Respond to the following passages from paragraph 9 and paragraph 15 (Part I).
"The yarns of seamen have a direct simplicity, the whole meaning of which lies within the shell of a cracked nut. but Marlow was not typical (if his propensity to spin yarns be excepted) and to him the meaning of an episode was not inside like a kernel but outside, enveloping the tale which brought it out only as a glow brings out a haze, in the likeness of one of these misty halos that sometimes, are made visible by the spectral illumination of moonshine." (9)
"It seemed somehow to throw a kind of light on everything about me--and into my thoughts. It was sombre enough too -- and pitiful -- not extraordinary in any way -- not very clear either. No. Not very clear. And yet it seemed to throw a kind of light." (15)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
To kick us off for the first passage:
'To him the meaning of an episode' is not 'inside like a kernel' of popcorn with the secret to its story of life inside (Presuming that Conrad knew what popcorn was in 1900), 'but outside,' That the explanation of an incident is surrounding it and one must look closely at these surroundings to derive any explanation, or purpose from an 'episode'.
It's like the Congo: If you look from the inside, the natives are not inhuman. Looking for meaning, it's not they who have created the darkness. It's not the natives who call themselves heathen, barbaric, and godless.
One must look at the darkness from an 'outside-in' perspective: Europe's enforced morals, King Leopold's manifested judgment calls these helpless Congolese 'In need of christening', 'In need of civilizing'. The western world's moralized HEART OF DARKNESS is what finds the Congo such a damned 'Horror,' as Kurtz puts it. Westerners - kings, greedy businessmen - created the horrible enslavement of the land just the same as Kurtz created the horrible enslavement of his mind to Darkness.
"but Marlow was not typical (if his propensity to spin yarns be excepted)and to him the meaning of an episode was not inside like a kernel but outside"
I believe that he is looking at this on an imperial view of European countries at the time. Talking about how the Europeans leave their way of life just to go to Africa to "civilized" the natives, but to him he think that the natives are so savage that it is overwhelming and hopeless.
But I also believe that the statement Above (talking about the kernel)also represent how his idea of Britain are different from the typical British person at that time stating that Britain at the time was seen as the heart of civilization to the typical British person but the him he sees it Britain as a savage "end of the world".
I think in the first passage, to understand the meaning of 'the yarns of seamen', you have to make it complicated, unsimplify it. You have to lay it out and let it be made visable by what it is around you for you to see it. Like the "spectral illumination of moonshine", you have it be out in the open and let something out the outside shine out it.
Applying this to the Congo, you get this need to step back from what your doing to the Congo and look at it from a distance. You have to hang it out and complicate it a bit to see what your doing to
the people who were there. You have to see it from the outside with the world looking at it, not from the inside of a nut with only you looking at it.
And then there is the second passage, where there is light being thrown on to him and his thoughts. I think it's saying that throwing light on things about you doesn't make everything clear, understandable, nice and alright like we always think but can be confusing and different. But it's still light, and it's illuminating what there is about him.
I guess that you could say that shining a light onto these things at the Congo isn't easy, and it isn't clear or pretty, and it's faily hard to understand for the people who are doing it.
I think that Conrad is saying that seamen were typically satisfied with simply interpreting "episodes" without looking at the big picture. Marlow was unlike them because he chose to look at the events that happened before, during and after. His ability to do this probably allowed him to make connections and really see what was happening beyond the surface.
In paragraph 15, Marlow is saying that although his eyes were opened to things he hadn't noticed before about his surroundings and himself, he actually became even more confused. Sometimes discovering the truth about yourself and/or the world you live in makes things more difficult to understand or accept. Marlow is saying that this experience caused him to notice new things but he didn't really know how to react.
-Sharon Kim
The first passage is talking about Marlow and the complexity of his opinions. He states that "the yarns of seamen" are simple, and then says how Marlow is not typical in that sense. Since we hear the story through Marlow's viewpoint, it's important to understand it. He is saying that the meaning of something has to be examined from the outside in, that it involves all aspects. I think he's not just saying that this is true, he's saying that this is how Marlow does it. It can very much relate to how the Congo is viewed- whether the place is uncivilized because the natives are barbaric themseleves, or if they are just a product of other forces. It also can be related to England as it is described as darkness and the ocean as light. Why England is dark when it is civilized and wealthy, could be explained differently depending on your view point.
The second passage is sort of all over the place, and obscure in a way. But I think he is saying that what happened to him or what he saw was thought provoking, it made him evaluate his life and himself. It made him see himself in a new light. An interesting part is the adjectives he uses to describe the experience: sombre, pitiful, not extraordinary- he even says that the light shown was not very clear. So it didn't exactly make things wonderfully clear, it just changed. This means, to me, that it might not have been the perfect or true light, it was only a very different light. Going back to the first passage, it's all a matter of view. For him, the light he sees things in means everything. The outside of the kernal.
When I looked at this first passage I'll admit that I thought the word 'yarn' was simply referring to string. But after looking the word up, I found an alternative meaning: "A long, often elaborate and entertaining tale." The narrator is reffering to Marlow's "propensity to [create] stories," just as a person would spin yarn (string) from wool.
This first passage is talking about the meaning of a seamans's story, which is simple and direct. When you crack open a shelled nut, there is nothing overly complicated about the interior...it is, well, it's just a nut. Nothing else. Therefore, a person must view a seaman's tale exactly for what it is: a story. But the narrator (nameless) refers to the notion that Marlow is not like most sailors. His stories cannot be compared to a simple nut hiding within a shell. His stories are complex and designed around truth, ones that are clear and out in the open, just like the kernel's exterior. The Darkness that shrouds the congo is not concealed within a shell. It's blatant, apparent, and outright.
Second Passage:
I think Marlow is saying he went through a period of self-realization as he travelled "up the river to the place when he first met the poor chap," but he is confused, confused as to why the event--his journey through darkness--had such a profound impact on his life. It was not clear at all, yet it somehow seemed to "throw a kind of light." As he began journeying into the darkness, he started becoming aware of himself and the obscure/confusing (deceptive maybe?) new light illuminating his whirling thoughts.
".. enveloping the tale which brought it out only as a glow brings out a haze, in the likeness of one of these misty halos that sometimes, are made visible by the spectral illumination of moonshine."
The "civilized" have brought their teachings, religion, and technology to the Congo, but to the natives it serves no purpose. Their confusion represents the misty halo that envelops the core of thier culture. Eventually as Western influences continue, the people of the Congo will lose thier idenities.
The seconed paragraph seems to represent how Marlow finds himself superior to the Natives and he feels pity for them, but in his subconscious he knows that society has created the darkness within him. The "light" that he was referring to is bright and true to the people of the Congo, but that light will be smothered by the darkness of western greed.
I have to agree with most people on their analysis of the first passage. "The yarns of seamen have a direct simplicity, the whole meaning of which lies within the shell of a cracked nut. But Marlow was not typical..." For most children growing up, tales of the seas are often fabricated to create a fantasized world of adventure and thrill. Simply, these are stories told before bedtime or to pass some free time. However, to Marlow, these stories have a much more symbolic meaning; often bringing up complicated and deep ideas. He not only tells the story as it is, but also takes into consideration the outside consequences of such actions and plots. He is able to see these mere stories as insight to human behavior and cultural patterns. In that way, Marlow is not a typical seamen, and does not tell typical sea tales.
The second passage gives the reader some ideas of what kind of character Marlow is. Marlow begins his story by stating that he does not want to bother the audience much with his personal experience, but realizes that the story cannot be fully effective without his personal insight. He says that experience "seemed somehow to throw a kind of light on everything about me..". He is able to take some actual wisdom and learn from this experience, instead of just keeping it as a memory to tell other sailors.
Both passages referred to darkness and light, how one coexists with another. Passage one reveals more about Marlow’s character and that he is different. Conrad uses the nut as a metaphor to show that Marlow is a person who sees a deeper value in things. He might not accept the apparent truth as the absolute truth; instead he looks beyond “the shell of a cracked nut.”
Passage two seems to foreshadow bits and pieces of Marlow’s journey through words such as “somber” and “pitiful”. It is as though Marlow is digging through the mist, trying to reach out to that one spot of light that seems so close yet remains so far away. The repetition of “a kind of light” shows that Marlow is certain that there is truth underneath the darkness. Through Marlow’s journey in the Congo, Conrad has already revealed some truth about the Congo. But by having Marlow looks back and says that it is still “not very clear”, I feel that Conrad is urging people to find out the rest of the truth that remains uncovered.
The first passage is easy enough to understand,
"but Marlow was not typical (if his propensity to spin yarns be excepted)and to him the meaning of an episode was not inside like a kernel but outside"
This, to me, means that Marlow weaves more complex tales than most seamen, with a meaning deeper and harder to understand, that incorporates extrinsic circumstances. What is more perplexing is the unnamed narrators description of the nature of his story telling.
"Enveloping the tale which brought it out only as a glow brings out a haze..."
This means that his tales are told, and must be viewed, from a higher level to understand. A spectators view, rather than a players view so to speak. You cannot see the haze by looking at it, but you must look at something beyond the haze, a light, to illuminate it. This passage acts as a sort of warning to the reader, 'beware:things are not what they seem.'
I see the internal part of the kernel as being an event, independent of anything else. The external part of the kernel either becomes some sort of analysis or the overall significance of the event. If it's the former, this passage then seems to be another form of the quote, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
If it's the latter, it fits because some parts of Marlow's story need multiple events in order to give it the whole significance. For example, Mr. Kurtz. If you only look at what the Russian says about Kurtz, then Kurtz becomes the most amazing person ever. But if you consider when Marlow sees Kurtz deathly ill and being transported by others, then Kurtz becomes a sick old man. It's only when everything's put together that the whole story fits together.
As for the second passage, I find it very hard to believe that Marlow's trip to the Congo was “not extraordinary in any way.” I guess Marlow fixes a boats hangs out with black people, watches crazy gunfights with unknown enemies, and meets an extraordinary person all the time.
Passage #2:
By 'It' Marlow refers to the experience of Darkness. Witnessing the degradation of someone with so much untapped potential so much tore his civilized heart from within.
'Sombre' - lacking brightness, light, maybe Truth?
'Pitiful' - Is he recalling his pity for the ebbed - more than ebbed - completely ravished light that had emanated from a once eloquent Kurtz?
The second passage is showing Marlow's memory turn into a much more depressing thought than the original light it had 'thrown.' The memory at first strikes him as a sort of clarifying 'light' but as he relives the experience, as many humans do with their past, he remembers the 'somber' 'pitiful' sentiments. Marlow's tone just seems to me to be so sure at first of the light, of the experience's purpose, and as he relives the memory he then finds himself incompetent in the explanation of that light. His frustration at his own inadequacy is reason enough to tell the whole story to his companions on the ship. More importantly Marlow needs to explain the story to himself to regain the warmth of that light, that purpose which exposed itself through Darkness. With memories of such an ordeal - nightmares - I suppose one could never cease from seeking purpose from it all.
"Marlow was not typical (if his propensity to spin yarns be excepted) and to him the meaning of an episode was not inside like a kernel but outside"
I think that Conrad is suggesting that one must look at an episode like Marlow does. Unlike most seamen, who only derive the meaning from the inside of a cracked nut, Marlow can see the bigger picture.
This passage also suggests the contrast between light and dark through the Congo. The European society suggests the concept of "light", while the concept of "dark" is represented by the culture of the African people, which is perceived as uncivilized and savage. However this meaning is derived from what is only within the shell. Conrad wants the reader to see what Marlow sees. It is suggested in the passage that Marlow understands that the source of "darkness" is from the perceptions of the Europeans rather than origination from the civilization of Africa.
I think these two passages seem to be bringing out the topic of simplicity and ignorance. When I read the first passage, it kind of reminded me of Brave New World. The typical seamen were satisfied with looking at the only the shore, reflecting their lack of introspection and ignorance. Unlike his fellow seamen, Marlow wanted to see what was beyond the shore and was not satisfied with merely the surface and initial appearance of things. This reflects his desire to find what was in the heart of darkness. "Marlow as not typical," (9), he searched for the meaning in things, spending time examining himself and searching for truth. He wanted to learn from his experiences.
Also, Marlow was not simple at all, and throughout the book, he shows his disgust for ignorant people who simply go through the motions of life and have no troubles, purpose, or ability to look beyond their selfishness. Most seamen would not have learned much by going into the Congo, but Marlow's experience ", seemed somehow to throw a kind of light on everything,"(15). He learned about himself and was not your typical simple and ignorant seamen. He was much changed by the Congo because he allowed the "light" to shine into his thoughts.
I think what the first passage is saying is that most seamen looked at events at the surface and just told what they saw. They had a simple outlook on life, and the "whole meaning" of all they experienced was within "the shell" of their stories. But Marlow analyzed his experiences in the bigger picture. For him, the meaning of events was intangible and was bigger than just the story itself.
The second passage, "yet it seemed to throw a kind of light" shows how Marlow prefers to understand the deeper meaning behind it all. Most seaman didn't look at life in that way. They preferred "a direct simplicity."
To me, this seemed more philosophical than literal.
The first passage is talking about how a seamens journey it straight forward and typical, "whole meaning of which lies within the shell of a cracked nut." However, Marlow's journey was not your average seamen's story. With the metaphor dealing with the kernel and how it says "to him the meaning of an episode was not inside like a kernel but outside," means that it has many different angels and sides to the story.
The second passage, I think that its showing his profound thoughts as he traveled into the darkness, thoughts of self realization, "It seemed somehow to throw a kind of light on everything about me--and into my thoughts." light being knowledge of what he is becoming and what is happening to his surroundings. But he also seems at lost for what is happening, but knows at the same time, traveling through the darkness and confusing, there were still a shed of light(answers) on him.
Nick! I'm so glad you actually looked it up and wrote the definition on the blog, but honestly, I was confused too. Now the first sentence actually makes sense to me!
"...the whole meaning of which lies within the shell of a cracked nut." I think Conrad is trying to say that a cracked nut is a cracked nut. Internally, a nut isn't very interesting, not that the yarns of seamen weren't. But there is a sense of just a story. It wasn't overly dramatic and filled with details but it was a story just a story's sake.
The part about "...only as a glow brings out a haze." And I think he's trying to say that you only find "bad" things when you look for good things. With the word glow, it's connotation is good. Glow = good and glow = light and brightness. And I think Conrad is trying to say that when you search for truth/answers, you'll find a haze, a hidden secret. When you go into a search, you'll always find something bad. It's like Oedipus. When he keep searching for the truth, he found out he married his mom and killed his father. It might be a stretch, but I think the Conrad is basically saying the same thing.
And as for the second passage-I think he's trying to say that once he experienced or learned more about himself, he seemed become more confused. His "identity" was changed because of this light. And when you shine light on a subject, things don't necessarily become more clearer. The light may muddy things up more than they originally were.
"The yarns of seamen have a direct simplicity...the meaning of an episode was not inside like a kernel but outside..."
I take this to mean that a seamen means what he says or does and that is that. When they do something you do not have to tear it down to the minute details to discover their intentions. Usually things become clearer through telling the underlaying story, but in the instance of a seamen, there is no need. In fact, the tale may bring about the haze which the meaning lights up.
Sometimes though this light brings us (and marlow) confusion. We are reminded of things we would rather forget. Perhaps in the case of Marlow it is his memories of the Congo and all of the evil that was taking place there. The light which shone down on him showed him his true thoughts, and perhaps he discovered too much about himself from his journey.
His clarity was lost as a seamen. That simplicity had now become complexity. To myself, complexity always brings about confusion. Often times, confusion brings depression. A sombre light is most definitely not a good one. This is where we being seeing light as both good and bad.
I guess one could say, "the light is not always right..."
I agree with most people. Within the "shell of a cracked nut," implies that most seamen are not consumed by the events in which they partake. Rather, they take things as they are and lack a sense of understanding. Their adventures are only stories. Marlow is different in the sense that he, like Sharon said, looks at the "big picture," beyond what is in front of him and what he has seen. He does not have a "direct simplicity" that the other seamen possess. He is complex and does not let his views and stories lie within a nut, rather, he places them "not inside like a kernel, but outside," for everyone to know.
The second paragraph seems to be a realization for Marlow. Something that he did not expect to find traveling to the Congo. "It seemed somehow to throw a kind of light on everything about me.." I think this means that before his journey, he was naive and underestimated what he would discover. However, after his journey he seemed to gain a sense of wisdom and knowledge that changed his view. However, as it changed his view he became more confused.
I also think that the first passage is talking about how Marlow sees that "the yarns of seamen" are simple. The thing that makes Marlow different from them, however, is how he can see things a different way. Not only does Marlow see the present, but he also examines the past events and. This is a profound ability to have considering that everyone else only observes the surface of what is truly there.
In the second passage I believe that although Marlow's eyes are opened and could see things that he didn't notice before, Marlow become more confused. There is such thing as seeing too much. When someone becomes too overwhelmed with information, you lose the detail and focus. Marlow is saying that even though he noticed new things, he didn't really know how to react to it.
I believe that by stating that "the meaning of the episode was not inside like a kernal but outside" Marlow meant to say that the story was not about him but about others around him and his surroundings. I did not really understand the second portion of the paragraph such as the part where he discusses the "misty halos". Does anyone understand what Conrad meant by that?
For the second quote, I think Marlow is trying to say that his experience in the Congo enlightened him by showing him all of the horrors that are occuring there. But I think Marlow was confused as to why these horrors were occuring or how they began so the whole situation became very unclear but was still a revelation.
1st Excerpt:
This excerpt seems to say that instead of remembering and reflecting on every detail of his experiences like most sailors, Marlow chooses to remember what the trip did to his mind and how it affected how he thought. He chooses to look at the bigger picture and what it means. He looks on the outside for the meaning than only searching for the obvious “center of the kernel.”
2nd Excerpt:
This excerpt reflects on the light that was shed on Marlow’s thoughts while on his voyage. However, this light isn’t a perfect bright, shining light. Rather, it’s only a small amount of light, resulting in only a “glow” or a “haze.” So essentially, the excursion shed light but not enough light so that the true meaning was revealed. It still remains unclear and opaque, which results in more thought about it.
So I think that the first paragraph is referring to the fact that the yarns, or stories, of seamen are innately simplistic, and should not be mistaken for being long-winded or complicated. The metaphor of a "shell of a cracked nut" serves to reiterate this idea, as the idea is simple enough that it can be expressed in the shell, on a surface level. For Marlow, some of this logic holds true while other parts do not. His episodes were more in depth; hence, "not inside like a kernel but outside." I believe that Marlow's explanation serves to express the fact that the explanation comes from the complicated to the simple, just as light illuminates an otherwise murky situation.
The second paragraph seems to be contrasting between the ideas of darkness and light. The ideas were so murky that they could not be fully illuminated by the light. However, whatever effect the light had was perceived, hence the quote "...it seemed to throw a kind of light."
In an effort not to simply repeat all of you I'll attempt to offer something new.
One thing I find incredibly intriguing is where the "darkness" in the title comes from. Conrad believes the Congo itself is not dark, but that the white men brought darkness with them. While this may be true, the darkness even in white men had to originate from somewhere. By telling this story Marlow wants to look at why the white men (specifically Kurtz) behaved the way they did. But this is not a simple concrete matter. The darkness in men comes from centuries of cultural norms that eventually led white men to assume the power in the global society. Heart of Darkness presents many ideas about this domination, but offers little resolution. It draws your attention to the haze, but leaves you to make any concrete decisions about it. In my opinion, white men allowed confidence fueled by their success to become tainted into arrogance, leading them to believe they were the superior race. But that's another long philosophical conversation in itself.
JW
"The yarns of seamen have a direct simplicity, the whole meaning of which lies within the shell of a cracked nut." I think that this is talking about how most seamen didn't fully experience the most out of their episodes. Marlow is different in that he interprets his journey's from a perspective that brings more insight from the experience, than the other seaman would see it as. "..enveloping the tale which brought it out only has a glow brings out a haze.."
In the second passage, it seemed to me that Marlow's experiences allowed him to realize things about himself that he didn't notice before, but since he's seeing himself differently, its not very clear. Just like when someone first puts contact lens on; its really blurry at first, but later its clearer than when you wear glasses (or.. at least for me). I don't know if that made sense or not.
Im not trying to contradict your statement Erik but Im not sure that when Kurtz gives his famous last words that he is speaking of the congo in and of itself.
In the first passage, we see many words used to convey the same message "(glow... halo... illumination... moonshine)." They are all in reference to Conrad's common theme of light and dark. Paired with these words we find words like "haze" and "misty." The message of Kurtz' stories are often times unclear.
In the second passage we see the same relation between the light and obscurity. His experience with Kurtz changed him even though it did not clarify things. We can be left in the dark and have things appear clear because we cant see the haze surrounding the truth and we can have a fuller, more enlightening grasp on a situation and have things left unclear.
What I noticed first after reading the passages was the contrast between the stress on light and the title of the book Heart of Darkness
Also, I thought Conrad's use of light was interesting. In the first passage I interpreted the idea of a light as one that doesn't do its job of illuminating and brings out more darkness than it brightens; a "glow brings out a haze." But in the second passage I found this light's definition tangent to the first. To me, this light does not entail knowledge, but an action of instigating awareness: to "throw a kind of light on everything about me--and into my thoughts."
Overall, I thought Conrad's use of light, with different meanings, was very interesting and another example of his use of recurring ideas, objects, themes etc.
While it is important to anazlyze what these passages directly mean, I believe there is a more important observation to be made. I know that Mrs. Minor, being the extremely smart lady she is, tied this blog post into what we discussed in class. After reading both of these passages I noticed what they had in common, for they must have something in common for them to be chosen, does indeed correlate with what we have previously talked about. This is Conrad's use of light and darkness. In the first passage, the narrator describes how Marlow's 'yarns' affect ordinary seamen tales like a 'glow bringing out a haze' and 'visible by the spectral illumination of moonshine'. This passage is completely full of references to the light, but what do these references add? Why does Conrad use them? Although i'm most likely nowhere near the actuality of the situation, I'll give my interpretation of this. Here, he uses the reference of light to signify illumination of knowledge and judgment. He describes how shining light, which in this case is Marlow among a sea of other sailors, brings forth the truth- the real and accurate interpretations of the yarns the seaman tell.
I believe the first part is all about your thoughts and fellings. The different feelings from different places (civilization, and the Congo) have an effect on past history and it turns out that Marlow likes the past rather than be happy with the present or have an out look on the future like the other sailors.
I think in paragraph 9, as many of you have noticed, deals with the way things are percieved. In this case, Conrad is exploring the difference between the Self and the Other, which can contribute to different interpretations of one event or subject. Even the way he says it: " enveloping the tale which brought it out only as a glow brings out a haze" suggests that the alternate perspective is through the Other because the glow is indicative of knowledge.
I think the second passage again deals with knowledge. I kinda see it as the process of learning but not getting immidiate rewards. It's almost limited to pure exposure.
So many intelligent comments!
I couldn't read all of them, but I'm getting the general gist that Marlow has a unique way of looking at moments in his life, and that the second part is Marlow stating a little something about himself.
Looking beyond HOD, I see the first passage as being a description of how we all interpret thing. Knowing everything but what you need provides a 'misty halo' that a bit of 'illumination' lets you see what's really inside. Notice how moonshine requres it to be night? When everything is dark, obscure, and difficult to understand? Moonshine is the world's light when everything else is in darkness. The cracked nut metaphor came off to me that a seamen's story is simple; in a cracked nut you have the shell, and the nut...nothing more. And to get to the nut, you only need to crack the shell. Marlow's different stories are like a thick difficult shell...like a cocount! =]
Passage two seems like another moonlight idea. You can't read by moonlight, but you can see to move. The sort of light Marlow recieved was enough to move, not to think and not to reason. I interpreted this to be that his Congo experience gave him light; maybe nothing in him changed, but he saw something.
Post a Comment