Book #4 Conrad's Heart of Darkness: A Critical and Contextual Discussion

I’m back writing after a hectic week where I reaped the fruits of my inability to plan my time well. This is probably the book that helped me begin to understand Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. I remember when I first read Heart of Darkness, I was lost in the jungles of Africa for large swathes of the book. However, reading Cedric Watts’ book has helped to provide a framework by which to approach the novella.

          Watts’ discussion divides Conrad’s book into three sections: pre-departure, journeying into the Congo, and back to civilisation. In each section, he looks at some of the literary techniques Conrad employs and discusses how these create certain effects in the reader and how identifying them might elucidate the ‘meaning’ of the text. There are three techniques I would like to mention here: the oblique narrator, delayed decoding and the covert plot.

          The oblique narrator is the first-person narrator (hence the primary or ‘frame’ narrator) who narrates the first-person narration of another character in the book. This is probably the first time I have encountered this technique. What it does is give Conrad the flexibility to play with Marlow’s telling of his experience in the Congo. This means that Marlow does not need to tell a story in a straightforward manner, which he in fact does not do. We can then regard him as an unreliable narrator which makes us question the things he says, lending ambiguity and uncertainty – which is pretty much what Conrad’s book is about.

          Also, this means that Conrad is able to use ‘delayed decoding.’ How this works is that Marlow sees the effect that images, events, people have on him, and only later understands what these actually are or mean. This technique creates a sense of surprise because something seemingly unimportant or comic might be later disclosed as significant or even horrifying. Furthermore, it adds to the air of mystery and foreboding prevalent in the book, because revelation comes slowly and gradually as we travel, with Marlow deeper into the Congo. Also, there is a sense that we are sharing Marlow’s journey. I know certainly that in reading other books, we seem to be participating in the adventure. But this technique that Conrad uses ties in also with the bigger themes of the book, which is interesting if we actually spend time to study these books like literature students or critics.

          Finally, an interesting aspect of the book is the idea of the covert plot. This plot is definitely not the main plot, neither is it a subplot; it is rather a plot that we as readers will not be able to identify (even after multiple readings), however, not knowing it will not leave us completely in the dark. It is a plot that helps to make sense of the story, and might influence us to interpret the text differently. Watts suggests that not many authors do it (thankfully, otherwise I’ll be covert plot-hunting every time I read a book), but Conrad uses it very effectively. The covert plot in Heart of Darkness stated concisely is that the manager of the Central Station wishes Kurtz dead in order to earn promotion. Thus, it is possible to immediately condemn Kurtz as a man who succumbed to the darkness, but in light of this, we could see Kurtz as victim and that because help does not come earlier, he finally yields to the darkness.

          Conrad does not make this darkness clear. It could mean Africa; it could mean the darkness within each individual; it could mean the darkness of the civilised world. And that is what makes Heart of Darkness so thought-provoking. We just cannot be sure! It seems to me that Conrad wants us to think and not jump to conclusions. He wants us to ponder about the state of the human condition. And I think that he has managed to capture one sense of it: that our hearts are indeed dark, but often we cannot accept it, and so we hide behind a veneer of civility and illusory light. And that is why we deceive ourselves. We keep up this image because the truth is too horrifying to behold. So, the light is there, but instead, we often choose darkness – we think that is safer.  

Understanding Catholics

This week (9/2/15 – 13/2/15) is the annual ‘Events Week’ organised by the Durham Christian Union (DICCU). There are lunchtime and evening talks every day of the week where we look at specific questions raised against Christianity (lunchtime) and examine the claims Jesus makes (evening). There are also events catered for international students. All of the talks are geared towards explaining the Gospel and what it means to be a Christian.

          It was at the evening international event last night that I had a chance to discuss Catholicism with a friend. Through the conversation, I was struck by how clear it is that both Catholics and Evangelical Protestants have misunderstood each other for many years. My friend might not be representative of what all Catholics believe, but I think some of the questions he raised are helpful for Protestants to think about and examine. But firstly, a bit about my friend. He is a Singaporean reading Philosophy and Theology in Durham. He comes from an independent Protestant church but converted to Catholicism before coming to Durham. And this is his reason (with my paraphrase): the Catholic Church is the authentic and true church of Christ. She is right, and Protestants are wrong in their beliefs.

          His main concern, I found, was not on matters of salvation (soteriology) but on the church (ecclesiology). He argues that the principle of the Reformation is troubling. Where Biblical interpretation is left to the individual, how can there be consensus on its meaning and truth? He draws on the example of church splits, starting of new denominations, and liberal Protestantism. His challenge is that with no central figurehead to authenticate and give authority to Biblical interpretation, it is easy to misuse, abuse, and misapply the Bible in all matters of Christian living. Expressing angst against post-modernism, he says that Biblical interpretation becomes a wholly subjective and personal exercise if the Protestant principle is held. In short, no one Protestant can consider another’s interpretation of the Bible as incorrect, since authority lies in the individual and not in the (Catholic) Church.

          I think I understand his qualms, but perhaps he has misunderstood Protestants. His suggested ‘Protestant principle’ seems to work in theory, but in practice, I don’t think the argument holds water. As an individual, I don’t interpret the Bible one way and reject all other interpretations. I am ready to acknowledge that I’ve understood a word or verse or passage wrongly when someone else shows me a better reading using careful hermeneutics.

This is because I believe that the Bible’s authority is intrinsic, and not imposed extrinsically. The spirit of the Reformation is that we constantly check our understanding against Scripture. We weigh our interpretations, and measure their validity against the big picture of the Biblical message. Consistency and assurance can then be arrived at. However, because we are fallible, our interpretations can be incorrect. That’s why I think the ‘Protestant principle’ good in the sense that no one man or institution or tradition is right, and studying the Bible is both an individual and communal activity as the Christian seeks to understand God’s Word in the context of the Christian community – and this community transcends time, space and denominations.

Sure we have our doctrinal differences, but the Gospel message is essentially the same. Perhaps the reason why Protestants fought, and continue to fight is because we are still sinners. And Protestants have to seriously consider whether by sacrificing unity for pet peeves is right and proper.

So can there be right interpretation? I believe so, but that is for another discussion. God spoke decisively as the author of Hebrews puts it ‘in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.’ (Hebrews 1:1) Final authority, however, doesn’t lie in the individual, neither does it lie in the Catholic Church. Before the mutual defamation continues, let’s think carefully about what this entails.