Ambiguilty and meaning in the Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad - Essay Example

Teacher Ambiguity and Meaning Joseph Conrad’s book Heart of Darkness is a complex read because of the way Conrad uses ambiguity in the novel so that its theme and plot are not clear cut. Conrad’s main character himself, Marlow, communicated this ambiguity in the narrative by saying, "It seemed somehow to throw a kind of light on everything about me" but that light was "not very clear either. No, not very clear" (21). There are several sub-meanings in the novel that can be interpreted in several ways. The story in itself was narrated in a non-conventional way that there was a story within a story adding to the ambiguity of the narrative. But the most prominent ambiguity in the novel is moral ambiguity because its standard and application in the novel was uncertain that it is difficult to tell what constitutes right and wrong, good and evil because these standards were unclear and not easily understood in the novel. One of the most prominent ambiguity in the novel is Kurtz and the circumstances about him. Marlow first heard about Kurtz during a meeting with the accountant of the Company on his way to Congo making him a subject of a subject in a novel or a story of a story as Marlow, the protagonist of the story narrates about him. At first Marlow was somewhat impressed by the reputation Kurtz as he was described as “very remarkable person” (37) in the novel. But as the novel progresses and as more information was revealed about him, his character becomes blurry that it is difficult to describe his circumstances. It is also quite perplexing to the point of digression that Kurtz became so important in the novel when the narrative opened with Marlow’s fascination with adventure. All along, the reader is prepared to unravel the exotic Africa of which Marlow was supposed to go only to focus on Kurtz that made the narrative ambiguous. Kurtz circumstances were also ambiguous. Sure he runs the Inner Station in Congo, but the way his circumstances and the way he was treated by the natives were ambiguous if not ironic. Kurtz employed brutal methods in a gore proportion which Marlow himself described that were there were severed heads on the poles to attest the extent of brutality that was employed to extract ivory. Given this kind of brutality in harvesting ivories in Africa, the reader would expect that the natives will have a bitter resentment and hatred towards Kurtz. And perhaps being a novel, maybe device some unusual way to extract vengeance from him for his brutality. But no, he was strangely revered by the natives and was even treated like a god. In his deathbed, natives even surrounded him when Marlow paid Kurtz a visit. And even he felt kinship with the natives that the attack on Marlow’s boat was made with the prodding of Kurtz as revealed by the Russian trader so that Kurtz will not be found and perhaps, to be left alone with the natives. These circumstances blur the logical sequence of morality that you will be hated if you harm people. Instead, Kurtz seemed to be adored by the natives whom he used to slaughter for ivory. The use of words and description of places is also ambiguous that made the novel quite difficult to understand. Congo which is a part of Africa and Africa in general was referred to as the real heart of darkness as the title of the novel suggests but it is also described to be not as dark and gloomy as the colonists place such as London and Belgium. This run counters to the common view that we are accustomed with that Africa was supposed to be uncivilized and therefore darker and the Europeans which were supposed to be educated and civilize were supposed to be the bearer of light. But this was negated in the narrative because it was Europe that was darker and not the heart of darkness which was Congo. Here, the standard of what is morally desirable is blurred because the place that was assigned to be the heart of darkness was not after all darker but in fact better than Europe which we used to think as civilized. The ending of the novel was also ambiguous. The story was concluded with Marlow looking for Kurtz’s fiancee and when he found her, Marlow had to be ambiguous about the circumstances of Kurtz death. She narrates his ideal qualities that made Marlow lie or ambiguous about the circumstances of his death and instead told her that the last words he said was her name instead of telling the truth. This ambiguity in Marlow’s work made the novel a difficult read to me. Unlike other books where I normally enjoy the narrative of the author, this one is a challenge because it is full of sub-meaning when the words often do not mean exactly what they seem to be. For example, the idea of heart of darkness which under normal impression, we would categorized as the darkest. But Conrad meant another. It is in fact London and Belgium that is darker. The sense of what is right and wrong is also ambiguous if not illogical. Take for instance the kinship of the native and Kurtz to one another. Kurtz was treated a god when in fact he slaughtered them to extract ivory. The novel impresses the idea that such behavior is commendable that it is difficult to reconcile that part of the story. There may be people who enjoyed the novel but I did not because of its ambiguity. I am more of a person who wants clarity to avoid miscommunication and this includes the books that I read. Our world is already full of conflict due to misunderstanding and I would like to have clarity at least, in the novels that I will read. It even occurred to me that Conrad may be an anarchist that he deliberately promotes disorder as what we can see from his main character Marlow. Marlow just cannot fit into anything? What is he exactly? He may be a seaman but with the way he described himself made that occupation a coincidence because he in fact wants adventure. Perhaps there may be more to him that I cannot see because ambiguity is really not my thing. Work Cited Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. Penguin. 1994. Print. Read More