I think it's very interesting to compare Conrad's description of the river to the Garden of Eden.
I thought I would put in some pictures of the river.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEUjr7G0KNpSOseeZBiH0K3H_hum-k8feNS23pNSM0JvDTw8n83St4sfD90nj5Sn1CHn2VoqCqZzv30u3ukL8mvWjODGT-dY5VdH4uC6rcD-j2zAOH8HeY2xjHsMQHRpPhfBKL-nnFJDN1/s1600/congo-river-nat-geo.jpg
http://www.wackyowl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/congo-river.jpg
http://inlinethumb04.webshots.com/43011/2344088890102973086S425x425Q85.jpg
What do you think? Did you think of the Garden of Eden when you first read the description of the river? Do you believe Marlow is voyaging back to Eden? But also, in what ways do you see this as evil?
I think it's interesting that the Conrad describes the river as snake-like and evil. Much like in the Garden of Eden, with the story of Adam and EVe, the snake represents evil. Could Marlow himself represent Adam being tempted by the "snake" and also going mad as the river continues? Or do you have a different version of this idea?
Just something to think about.
We seriously didn't talk about this enough in class, so watch me ramble.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to first comment on how much like the scenery of "Apocalypse Now" these pictures are (cool pictures, by the way). I know the story doesn't take place in the same part of the world, but the idea is very similar. You've got this nature that is beautiful but incredibly overwhelming, as if it could swallow you whole. And, according to both "Apocalypse Now" and "Heart of Darkness," the force of nature often does just that, leaving no trace of its explorers behind.
I think, however, that the river represents less an evil, and more a raw power that ignorant foreigners have no means of controlling. In this sense, the river is interpreted by the white man as waiting with bated breath for him to make one small mistake. So, even though it is the white man who is foreign and, arguably, evil, the blame is shifted to a river which has always been. This is a justification for imperialism, which must only be pure and right in the white man's eyes, as he villifies anything that stands in his way of it.
As far as traveling to the garden of eden, I think that Marlow is acknowledging a return to the native roots of humanity, and can appreciate its power. If his thoughts are indeed straying toward the biblical side, his fear may be driven by a self-reflection and moment of clarity regarding the evil he has helped perpetuate. The birthplace of humanity was not kind to his forefathers, and, likewise, it holds no obligation to Marlow now.
Does that make any sense? Or am I blowing this way out of proportion?