Long Live Controversy

Every time I finish reading a book I sit back and think.  I ponder the possible interpretations one could apply to the ending and the author’s purpose.  Heart of Darkness is not an exception to this custom.  However, I am still perplexed when I think about Conrad’s reasoning behind writing the book.   What is the message that Conrad wanted to leave the reader?  My hypothesis: he wanted the reader to know that there is more than one side to imperialism.

My impression on imperialism now and before starting the novel has not changed.  Marlow and Kurtz proved to be oddly similar because they both felt pity for the natives.  Furthermore, Kurtz apparently took a native lover, and Marlow acted as a buffer between the Europeans and the natives.  This makes an interesting plotline, and combined with an intriguing use of irony, it keeps the reader awake, to say the least.  But, what does this all mean?  To the shrewd reader, it all adds up to a reflection of differences.   The late 19^th century and early 20^th century European is very predictable when it comes to foreign policy: conquer and annihilate.  Or so we thought before finishing Heart of Darkness.  What Conrad wants to point out is that this ‘darkness’ isn’t referring to the native people; rather, it refers to the way they are treated.  The dark message that the author wants to expose is very subtle— in the minds of some maybe even nonexistent— but it is powerful.  Either you are in favor of imperialism, as were the manager and the pilgrims, or you are devoured by death and madness, as were Marlow and Kurtz.  It is easy to realize that the author’s intention was to sway the reader towards doubting imperialism.  It can be seen in the text when Marlow describes the pilgrims as the, “imbecile crowd down on the deck.”  And it can be seen in the choosing of Marlow as a narrator within a narrator.  The author tries to hide in the figure of the original narrator aboard the Nellie, but it becomes inherently apparent that Marlow, the character that is perplexed by the nature of the oppression, represents him. 

The original question has now been answered.  At least, an answer that I think is correct has been molded to fit the context of the plot.  My catharsis period is now concluded; the author’s message has been discerned.  Having said this, I praise Conrad on his writing of a novel about a controversial topic in times of social upheaval.  The delicate combination of plot intricacy and personal perspective make the book hard to analyze and give the reader a literary high when they think they have fathomed the meaning beneath the text.