Caryl Phillips writes for The Guardian, "The lecture has since come to be recognised as one of the most important and influential treatises in post-colonial literary discourse. However, the problem is I disagree with Achebe's response to the novel, and have never viewed Conrad - as Achebe states in his lecture - as simply 'a thoroughgoing racist'. Yet, at the same time, I hold Achebe in the highest possible esteem, and therefore, a two-hour drive up the Hudson River Valley into deepest upstate New York would seem a small price to pay to resolve this conundrum."
Phillips writes about his discussion with Achebe, and I must say that some of what Achebe says is convincing:
"...If Conrad's intention is to draw a cordon sanitaire between himself and the moral and psychological malaise of his narrator, his care seems to me to be totally wasted because he neglects to hint, clearly and adequately, at an alternative frame of reference by which we may judge the actions and opinions of his characters. It would not have been beyond Conrad's power to make that provision if he had thought it necessary. Conrad seems to me to approve of Marlow..."
Okay, I see his point. It's kind of what I thought about the narrator of Things Fall Apart.
Achebe goes on to say, "Africa as setting and backdrop, which eliminates the African as human factor. Africa as a metaphysical battlefield devoid of all recognisable humanity, into which the wandering European enters at his peril. Can nobody see the preposterous and perverse arrogance in thus reducing Africa to the role of props for the break-up of one petty European mind?"
I'm tired and have thoughts that are not making their way into the world of words, so I'm going to just say, "Okay, Achebe. I hear ya'."
2 comments:
We discussed The Achebe/Conrad conundrum several times when I took a class on Postcolonialism at UNR. I see--and don't think I'm the original 'seer' of this--several problems with Achebe's criticism. One can always take the easy route: Heart of Darkness was written before we had effective euphemisms; excuse Conrad for his lack of 'political correctness.' However, I think that's a flawed argument at best. Stronger arguments can be made: First and most importantly, the Heart of Darkness is not a memoir. Though Conrad experienced being on a steam-ship personally, Achebe is confusing the author with the narrator. Thus, any author that writes a character as sexist, racist, homophobic must himself be that very characteristic? It's not a memoir, Achebe.
Second, The Heart of Darkness is an exploration of 'otherness' and how a person sees the other--often in terms of generalization, if not outright stereotype. We interpret otherness through our sense of what is commonly called 'the gaze'--which is limited to seeing and interpreting the other through a limited and finite lens. A lens that has power because it is our gaze. That 'gaze' persists regardless of where Conrad goes. When he returns to England, his generalization of Kurtz's wife is just as limited as was his perspective on the 'savages.' Her whiteness, the ivory piano keys, and the white imagery are equal--if not more--indicative of the same vacuousness of humanity. He won't tell her the truth because she (and Europe by analogy) could not handle realizing the cruelty it took to get the ivory they so savor. {on a side note: I've looked at my Ipod and thought the same thing.) Thus, I consider Conrad's HoD as an early work of postcolonial criticism.
Adam said, "When he returns to England, his generalization of Kurtz's wife is just as limited as was his perspective on the 'savages.' Her whiteness, the ivory piano keys, and the white imagery are equal--if not more--indicative of the same vacuousness of humanity."
Excellent point! And the tone of the language surrounding her is just as condescending as any language describing the natives of Africa.
And I completely agree with the last sentence. You said this so much more articulately than could I.
Post a Comment