Talk:Joseph Conrad

"Criticism"?

It will strike anyone who has read more than a smattering of Conrad's works - i.e. the usual material that appears on High School and college syllabuses, which seems to include Heart of Darkness and precious little else - as extremely odd that a section labelled 'Criticism' only includes a commentary on Achebe's opportunistic and facile criticism of Conrad's Heart of Darkness, which in itself was based upon a selective reading of HOD and failed, with a myopia almost becoming of one of Conrad's myriad colonial administrators, to consider the broadly satirical and ironic treatment received by Europeans in most of Conrad's novels and short-stories.

Is this really the only 'criticism' of Conrad? Are libraries not filled with entire sections of secondary criticism and analysis? Was not Conrad a key figure in the modernist movement of English-language literature?

If, as it normally in these days of the post-1960s apologetic academic world, Achebe's sidenote on Conrad must be wheeled out in a page about such a great and influential author, the section should at least be labelled 'Achebe's Criticism of Conrad', not 'Criticism', as if that were the only thing anyone every said about Conrad, and as if racial commentary were the only feature available for analysis in Conrad's work.

Gunstar hero 17:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It would seem ridiculous, but I invite you to delve into the actual critical literature on Joseph Conrad and see for yourself. Unfortunately, Achebe's racial commentary dominates the field to the point where papers have been written entirely about this state of affairs. siafu 19:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would not like to offend you by suggesting that what you say is wrong, but one could spend years studying Conrad without even needing to consult Achebe's criticism, based on notions of 'blankness' and the rhetorical device of the 'enigmatic' Africa which were touched upon by many critics prior to the 1970s. Achebe's notion is famous first because it was written by a prominent black author, and secondly because it was so incredibly scathing.

'Race' in its broadest sense is undoubtedly a major Conradian theme, appearing in Heart of Darkness, Lord Jim, The Nigger of the Narcissus, Almayer's Folly and many of Conrad's short stories in large quantities. Again, the debate on this began prior to Achebe and has developed in myriad ways after it. Gender studies in Conrad, for example, have been a topic of major attention in the 1990s. Talking about race in Conrad may not even involve touching on Heart of Darkness, although, admittedly, it has become the most famously 'racial' of Conrad's novels in light of Achebe, making allowance for Narcissus, whose title alone has gained it notoriety.

In illustration of my point consider a search I just performed on the Cambridge University library catalogue online. I am willing to guess that this is among the world's leading academic libraries. In a keyword search for 'Joseph Conrad', none of the first fifty entries were explicitly concerned with race (although I admit that some of the texts offering 'critical response' to Conrad would have dealt somewhere with race). Conrad's narrative style and technique are much more popular topics.

I think what you are saying, in conclusion, is true to an extent: the most 'public' criticism of Conrad is certainly Achebe, and Heart of Darkness is definietly Conrad's most popular novel, thanks in no small measure to the fact that Apocalypse Now was based on it (it's true! Ask younger people how they got around to reading it!). However this is by no means the height of critical debate on Conrad, and Wikipedia - to mount my soap box for a moment - should be providing a more collected and mature assessment than this.

217.44.24.118 22:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The above entry ^^^ was mine, by the way. I forgot to log in the first time! Gunstar hero 22:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gunstar hero and further suggest that pointing to the fact that "Achebe's racial commentary dominates the field" does not militate against a cry for diversity of subject matter. In my opinion, the academic community is drinking very deeply of the groupthink cup so it should be no surprise they gather around this sole issue. You can't really say: "Groupthink is OK because we all agree it's OK." In addition, the section purports to restate in large part Conrad's own views, which I doubt he ever expressed. These would have to be interpreted from the literature itself and so would be nonfactual and rather questionable. Also, Achebe's comment sounds like outright criticism, whereas there is a vast field of literary criticism out there. By the way, do we criticize Shakespeare for being "pro-monarchy" and therefore anti-democratic? The charge of "racism" is inherently a charge of intentional racism. Guernseykid 07:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone has taken a rather irresponsible tack on this debate and expanded the "criticism" to include a lot of innuendo and less than precise ideas. A lot of POV. Here it is in its entirety:

Chinua Achebe has argued that Conrad's language and imagery is inescapably racist, perhaps in part due to his first few novels, which show little insight into the natives he describes. Conrad associated 'the wild' with despair, death, savagery, and inhuman acts; nevertheless, in his depiction of London and industrial man he paints a similarly gloomy picture. He uses this symbolism in many of his novels, but most powerfully in Heart of Darkness. In Heart of Darkness Conrad is equates ancient northern Europeans with modern Africans — thereby suggesting that all humans must pass through a similar process of historic development. This thinking is inevitably ethnocentric. It makes specific development of Europe as though it were a universal process, that every culture will and ought to go through. However, one man is not the measure of all things. Therefore, the assessment other civilizations and cultures on the basis of European historical experience - by placing them on a scale of temporal distance vis a vie the European condition does not give any insight into these Others in their own right.

This thinking remains attractive because it imagines Europe as being more 'advanced' than the non-Western world, thereby providing for better, but usually for worse, a fertile ground for legitimating all sorts of Western interventions - racist, imperial - in the name of 'development'. Conrad is deeply ambivalent towards colonial interventions. Conrad's journal from his 1890 trip to Belgian Congo (his experience there formed the basis for the novel) reflects a keen awareness of the frequently brutal treatment of Africans at the hands of white men. In Heart of Darkness, 'savage' Africa is presented as almost attractive and superior to modern European civilization (hence Marlow's dejection on returning to Europe). Conrad seems to imply that what Imperial Rome once did to northern Europe, imperial Europe was doing to the whole world; whether this was a good or a bad thing, remains ambiguous in Conrad's assessment of history. However, Heart of Darkness is thoroughly pervaded by a imagery of wilderness and savagery and a pseudo-evolutionist view of history that Conrad inevitably shares with the racist ideologies of his time. This creates a representation of Africa that tells one nothing about Africa itself, but more about European concerns about it.

What can be said about Heart of Darkness is that, despite its location, it represents European preoccupations and concerns about the colonization of Africa to other Europeans. Africans themselves are but silent objects of discussion. What can be commended about it is that it continues to remind not only Europeans, but others, of the horrors that took place in that time of history.

I'M EDITING THIS DOWN. Guernseykid 03:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the new version:

Chinua Achebe has, now famously, argued that Conrad's language and imagery in Heart of Darkness is inescapably racist. {An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's "Heart of Darkness"."[1]} In the lecture that formed the basis of the essay, Achebe branded Conrad "A bloody racist" and in the essay he emphasized the implicit and explicit statements of the inferiority of African people to the white explorers. In Heart of Darkness Conrad seems to equate ancient northern Europeans with modern Africans — thereby suggesting that all humans must pass through a similar process of historical development.

From a literary standpoint, Conrad associates 'the wild' with despair, death, savagery, and inhuman acts. Yet, in the novel the brutality is mainly effectuated by Europeans, and in his depiction of London and industrial man he paints a problematic and gloomy picture which offers little alternative. Conrad exhibits primarily a deep ambivalence towards colonial rule. His journal from his 1890 trip to Belgian Congo, which experience formed the basis for the novel, reflects a keen awareness of the frequently brutal treatment of Africans at the hands of white men. Moreover, in Heart of Darkness, 'savage' Africa is presented as often more attractive than, even superior to, modern European civilization (hence Marlow's dejection on returning to Europe). Conrad seems to imply that what Imperial Rome once did to northern Europe, imperial Europe was doing to the whole world; whether this was a good or a bad thing, remains ambiguous in Conrad's assessment of history.

This is an article on the life and literature of an author, not a polemic on racism. Guernseykid 04:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Conrad and Racism

This is a very touchy subject. The section on "Criticism" and accusation that Conrad was a racist does not belong here. In Heart of Darkness Conrad painted a very negative picture of colonialism. Yes, by today's standards his text regarding Africans is most definitely crude, however, this is reflective of the state of affairs at the time -- We should not make insane assumptions about Conrad's character simply because he was honest about how the Africans were treated. If he were to have written the story any differently then it would not accurately reflect history. Was Conrad being derogatory towards Blacks, or was he being derogatory towards Whites? I would say the latter. I think it's quite obvious that his words are aimed to hurt the oppressors, and not the oppressed.

From reading Conrad's stories you can come to a lot of different conclusions -- and I think to avoid conflict on this one it's probably best to not have a section on Conrad being a racist. The old section not only said he was a racist, but also implied that the general consensus is that he was a racist -- This is simply not true -- certainly not in the acedemic circles I am active in. Let's not create false/unprovable truths through mass misinformation and selective presentation of opinions.

In order to label him a racist one would have to possess real proof -- such as letters he sent to friends or family, in which he was openly racist -- do we have these? I don't think so. An essay written which takes words and phrases out of context in order to push a biased agenda does not qualify as proof -- but rather is better qualified as 'opinion'. Can we honestly say that Conrad was a racist based on some guy's opinion? I don't think so.

Does it matter what the critics say? I don't think it does. Let's let people read Conrad's material and come to their own conclusions. Injecting pre-conceived notions in to their minds will only cause them to look for problems that may or may not exist.

So let's just leave this section out, okay? It's misleading and really takes away from an otherwise good article.

--Animus9 22:25 May 19, 2005

The fact of the matter is that the debate regarding Conrad's racism or lack thereof (the section as I wrote was intentionally NPOV on the actual determination) has eclipsed almost all other discussion regarding Heart of Darkness and Conrad as a whole. I suggest for starters that you read Achebe's essay; the version I have linked unfortunately is the "revised" version later toned down by the author (I can't find the original online), but is still the "essay heard round the world". You will also find in there that Achebe did, in fact, cite letters and Conrad's personal journal, the "real proof" you're referring to.

Clearly, labelling Conrad a racist is an opinion. The criticism section does not do that, it simply refers to an ongoing debate and a POV which is labelled as a POV. Failing to mention it is, while not NPOV in itself, clearly omitting important information from the article and more misleading than its inclusion.

Do not mistake me; I'm not myself posessed with the need to interpret Conrad's work exclusively in the light of race relations. However, I have to acknowledge that this is currently the most debated element of the man's work. I myself researched extensively on Heart of Darkness (wrote a thesis on it), and dug into more than forty sources across the whole of the 20th century, and can vouch for the unfortunate fact that the debate is both real and overwhelmingly prevalent. As such, I believe this article needs to include some information on the topic; if you want to work with me on just what that information needs to be, I'm open to discussion. As it stands, I'm going to restore the section in question. siafu 07:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Intentionally NPOV? Excuse me, but you have intentionally changed the last statement which clearly labelled him a racist:

"Whether or not Conrad was a racist, however, seems rather clear in that he was; whether or not he was more racist than the average of his time is less clear, and the debate is far from settled."

This certainly was NOT NPOV. It had an agenda, and still does. Calling someone a racist carries with it as much weight as actually being racist. It is not something to toss around lightly.

Achebe's essay is weak. There is NOT adequate proof (in the essay) to claim Conrad was racist. Much of it is based entirely upon readingly deeply into subtle word meanings. The 'real' proof is not real proof at all. It is a couple out of context sentences.

Controversy about whether or not Conrad was racist is mainly popular due to misinformation and ignorance. Wikipedia should not be participating in these shenanigans. The proof is inadequate, therefore the section should not exist. This is not a tabloid for gossip or questionable information. Animus9 8:21 May 20, 2005

It's implicit in the sentence now; I thought you would find it more palatable. It is not a matter of gossip, misinformation and ignorance to say that this is a big deal, because it is. Since 1975, almost every single paper on HoD makes mention of Achebe's essay. Whether or not YOU think Achebe is on to something is up to you, but it is a popular argument; whether or not you want that to be true is also not relevant.

Conrad was a racist. This should surprise no one; he grew up in anti-semitic Poland, and lived in Victorian England. There were relatively few people in either place who were not what we would label in the modern day as "racists". This is widely accepted; the debate centers on whether he was more posessed of these ideas than was average for his time and place. Therefore, the original sentence was not POV, but you labelled the entire thing as misleading, so I changed it to sit better with your objections.

I'm not trying to push an agenda. The fact is that the essay is an incredibly big deal, and as such we need to call it a big deal. The fact is that Conrad thought less of black people than he did of Europeans. I'm willing to not say that explicitly because there are a lot of other similar facts that aren't mentioned, so pointing this one out could be misleading (as you said), and this itself is not a big deal (as mentioned, pretty common for the time). But it's not POV to point these things. I would suggest that if you see this as "gossip" or a "shenanigan" that you do some research; go to an academic library and search under literary criticism for "heart of darkness". The results will bear out the reality of this debate. siafu 16:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is saying the debate doesn't exist. The argument is whether or not it is worth mentioning. Anybody that writes an essay accusing a well known author of being racist is going to create quite a stir -- but the importance of the essay or its convictions should not be based on how big of a stir it creates, but rather whether or not its arguments are valid. I don't think they are valid -- in fact I think the arguments are rather weak. Your point of view is that they are valid -- but you base this mainly upon the fact that people are stirred up about it -- so what? How many people are going to take the stance that the essay is BS? Not very many.. you know why? because they will be accused of being a racist.

I have read the essay, I have read many essays about Heart of Darkness. It seems many of these essays either repeat the same themes or are essentially essays about prior essays. So what? The essay writers are just rehashing the same material and justifying the existence of their arguments based on the fact that all the other essay writers are saying the same.

Let me remind you that these essays are a subjective analysis, and the conclusions drawn have little to do with the reality of Conrad the man. Neither you, nor I knew Conrad personally, so we cannot say he was racist -- and I think you're crossing an awfully blurry line when you start using the popularity of an argument to justify its existence. Let's not forget that "the earth is flat" argument used to be rather popular.

The problem with the Criticisms section is that you can't really be neutral about calling someone a racist. You've reworded the section so that it is more subtle but it is still flawed. You are providing a single POV. Where are the links to the essays arguing against Achebe's essay? How do we know that Achebe's essay is "the single most famous piece of criticism on Joseph Conrad" ...? are there statistics indicating this? or is it only famous because people think it's famous?

The Criticisms section in its current state is flawed. My own personal opinion is that we could save a whole lot of trouble just by removing it and letting people come to their own conclusions, however, in the spirit of compromise I will see if I can come up with something a little more neutral. --198.163.150.33 17:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The essay exists. It should be mentioned; but not at the present length in an article this size which includes relatively little other criticism or political assessment of Conrad. Omitting the contemporary reception of Conrad - as a blow at Belgian and European colonialism - is disingenuous; asserting "Conrad is racist" as fact is POV; as this discussion should prove. Septentrionalis 20:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Right, I don't disagree. Mentioning it is one thing, in fact I intentionally left the essay in the external links when I removed the section. However, in its current state the section gives the reader the wrong impression. --Animus9 17:00, 20 May 2005

Unfortunately, the fact is that Achebe's essay is probably to most influential critical work on Conrad in the last fifty years. It sparked a firestorm of debate, and it's said firestorm that the section refers to. Moving the section is fine, but it seems that I've been fighting an uphill battle here to demonstrate that what is a rather big deal is not just "gossip" or a "shenanigan". I'm not reporting these things because I want them to be true, I wrote the section because the debate is an overwhelming (overwhelmingly stupid) fact. I myself have done a great deal of research on HoD; I don't personally think it's very productive or informative to see Conrad as merely a racist, or his book as related to racial politics.

As to Conrad himself being a racist, this is not the strong claim it's being taken to be in this discussion. Saying Conrad was a racist is to point out that he was at least of the common POV of the era; he was certainly no sort of egalitarian in the modern sense. It would be exceptional for him to have not been a racist, and unfortunately this has given a great deal of ammunition to Achebe and those who support his POV. siafu 23:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"he grew up in anti-semitic Poland" could you explain that please?--Witkacy 20:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I Concur with Witkacy. Anti-semitic Poland? That is an extremely wrong, hurtful and ignorant statement, esp. since Poland had the largest population of Jews and with the most rights. Please do research before making blatantly offensive and wrong statements such as these. --Vegalabs 02:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not wrong, and I'm sorry if you find it hurtful. Poland in the 19th century, along with much of Eastern and Central Europe, was the site of a great deal of religious persecution against Jews. Even the pogroms, the most heinous anti-semitic acts perpetrated before the holocaust, found their way into Poland. siafu 12:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, why exactly are criticisms regarding Heart of Darkness on the general page of Joseph Conrad? Shouldn't these criticisms be within the article for Heart of Darkness itself? --Animus9 22:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

"Heart of Darkness" isn't about racism or colonialism, and anyone who thinks so has misunderstood the book. It is about the human "heart of darkness", across all races and cultures. --philhirn 22:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It is naive to read the book and not consider race or colonialism. Kingturtle 08:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

That is an interpretation that I disagree very strongly with. While saying that Heart of Darkness was purely about colonialism is crazy, it is also not purely a psychological journey. --Saforrest 18:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

-Conrad might have been a bit crude in his depictions of blacks, but, he still had some sympathy to see them as human beings being abused. For a person from a time period where the beliefs of non-white people's were rarely taken into consideration without insult, this is quite an accomplishment. In fact, Joseph Conrad can sometime be regarded as liberal and tolerant compared to writers like, say, Rudyard Kipling.

The fact of the matter is that the debate regarding Conrad's racism or lack thereof ... has eclipsed almost all other discussion regarding Heart of Darkness and Conrad as a whole. >>siafu<< in this section above.

Groupthink! I declare. The more people there are who think the same way we do the more clear it becomes that we are all right and they are all wrong. Nothing like the stinging lash of "racism" to herd people into a cohesive formation of unthinking bovines in a slaughterhouse corral. Life is so much easier if all we have to think about is being on the correct side of the racism debate ... I know I feel better -- and somehow much more free to go about my unrewarding 9 to 5 existence. I'm HAPPY! Welcome to the Brave New World folks, if I may mix my literary references. If Orwell didn't invent Groupthink, he should have. Achebe's criticism has some minor validity, but overall it is superficial and weak and mainly serves to deny the reader the opportunity to read a fine piece of literature from a fresh and unspoiled vantage point.

Get a clue, people! Conrad was attacking the very institutions Achebe so reviled. 69.109.165.235 08:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, don't understand the whole discussion. Surely saying that Conrad is racist by today's standards is like saying that he was also "sexist". It's pretty much a given, since that was the world he lived in. Surely the interesting thing about him is whether, within the context of his time, his views were radical: not whether those views are a perfect match for 1975 / 2006 understandings of "race"?

I'm not a lit crit person and haven't read Achebe's essay, but it sounds like a reaction to a trumpeting of Conrad as anti-racist. Conrad can be both annoyingly racist to a late-C20th reader, and an important challenger of opinion to his intended early C20th audience. And, er, how is any of this news? Come on guys, describe the debate briefly and move on - or I'll fill the damn article with feminist references! JackyR | Talk 23:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand the discussion-page debate or the discussion in the article itself? If your question is, why do people go on at such length here on the discussion page, the answer is probably that we've all been trained to react compulsively to charges of racism and this is one way of working out the demons. If you want to edit down the treatment in the article go ahead. Read Achebe's essay, though. I don't think there was any notion in 1975 that Conrad was a champion of equality in race relations, nor is there today. At a guess, Achebe may have been disturbed that so many young readers were being exposed to unvarnished "colonial" attitudes without the "benefit" of a modern interpretive lens. It isn't clear to me that he is aware of Conrad's thorough irony in the piece, nor is it clear that he makes a very good case even if everything is taken at face value. "The question is whether a novel which celebrates this dehumanization, which depersonalizes a portion of the human race, can be called a great work of art. My answer is: No it cannot." (Achebe) This is just idiotic, since the novel does not celebrate dehumanization any more than it acts as a cheerleader for race relations. 69.109.165.235 08:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Lagoon

The Lagoon, by Conrad, isn't on Gutenberg; also a Google search for probable keywords didn't return a useful text. There is a link to eBooks@Adelaide ,but it requires another out-of-wikipedia link to get to the story. The Lagoon also has no Wikipedia article and no Wikisource source. I just wanted to note that.

Unjust

Never mind the racism debate-why is this article so short? This is a piss-poor representation of one of the greatest english-writing novelists ever! He even had an extraordinary life before his writing career. Someone give Conrad his due treatment, as every other author I've looked up on wikipedia gets. Someone besides me that is.

I would agree with your sentiments. The racism debate seems to be fairly irrelevant in the light of the absence of any serious consideration of the continued themes of Conrad's work. Surely this article can be expanded by someone who has studied Conrad to a high level. (not sure how to sign this properly, sorry)

Completely agree with the comments that the article is almost ridiculously short and inadequate for such an important writer. I just finished the huge job of rewriting Henry James up to featured article status, though, so I can see why nobody wants to do a major Conrad rewrite. While we're on Leavis' "great tradition", Jane Austen and George Eliot also need a lot of help. Halfway seriously, maybe we could start a great-tradition collaboration on Wikipedia. Casey Abell 15:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the racism debate refers to a revert war which has been settled for ten months. Septentrionalis 02:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

link

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry

• probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?

please do not add this to the article, and please read the incident report before giving the go-ahead. This is spam and not link-worthy under WP:EL; the articles contain many distortions, lack citations, and contain nothing that wouldn't fit directly in the wiki article. a link to worldofbiography has been placed on over 70 talk pages by User:Jameswatt. thanks. --He:ah? 20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)