NRJ #1: Heart of Darkness

Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” is a journey into a soul surrounded by the omnipresent and enveloping force of nature.  Nature’s power pervades the story, guiding our journey on an inevitable path away from civilization and towards mystery.  As we move from the imperialistic civilization into the blackness of the depth of the Congo, Conrad uses the fearful imagery of the snake-like river to guide us ever deeper into the untamed depths of the human soul.  Once there, we find a mystery both wondrous and beautiful and yet terrifying in its power.

Beyond the fence the forest stood up spectrally in the moonlight, and through the dim stir, though the faint sounds of that lamentable courtyard, the silence of the land went home to one’s very heart – its mystery, its greatness, the amazing reality of its concealed life…I felt how big, how confoundedly big, was that thing that couldn’t talk and perhaps was deaf as well.

In parts I & II, nature represents mystery, excitement and adventure.  Conrad, through Marlow, seeks an escape from the frustrations of society and civilization.  His desire to venture into the “white spaces” on the map is an adventure into the unknown both on land and within himself.  As he journeys up the river, nature takes on a powerful new role, both controlling the path of the journey and defining the world around the sanctuary of the steamer.  Kurtz has taken this journey to its logical end and has become part of nature and cannot live when separated from it.

I tried to break the spell – the heavy, mute spell of the wilderness – that seemed to draw him to its pitiless breast by the awakening of forgotten and brutal instincts, by the memory of gratified and monstrous passions.  This alone, I was convinced, had driven him out to the edge of the forest, to the bush, towards the gleam of fires, the throb of drums, the drone of weird incantations; this alone had beguiled his unlawful soul beyond the bounds of permitted aspirations.

His final act before succumbing to the return journey is a desparate attempt to stay within the bosom of nature.  Nature has entwined itself with his soul.  Kurtz can no longer live without it, but of course he can’t live with it either.

He had kicked himself loose of the earth.  Confound the man! He had kicked the very earth to pieces.  He was alone, and I before him did not know whether I stood on the ground or floated in the air.

By diving headlong into nature, Kurtz has discovered the source of the river into his soul.  The horrors he finds there are too much to explain, but are too addictive to live without.  When finally separated from this raw power, life quickly leaves him and he soon dies, unable to take life on the civilization represented by the steamer.

Addendum, after a second reading:

 (Monday, March 30th)

Above I mentioned that "Conrad, through Marlow, seeks an escape from the frustrations of society and civilization."  I'm not sure this is true for either Conrad or Marlow.  Conrad intentionally took us to the Congo to contrast the atrocities there with the moralistic PR promulgated by The Company in Europe.  He shows us that power corrupts and that imperialism represented the worst in men, rather than the justifications used by European nations to fill their pockets with gold.   Unlike Conrad, Marlow is not trying to make a point, other than to show us how he was changed by this experience.  He is not escaping civilization by going to the Congo any more than he always has as a seaman.  He loves the clarity of vision and purpose that the sea provides.  I don't think he really knew what he wanted other than his next ship.

On my first reading, I didn't clearly see the relationship between Kurtz and the unconscious mind.  Although I understood this to be an allegory, I had to struggle with the plot the first time, which made it difficult to see the symbolism of the characters, the river, and the various settings. 

Missed DRJ #4 - Rationalization!

My apologies for not completing Drama Reading Journal #4 on Hamlet, Acts IV and V. These were the best acts of the play, in my opinion. I loved how the indecision of the earlier acts and the mysteries of each character come into focus and the plot begins to drive the action relentlessly toward the tragic conclusion. But alas, I ran out of time!

With the combination of the midterm, a crunch at work, reviews for a professional peer-reviewed journal, and work for my other classes, I simply ran out of time. I hope that my extra credit assignments make up for this lapse!

See you all in the jungle with Kurtz and crew next week. Time for a journey to the dark side!

DRJ #3: Hamlet, Act III

Act III seemed full of plot holes. The play within the play is so obvious in tone that clearly Claudius must know that someone, most likely Hamlet who has been acting strangely and organizing the players, is obviously aware of his murderous act? It is so transparent you would think everyone in the court would recognize the ruse. Claudius would definitely be on guard. Additionally, if Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Hamlet’s long time friends, surely they would know that he now distrusts them completely and their actions hold no weight. You might also think the Queen would have attendants in her chambers, or at least nearby enough to hear her protestations and the murder of Polonius. But no, Hamlet kills Polonius and only as a slight interruption to his discussion with his mother. Their discussion carries on almost ignorant of the bloody murder that has just occurred. Perhaps it is all just obvious to the reader, and not the players?

Horatio is the voice of reason. In Act I, as the learned man, he validates the visions of Marcellus and Bernardo. While in Act III, he is the objective observer that corroborates Claudius’ reaction to the play, confirming his guilt in Hamlet’s eyes. Hamlet is aware that passion clouds his mind, obscuring reason. Ironically, the court views Hamlet as mad, and yet, he is clearly is aware of his faults and emotions. So much so, that he has his closest friend bear witness to his plan and confirm his suspicions. Unlike the other key characters, Horatio seems above the pety plots of the court. Unlike Polonius, Ophelia, Gertrude, and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Horatio stands alone as Hamlet’s true friend – a trusted partner.

I find it strange that Claudius, while praying for forgiveness, admits his guilt to the audience. Without this, the reader might be left to wonder if, perhaps, Hamlet was truly mad. After all, despite his efforts to learn the truth, we are left with the word of a spirit and an emotional reaction to a play as the evidence which drives Hamlet to murder. Do you think the play would be better off without Claudius’ confession?

DRJ #2: Hamlet, Act II

Act II, for me, was about Polonius’ fall. Clearly Hamlet’s depression and decisions drive the plot, but Polonius’ character arc was not clear to me in previous readings. We are presented with a lapdog to the new King, who is guilty by association with a murderer and who, as an overbearing and overprotective father, deprives a young couple of the joy of love. In Act I, Polonius provides caring fatherly advice for Laertes, engendering compassion in the reader. But Act II begins with his suspicion of his son as demonstrated by his instructions to Reynaldo to spy on Laertes. We immediately begin to suspect his motives and character when we see him stoop to subterfuge upon his own son and “By indirections find directions out.” Even subtle changes, as Shakespeare has him forget himself in the middle of directing Reynaldo, demonstrate the change to Polonius’ character. He doubles down as he arranges to spy, together with Kind Claudius, on his daughter Ophelia as she speaks with Hamlet. And his fall from grace is complete when we witness Hamlet’s interactions with Polonius, who he suspects of both over-supporting his uncle and responsible for the denials of Ophelia. It is not without intent and awareness that Hamlet calls Polonius a lowly “fishmonger.”

Hamlet is a play about the faults in human nature. The contrast between the different faults of man portrayed by each character provides insight into Hamlet’s inner moral struggle. Polonius’ role is to show that misplaced loyalty and condescending overprotection can lead one astray from the moral path. Polonius is the follower to Hamlet’s lead.

For Act II, I decided to watch the Branagh version of Hamlet while following along in the Bedford text writing notes. I started by watching Act I, which I had read previously and gained some new perspectives on the text from the actors. As Act II started, which I had not read, I found that I was missing details of the text and switched to completely reading the text while the movie played in the background. I would occasionally glance at the movie, but predominantly was looking at the text. Following the text with an actor’s voice allowed me to see the detailed word choices more clearly than watching the film. Has anyone else tried reading along while listening or watching the movie?