Worthy of Being Compared

J. Alfred Prufrock was written so that scholarly readers would compare it to Hamlet— the character, not the play.  Elliot not only mentions Hamlet in the poem, he makes several references to the traits that mold the famous prince.  Nevertheless, the emotions that two very different works provide, beyond the portion of the poem that has a direct relation to Hamlet's indecision, are what make Prufrock worthy of consideration for comparison.  Elliot provides the reader with interwoven ideas that can be used to identify the beauty of a text that is written with a specific character in mind.

The driving force behind Hamlet's indecision is very different from Prufrock's.  While Hamlet is asking himself whether to kill a king or not, Prufrock is pondering what to do with the woman that he loves. "My stronger guilt defeats my strong intent, And, like a man to double business bound, I stand in pause where I shall first begin." Hamlet is torn between the guilt that comes from not avenging his father, and the guilt that he feels he would be left with if he were to kill Claudius.  On the other hand, Prufrock wonders: “Do I dare?” when the only downside to not daring is the passing of time— or as he puts it, “time to turn back and descend the stair.” The inherent difference between the two protagonists can be found in the foundation of their frustration.  Prufrock doesn’t dare to ‘descend’ but he doesn’t dare to act either. In the hopes that those stairs don’t lure him too far towards cowardice, he persuades himself that what lies beyond them is ultimately worse than what would happen if he were to take action.  Hamlet can’t afford to ponder the alternative aftereffect.  There is no doubt in his mind that while the guilt may trouble him, his loyalty to his father dictates revenge as the only viable culmination to his distress.  Both Prufrock and Hamlet are apprehensive about an inevitable crossroads; but the pitfall that awaits the wrong decision is much deeper and more permanent for Hamlet.

So, why is this comparison even valid? Literary magnificence. The beauty of interdisciplinary relations, parallelisms between a poem and a play, lies in the similar emotions that can be transferred to the reader.  The anxiety and trepidation that J. Alfred Prufrock feels can only be compared with that of Hamlet’s own feeling of uncertainty.  Even if the decisions they must make are different and the plots are set in contrasting atmospheres, the emotions that the characters exude weave the two texts together.  Overall, the two works are contrasting even before the plots become a factor. One is a poem and the other a play.  But does it really make a difference when it comes to literary value?  Of course not, Hamlet and Prufrock both make the reader feel anxious.  After reading one has no choice but to wonder: to dare or not to dare?  

Colombia v Stereotypes

Chimamanda Adichie expresses the story of millions.  She shares how throughout her adult life, she has been bombarded by stereotypes, racism, and close minded assumptions; she even admits to have preempted a culture based on a rash generalization herself.  She tries to send the message that no matter if you are the subject of those stereotypes or the creator, you aren’t providing the world the foundation for a better future.  This is a very interesting sentiment, and one that as a Colombian, I have experienced many times before.

When at Phillips Andover this summer, I was the subject of many comments regarding the stereotypes that have been made of Colombian culture.  At the end of the five weeks I was still meeting new people, and every time I told them where I was from, they would say, “Where did you leave the cocaine?” Or, “nice man! ESCOBAR!”  At first it bothered me, but after a while I realized that they weren’t making fun of my beloved country, they were simply expressing whatever they knew about Colombia.  After having heard Ms. Adichie, I feel that as a citizen of a country that is constantly judged too quickly, I must urge all Colombians to be the best they can be and uphold the true values of our culture.  

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.  

Fog v Fog- A Literary Blueprint

Literature repeats itself.  It varies and changes, yet, paradoxically, the symbols and connotations are used time and time again for different purposes.  Joseph Conrad wrote about imperialism, and Ken Kesey discusses the ideals behind madness and social reform, yet the authors chose the same symbol to represent a distinct image. The use of fog in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and in Heart of Darkness is very different, yet bizarrely alike. 

The fog in Heart of Darkness is both literal and representative of the plot through symbolism.   That is to say, the fog actually exists— this may sound obvious to readers who have not experienced Chief Bromden’s legendary hallucination periods, but it is worth mentioning.  Furthermore, in Conrad’s novel, the fog allows the reader to analyze a metaliterary aspect of the storyline, that is the fact that Marlow has been a blind narrator.  In his recount of his experiences in the African heartland, he has based his opinion on a second hand approach, for he has never met Kurtz, he hasn’t thoroughly analyzed the native people and he knows little about the relationship between the manager and his uncle, to the extent that he has identified himself as an outsider.  The fog symbolizes the epitome of his perdition in a foreign land; he is forced to carry on based on his instinct, for he has absolutely no idea what is occurring around him.  On the other hand, in One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, the fog is a figment of the narrator’s imagination.  It represents the author’s desire to subtly include a remark about the control of the masses and challenging an authoritarian regime.  The fog symbolizes the shaded lens that doesn’t allow the general public to see what is going on around them: the “combine” or the possibility of a lobotomy in the case of a misdemeanor. 

The use of imagery in both novels points the reader back to the text.  It isn’t a reference to an external cliché, such as the one that may derive from the inclusion of a sunny day or a crow flying overhead.  Both authors attempt to envelope the reader in the details of the narrator’s profile, and they want the reader to become an advocate in the realizations of a certain occurrence, be it real (Conrad) or solely metaphorical (Kesey).  As a reader one should derive a lot from a reoccurring symbol such as the fog.  One must acknowledge that each piece of literature is unique, but that in order to construct a blueprint of possible interpretations for recurring themes one is obliged to analyze each one based solely on that plot and then feed in previous knowledge. 

Response to a Classmates' Blog Post

Joaquim Etienne raises many good points in his most recent blog post: ‘”Heart of Darkness”- Marlow the rebel.”  He discusses the elemental beliefs of Europeans and Englanders at the time the novel was written and today.  It is interesting to see how he remarks racism in England and the connection that that has with the characters in the novel.  Joaquim, do you think that Marlow is actually being a racist?  It is my impression that he believes that the mistreatment of the “black people” is many times cruel and that those nations are only inferior in theory but not as a united people.  What are your thoughts on this?  Do you think that this part of the novel includes irony and sarcasm so as to hint to the reader that Conrad is a rebel in himself because he criticizes the norm? 

Capricious Conrad

Irony is a fickle and ever-changing weapon.  Misusing an ironic tone could spell disaster, especially when narrating fiction.   In times passed, irony has been used throughout a text when an author wants the reader to think about the underlying message of a certain text, in this way Heart of Darkness is no exception.  Joseph Conrad attempts to use irony and satire as literary techniques to engulf the reader in a convoluted web of meaning and interpretation, yet it is possible that in seeking to be obscure he has become unclear.  Is the author’s use of irony as a general tone successful in portraying a discrete but understandable message?

When Marlow starts narrating his tale in the Congo, the reader is apprehensive.  After a few events have been narrated, the reader begins to draw conclusions, naturally, in order to formulate a sort of character profile for Marlow.  He begins describing the efforts of European colonizers in the Congo and refers to their mistreatment of the native peoples as something necessary and to the operation as a whole as a “noble cause.”  Obviously, the child of a Western education is taken aback when reading that when a European “felt the need at last of asserting his self-respect in some way… (so) he wacked the nigger mercilessly…” (72) Therefore, it is natural to start looking for an explanation of some sort.  In this case, it isn’t very difficult to find: because Conrad is writing a novel that has irony as a primary trait, it can be assumed that Marlow was also taken aback at the sight of such cruelty and that he was being sarcastic when he said that.   So, Marlow’s anecdote continues, but the reader finds that it is increasingly difficult to ignore the condescending tone that is being used when referring to black people.  Marlow says “a lot of people, mostly black and naked, moved about like ants.” (79) Now, was that a mistake from the author, whereas he meant to say, “moved about like majestic tigers,” but instead put ants?  No, that’s unlikely.  So it must be one of two things, either Marlow, and by default Conrad, thinks less of dark skinned people, or, through the use of irony and sarcasm (what is said v what is meant) he is hinting that these people were seen as inferior “ants” but they are actually worthy and noble creatures. 

After having concluded Part I of the novel, it is unclear to the reader how Conrad wishes to portray the black people.  This may or may not be of imminent importance to further understanding of the novel, but it is however, a concrete example of how irony and the possible interpretations that may derive from it affect a reader’s attitude toward the author.  Right now, the answer to the original question regarding ironic tone would have to be no, Conrad doesn’t portray a message that is clear to the reader.  However, given the fickle nature of irony, the reader could be set up for satisfaction by the time the novel is finished.