Heart of Darkness

[Anonymous No.6350115]

Should I read pic related? It's something I've always "meant" to read and one of my college classes recently piqued my interest in it. I've also heard it's incredibly overrated

opinions pls

[Anonymous No.6350119]

It's like a hundred pages long. Set aside a few hours and find out for yourself.

[Anonymous No.6350121]

>>6350115
One of the best books of english literature.

Read it now, it's super short and should only take you a couple of hours to read.

[Anonymous No.6350122]

Read it and find out for yourself, jeez. It's not very long.

[Anonymous No.6350123]

mistah kurtz

[Anonymous No.6350134]

Started reading it but the sailor lingo turned me off of it. Currently reading Things Fall Apart as a primer because it's (partially) about colonialism (like Heart of Darkness).

[Anonymous No.6350145]

It's so short that you have no excuse not to. Besides, it's a great book.

[Anonymous No.6350148]

>>6350115
Please don't pollute this board with threads about racist books

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6350157]

>>6350115
It's shit
It doesn't take long to read though and it's written in a very unique (and annoying) way so you should probably read it just for the experience
BUT, read "A Passage to India" if you want a proper book about colonialism.

[Anonymous No.6350185]

>>6350119
its 40 pages u dip shit

[Anonymous No.6350188]

>>6350185
that depends on the size of the pages used numbnuts. My copy was about 112 pages I think, though it was printed on 5 X 7 paper with large margins.

[Anonymous No.6350217]

One of my all time favorites. A lot going on for such a short book, and the atmosphere fucking excellent. Great days read.

[Anonymous No.6350316]

>>6350148

How is it racist?

>White europeans go to "civilize" African savages.
>Turns out they are really just using its resources in a greater political game.
>Shows the "civilizers" as bigger savages than the savages they came to "civilize."
>Whole book asks the question, "Who are the real savages?"
>Kurtz was a savage along. Africa did not make him one.

[Anonymous No.6350381]

Is it really that simple?

So far we don't have any good reasons here to read the book.

[Anonymous No.6350405]

>>6350115
Yes, it's great, and even if you don't like it, it's short as fuck

>>6350316
>not recognizing obvious b8

[Anonymous No.6350445]

I liked Apocalypse Now more.

Conceptually, I think HoD is interesting, but I felt it was a bit too short to give the message its proper emotional due.

With that said, the writing style is interesting and it only takes an afternoon. You might as well just hammer it out and come to your own conclusion.

[Anonymous No.6350450]

do they have an edition with a 'The Doors' button where it just plays the end non stop?
I just ordered this book online 3 days ago so it's funny that this thread pops up now

[Anonymous No.6350622]

>>6350405

Some people actually think Heart of Darkness is racist. See Post-Colonial Studies section of the wikipedia article for it.

[Anonymous No.6350630]

>>6350622
It is racist.
That's still no reason to dismiss it entirely.

[Anonymous No.6350639]

>>6350316
>>6350405

Chinua Achebe is convinced the book is racist as fuck, actually. Something about the depiction of the cannibals on (protagonist)'s boat.

[Anonymous No.6350681]

>>6350622
I just looked at it.

>Achebe described Conrad's novella as "an offensive and deplorable book" that de-humanized Africans.
>Achebe argued that Conrad, "blinkered...with xenophobia", incorrectly depicted Africa as the antithesis of Europe and civilization, ignoring the artistic accomplishments of the Fang people who lived in the Congo River basin at the time of the book’s publication.

Did he not understand the context that this book was written in, or is he purposely ignoring it? Does he think that the African storytellers of the time gave unprejudiced, sober accounts of what were to them, bizarre, exotic, violent Europeans?

>Since the book promoted and continues to promote a prejudiced image of Africa that "depersonalizes a portion of the human race," he concluded that it should not be considered a great work of art.

Fucking ridiculous, even if his premise was true, that the book dehumanized Africans, that would hardly make the novel illegitimate as a work of art. I understand this man's frustration with a widely popular and deeply ignorant portrayal of his ancestors. But for someone who is supposed to be an intellectual, it doesn't seem like he's even trying to think about the book or the circumstances surrounding it.

>>6350630
How is it possibly racist? The narrator insists on the humanity of the Africans, and describes his disgust at their exploitation and the disregard for their lives, at a time when the majority of Europeans would laugh at the suggestion that black africans shared their natural rights and/or level of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.6350692]

>>6350681
>But for someone who is supposed to be an intellectual, it doesn't seem like he's even trying to think about the book or the circumstances surrounding it.

I bet he's trembling now he's been challenged by a true intellectual on a kampuchean finger puppet bulletin board.

You stick it to him, perfesser. Best not to let these types get too uppity.

[Anonymous No.6350694]

I liked it, though not as much as I thought I would.

[Anonymous No.6350723]

>>6350692
Are you serious, faggot?

I think that the fact that Heart of Darkness is not a racist novel is fairly clear, and I think any serious analysis of the book would find this. So, yes, I'm holding someone who is renowned for his literary abilities to a high standard. Why does that bother you so much, and why do you automatically assume that my disagreeing with somebody means I think I'm smarter than them? Projection, maybe?

If you disagree with me say why, don't be a whiny bitch about it.

[Anonymous No.6350732]

>>6350723

I don't have a strong opinion either way. I think it has racist elements but is largely a humanist work which is a bit clumsy in places.

What I am enjoying is your massively unwarranted sense of self-importance and intellectualism. Please carry on with more opinions why other intellectuals misunderstand things.

Oh, and I also suspect you're a racist, but that's by the by.

[Anonymous No.6350737]

>>6350723
>Projection, maybe?

>everyone on /lit/ who disagrees with anyone else is projecting

Aren't you kids bored of this yet? You don't even use the word properly most of the time.

[Anonymous No.6350745]

>>6350115
Just play Spec Ops :^)

[Anonymous No.6350788]

>>6350732
At least you're putting some effort into this.

[Anonymous No.6350796]

>>6350732
>unwarranted sense of self-importance and intellectualism

Why do you think this? Because I'm swearing and sound flabbergasted on a Taiwanese Pictograph Forum? My post wasn't a fucking dissertation. I've read the book, tried to do so in a critical way, and disagree with the opinion this guy has on it. How does that imply an unwarranted sense of self-importance?

Peers of Achebe said this:

>Professor Dr. Rino Zhuwarara broadly agreed with Achebe, though considered it important to be "sensitized to how peoples of other nations perceive Africa."
>In 2003, Botswanan professor Dr. Peter Mwikisa concluded the book was "the great lost opportunity to depict dialogue between Africa and Europe."

That's the same opinion I came to on my own, in all of my "unwarranted intellectualism".

>I think it has racist elements but is largely a humanist work which is a bit clumsy in places.

See, I mostly agree. But I think in the social context the book was written in, it had no racist intentions, and I think Conrad had a comparatively progressive and egalitarian views towards race. It seems wrong to dismiss essentially everything pre-1960s as racist because certain prejudices showed themselves in descriptions and terminology.

>Oh, and I also suspect you're a racist, but that's by the by.

Please, I'd like to hear why.