The Critical Mistakes of Achebe’s Critical Analysis
In the essay “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness” by Chinua Achebe, Achebe critically analyzes Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. Achebe evaluates the novella (as well as Conrad) as being racist and alleges that Conrad sets “Africa up as a foil to Europe” (Achebe 337). However Achebe’s claim that Heart of Darkness is a racist text meant to highlight the good in Europe is unfair and inaccurate. Although Achebe’s analysis is passionate, his conclusion that the racist opinions expressed by Marlow are those of Conrad is based on false criteria.
Of course, Achebe’s essay does have redeeming qualities. What makes Achebe’s essay so effective is the passion in his argument. This passion stems partly from the fact that his birthplace is Nigeria. Achebe’s tone is indignant and emotionally charged. An example of his passion coming through is when he attacks Conrad’s writing as “irrational love and irrational hate jostling together” (345). Achebe’s irritation can be sensed in word choice. Achebe also shows emotion by utilizing exclamation marks (344, 349). Such poignant diction throughout his essay indicates a strong emotional connection with the argument, and makes his argument more memorable.
However, Achebe’s passion is not sufficient to make his analysis accurate. One major flaw in Achebe’s essay is his failure to adequately evaluate Marlow’s progress towards casting off racist views of Africans and Africa. Marlow has racial prejudices that nearly all Europeans of his time had. Achebe quotes in his essay the passage in which Marlow describes the savage fireman as a dog in breeches to show that Marlow looks down upon Africans (340). However, Achebe leaves out that Marlow later indicates that he values the fireman more than Kurtz, a white man. Marlow confesses that he is “not entirely prepared to affirm the fellow was exactly worth the life… lost in getting to him,” the fellow being Kurtz and the life lost being the fireman (Conrad 50). Achebe also complains that Marlow never sees any Africans as “brothers,” but later Marlow realizes they had “a kind of partnership,” a claim which implies equal importance (51). This example demonstrates that Achebe is selective regarding which information he chooses to focus on, and does not recognize that Marlow grows by becoming less racist throughout the novella.
Achebe claims that Conrad uses the African woman (and supposed mistress of Kurtz) as a foil to the European female character who was Kurtz’s intended. Achebe asserts that Conrad’s attitude towards the African woman is shown when he bestows “human expression to” the European woman but withholds it from the African. Achebe interprets the facts that the African woman does not talk and the European woman does as evidence that Conrad is a racist. Achebe perceives that the contrast created between the two women is meant to show Europe’s all-around superiority to Africa. In the passage of Heart of Darkness where Achebe analyzes Marlow description of the African woman as being “savage and superb, wild-eyed and magnificent… without a stir and like the wilderness itself, with an air of brooding over an inscrutable purpose” (Achebe 341). This passage, however, does not insult the African woman, but rather depicts the woman as strong, pensive, and powerful. In contrast, the European woman is ignorant and extremely emotional because of her loss of Kurtz. In strong contrast to Achebe’s interpretation, the evidence shows how the African woman is shown as being “magnificent” and powerful, while the European woman is weak and emotional (Achebe 341). These descriptions can hardly be used to support, as Achebe claims, that it is Conrad’s goal to designate African society as inferior.
In part, Achebe’s opinions have been formed because of misreading. Achebe fails to see sarcasm and irony. Achebe writes that the “simple truth is glossed over in criticisms of his work … due to the fact that white racism against Africa is such a normal way of thinking that its manifestations go completely unremarked,” claiming that Heart of Darkness is a racist text (Achebe 343). Racism is portrayed in the novella, however it is not a value that Conrad defends. Conrad’s creation of a character with racist views similar to those of his time, gives Conrad the opportunity to relate his character to the common people of his time. This allows him to more effectively cast off their racist beliefs. Had Marlow not been as prejudiced as the average person of his time, then the average person of his time would be significantly less likely to identify with Marlow, and would not then shed racist beliefs along with Marlow while reading the novella. In actuality, Marlow’s racist opinions are written with irony. When Marlow describes the natives as being wild and having a “humanity—like yours…. Ugly,” his purpose is to show the irony that inside whites and blacks all share the same humanity regardless of how superior civilized Europeans may view themselves (Achebe 343). This irony is not meant to insult Africans as Achebe writes, but rather to point out to the audience the striking similarities between Africans and Europeans that should not be ignored.
Further criticism can be made of Achebe, such as his failure to recognize that Conrad and Marlow are different entities. Achebe judges Conrad based on the incorrect criteria that Heart of Darkness is a biography or journal. However, in J. Hillis Miller’s essay “Should We Read ‘Heart of Darkness’?” he points out that Conrad’s novella is a work of literature, therefore Marlow is but a mere fictional tool whose opinions are not those of the author (Miller 465).
Achebe notes that Conrad traveled down the Congo River in 1890, and draws the unwarranted claim that this indicates that Heart of Darkness is a personal record of Conrad’s journey. To draw such a conclusion from such a modest fact is unjust. Traveling down the Congo was important to the book, because it gave Conrad the ability to describe the physical appearance of Africa and how imperialism was functioning along the river. Without this insight, Heart of Darkness would have suffered, and possibly never have been written. But, it is important to recognize that even though Conrad had this experience, this does not mean that Marlow’s story is not the “travelers tale” of Conrad and therefore the embodiment of Conrad’s opinions and biases. This journey in no way offers any proof, or even probability, that Heart of Darkness is anything other than the work of literature it is declared as by the author.
Based on the careless false assumption that Conrad and Marlow are one and the same, Achebe shifts his criticism from the novella, Heart of Darkness, to the author. In doing so, Achebe ceases to write a critical response to the novella and simply attacks Conrad and personally insults him when writing that he “is a dream for psychoanalytic critics” (Achebe 345). Such personal attacks as are employed by Achebe should not take up such a significant part (if any at all) of a critical analysis of a novella. In doing so, Achebe loses focus and creates confusion about his own essay’s point. Changing the subject of his criticism shows weakness in Achebe’s argument. The need to resort to insults of the author comes across as an indicator that there is not sufficient criticism to be made of the novella itself. Also engaging in such indirect and emotional criticism undermines his credibility as an author. In this case Achebe’s passion is overdone and comes across as anger, making this essay appear less credible and more immature.
Extreme over-simplification of the novella is another damaging way that Achebe takes away from his own credibility. Achebe makes the extreme claim that that Conrad’s “method amounts to no more than a steady, ponderous, fake-ritualistic repetition of two antithetical sentences, one about silence and the other about frenzy” (Achebe 338).For a man who even openly admits that he does “not doubt Conrad’s great talents,” it is absurd to make a claim that such a complex work of literature is nothing more than two sentences. Even more, it is an arrogant and foolish claim on Achebe’s part, which only serves to discredit himself. If this sweeping judgment were accurate, it would be completely unnecessary for Achebe to have written an extensive critical analysis of the novella. Regardless of Achebe’s opinions on racism, he should at least be able to recognize and respect the literary art in the novella.
Lastly, Achebe’s solution offered in reaction to Heart of Darkness is unreasonable. Achebe boldly claims that Heart of Darkness simply should not be read complaining that “Conrad’s problems are… safely dead… Unfortunately his heart of darkness plagues us still” (Achebe 345). To say that no one ought read the novella implies that he believes his interpretation and analysis of Heart of Darkness to be the only opinion that need ever exist or be considered. To make such a claim shows arrogance, and disrespect for literature as a whole.
Achebe wrote his criticism with passion and conviction, but that very emotion may be what blocked him from fairly evaluating the novella. Achebe’s argument is built on incomplete analysis of many aspects of the novella, including Conrad’s message that Africans are equally as human as Europeans. The failure to recognize the irony and sarcasm employed by Conrad creates a distorted understanding of Heart of Darkness and its intent. These major flaws take away from the credibility of Achebe’s claims that Conrad is a racist and that this novella uses Africa as Europe’s foil
Works Cited
Achebe Chinua. “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.” Armstrong 336-49.
Armstrong Paul B, Ed. Heart of Darkness. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005.
Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. Ed. Paul B. Armstrong. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment