Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

There are three ways of looking at this book:

1. By looking at Conrad as a xenophobic whiteman in Africa

2.By looking at the book as a white man's denunciation of colonialism

3.By looking at it like I do!

Of course, I would prefer my own view here in this review. This is a book after all, that led to this whole "Racism in Conrad's Heart of Darkness" debate after Chinua Achebe's eponymous lecture in 1975, and over the years, I've heard many people, mostly "blacks" and "whites" arguing about whether or not this book is racist.

African writers talk about his xenophobic, de-humanising depiction of Africa and its inhabitants. European and American critics argue it was an "eloquent denunciation of colonialism."

I say- Hogwash!

Now, maybe because I read this book while listening to Kenneth Branagh's audio book performance, but I could only trace one thing in Marlow's, or for that matter, Conrad's tone. It wasn't xenophobia, it wasn't just denunciation of colonialism, it was sarcasm!

Conrad and Marlow came across to me as that one voice- a voice! - that was struck by one thing: moral degradation in these people, who had set out into an unknown continent "to civilise." To him, these people, described by the colonialists as "enemies," "pilgrims, " "savages" were real people, who needed no "civilisation."

Nowhere does Conrad depict Africa as an anti-thesis of Europe. Rather, he talks of it as a continent with its own culture, its own beliefs, which, strange as they might seem to a foreigner, were very much a part of its inherent civilisation. Instead, it is the so-called civilised white people, with their proverbial White Man's Burden, who he finds savage, dark and dehumanised in a continent where no one is watching them.

Conrad's hint, through the repeated juxtaposition of light and darkness, black and white, is not revolving around xenophobia or colonialism. Its spotlight happens to be on a moral rhetoric:

What does an educated, civilised man do when there's no one watching over him? Doesn't absolute power, even in the name of the Greater Good, corrupt absolutely?

That's what Kurtz's character was all about.

Another question that Conrad and Marlow seem to be asking here is,

When you say words like "savage," "barbaric" and "uncivilised," what are your parameters to define savegery, barbarianism and uncivilised society? Isn't the definition subjective? What exactly do you mean by "The Great Civilising Mission?" Isn't the idea of development and civilisation just as subjective? And also, is becoming inhuman yourself justified to "civilise" to your so-called barbarians?


For inspiring such a beautiful train of thought, this book, which I approached gingerly because I assumed it would be oh-so-racist, is a 5/5 for me. Hopefully, with a bit of insight and an open mind, it will be a good read for you, too!

View all my reviews