "the horror, the horror." The Dennis Hopper character is the same in the book too. It was sometimes hard to not have Marlon Brando and Dennis Hopper in my head.

Overall, I give it 4 stars - 1/2 star off for slow start and slow ending, and 1/2 star off for a little less story than I would like. ( )

Heart of Darkness is a tale of a seaman, Marlow, who pilots a boat up the Congo River around the turn of the 20th Century. His mission is to make contact with an ivory trader named Kurtz on behalf of their mutual employer. Kurtz is a mysterious fellow who not only has a unique relationship with the nationals, but also has an uncanny ability to provide ivory for the company. As Marlow's journey progresses, he becomes more and more eager to meet Kurtz, all the while becoming more and more disgusted with his fellow expatriates. It's a dark and dreary tale, but so very well written. As a good Lutheran, I had to admire Mr. Conrad's ability to paint such a realistic of human sin. The pity is, he also seems to have no concept of or use for forgiveness and the ability of God to bring about good even amongst us petty, nasty humans. I'm tempted to hang onto this book for its craftsmanship, but I don't know if I'd ever care to delve into Mr. Conrad's world again.
--J. ( )

I'll be honest, I don't understand Heart of the Darkness. I didn't understand when I read it five years ago and I haven't understood it any better having just finished it now.

The characters are unlikeable and very roughly drawn, the plot is less than compelling and atmosphere monotone. What should I take from it? That all men are savages deep down? That there's no different between the conqueror and the conquered save circumstance? I don't buy this Freudian lark either, but then I don't by Freud full stop. It's racist, sexist nonsense and four hours of the Apocalypse Now director's cut isn't going to change that.

And yet.

And yet. On a sentence by sentence level this is some pretty lush writing. Remarkably good, almost impossibly good considering Conrad was not a native English speaker. He calls life 'That mysterious arrangement of merciless logic for a futile purpose.' I like that. But a series of aphorisms does not a novel make and Conrad's purpose seems similarly futile.

But perhaps he meant it that way. ( )

I hate this book. I've had to read it twice for classes and haven't enjoyed it either time. However, I can appreciate it and I can see why other people like it. Actually, in this last class, the professor asked the question, "Could this book be a comedy?" I totally jumped on it. There are parts that could easily be a scene out of a Beckett play. I think when viewed as sort of a dark, existential, comedy the book suddenly becomes much better. ( )

“Heart of Darkness is one of his most universally admired works”, says the introduction. For what?

The style is discursive, the story is non-existent, I had absolutely no idea what I was supposed to understand by Marlow’s aimless meandering and there is absolutely nothing interesting about the characters. I found it utterley dreary. Does anyone have a clue what it was about? If so, don’t bother to tell me as I don’t really care. Lord Jim, the other Conrad book I have is going to the bottom of the pile and it can stay there forever as far as I am concerned! I hated Nostromo as well. 2 Stars for being able to string words together! ( )

A Journey We All Must Take: When Marlow begins his journey to find the mythical Kurtz in HEART OF DARKNESS, Joseph Conrad dares the reader to accompany Marlow on a voyage less into the physical jungles of darkest Africa and more into the mental labyrinth that human beings erect to protect themselves from the horrors that they themselves build. In this justly famous novella, Conrad depicts a pre-politically correct age when white men thought it only fair and inevitable that they plunder the riches of Africa all the while comforting themselves that they were uplifting the fallen state of a lowly people.

Conrad uses a twin layer of narratives in order to achieve the needed objectivity that he felt required to place the reader at varying distances from the horror that Kurtz cried out at the end. The opening narrator is unnamed, possibly Conrad himself, who sets the stage by placing the reader at a safe distance from the evils which lay squarely ahead. Through this narrator we get a bird'e eyes view of the true narrator Marlow, who is depicted as somehow different from the four other men on the deck of the Nellie. This difference in physical attributes slowly increases to concomitant differences in perspective, attitude, and general authorial reliability. Marlow is a deeply flawed man who has the disadvantage of viewing the unfolding events from the prejudiced eyes of a white colonial civil servant who is sure that the blacks in Africa are little different from his preconceived notion of uncivilized cannibals. Further, Marlow makes numerous errors of judgment along the way, many of them seemingly insignificant, yet the totality of the reader's perspective is twisted through the equally twisted lens of an unreliable narrator. Conrad's purpose in melding the reader to a flawed narrator was to insure that the reader could never trust what he reads, thereby increasing his sense of unease in that the sense of safety that Marlow feels, first on the deck of the Nellie, and later in the jungle itself, is as flimsy as the signposts that guide Marlow toward his goal.

The goal is Kurtz, a trader who set out to civilize the blacks into accepting a white version of civilization, but Marlow finds out that the reverse happened. The true horror that Kurtz sees is the horror that all would be conquerors find when they discover that the philosophy of racial supremacy which led them into conflict with a people whom they deemed unworthy is shown to be built on straw. Kurtz knows that the only difference between his brutal acts toward the natives and their own similar atrocities toward themselves is no difference at all. As corrupt as Kurtz must have been, in his closing cry of horror, he finds a small measure of redemption and closure. Marlow sees what Kurtz saw, knew what Kurtz did, and heard up close and personal Kurtz's swan song of pain, but Marlow learned nothing of lasting value. All he could think of was to maintain the image of the Kurtz that was: "I remained to dream the nightmare out to the end, and to show my loyalty to Kurtz once more." The journey that Kurtz took was a horror only because he became what he sought. The journey that Marlow took became a horror only because he learned nothing from what he sought. As you and I read HEART OF DARKNESS, we must decide which journey has the more meaningful signposts. ( )

Like most people, I was familiar with Heart of Darkness, both as an acclaimed work of literature and as the inspiration for the remarkable movie Apocolypse Now. For some reason, I recently decided to make an attempt at reading it, despite my concern that it was written at a level beyond my capacity to understand.

Upon receipt of the volume from Amazon, I was initially under the impression that I had mistakenly ordered the Cliff's Notes version of the work. I had no idea that the book was essentially a short story, easily readable in 2-3 hours.

Even more surprising, was the ease with which I was able to follow and understand the story, though admittedly written in a slightly dense prose. Perhaps this was due to having seen Apocolypse Now and being familiar with the broad outline of the story and having read other works of history on the Belgian Congo.

In any event, it was a decent story, filled with some beautifully descriptive language and imagery. I must say, however, that I was not bowled over. Steamship Captain pilots a ragged boat up the Congo, accompanied by colonial agents and support staff (cannibals and other natives) in an attempt to relieve a long stranded station agent (Kurtz) who has "gone native" and become the insane source of worship for the local natives. If you've seen Apocolypse Now, you know the story, just replace the Mekong with the Congo.

I go back to my first paragraph in which I related a concern over my ability to understand what is considered a classic work of literature. I fully understood it, but was perhaps not qualified to fully appreciate it. ( )

Fantastic short novel by Conrad. I thought the film version with Tim Roth wasn't very good.