Why do we have two narrators?

The first narrator does not know the story, we begin with the evening, and through Marlowes narrative it is interrupted do you see the story, do you see anything? do you understand? it has become pitch dark The first narrator is the addressee of do you see the story? Marlow says inability of the first narrator to understand the failure of words to convey the truth. The kernel is in the how (way of speaking), not in what.

When we see sth from a perspective, distance implies removal from truth, so paradoxically even though we see better, we do not get the truth. Kurtz is a mosaic of words. people say things about him and it creates the character. Between us and the meaning of the story we have three obstacles, and it is the how. The first narrator does not understand Marlow, Marlow does not understand Kurtz, and Kurtz is a mystery in its own right. Reading it as the process of unveiling, but in this case it reveals another process of unveiling. The voices lose the origin, have no absolute origin. But when we look at how it is spoken, sth strange happens. The first person narrator actually says a very similar thing that Marlow says, they echo each other. In the process of unveiling we come to the process of echoing. a mournful gloom, brooding motionless in this case, who is echoing who? Chronologically, Marlow first spoke about it, then the first person narrator repeats it. but when we read, it is reversed. Normally, the language is light, we explain things with language. But in the text, language is darkness, because it confuses things, being imperfect. Light and darkness the relation. Jedno niweluje drugie, they cannot coexist. But, as the things are reversed in the text, here the language-darkness makes the truth-light disappear. The more we use language, we go away from truth. When we light a candle, we get a small point, a glimpse of truth, it does not allow you to see everything in that room. So there would be a coexistence of light-darkness. In colonial terms, the language of the white man cannot penetrate the darkness, impenetrable The contrast white men black men. The impenetrable mystery of Africa. Marlow travels up the river, so he remains on the border of the jungle. Kurtz enters the jungle and is possessed by it. when dying, he can utter only the horror, the horror even though he was a great orator. So the European

language fails to pierce through the darkness of Africa. What we have here is a white man describing Africa. Language: the ability to talk, a pulsating stream of light, or a deceitful flow from an impenetrable heart of darkness Kurtz represents Europe, the language, civilization. What hides under this eloquence is a hollowness, a void. So all things we say about Africa are far from truth., Colonialism implies I go and I take. Exploitation it is hollow, because we just take. Imperialism incorporating the land into the greater part, possibly with some marketing prospects. It suggests that there is an idea, which redeems it. being a part of sth great is good. We give sth, we dont only take. Putting the blacks in chains is condemned, because they become useless tormenting them is inefficient. no restraint, no faith, no idea Kurtz stops being an efficient collector of ivory The pointless hole in the ground as inefficient use of blacks workforce No fear: you have to have a respect for the blacks not because they are superior but because there is so many of them. The darkness is stronger than a white who is consumed in terms of quantity, not quality.

British Imperialism is concerned with ideas, bringing civilisation to the invaded lands. The language... The imperialism as feminine, a mother that nurtures. We can deconstruct the text on the basis of postcolonialism, when Conrad says that language is deceitful. Language is the deceitful light which will not allow us to see darkness.. In post colonial terms, Africa here is a construct of words, there is no Africa in this text. but that also defends this text... one thing is that it also unveils the process of constructing the otherness, savageness of the country. And the language of the white man constructs the continent. Language cannot convey the truth. Marlowes journey he tries to read the jungle, understand it. we were moving toward lurking death, profane evil, darkness Silent wilderness visual Lurking death - this is imposing his own culture, when describing the forest Hidden evil - interpretation - cultural as well, not objective description

Profound [suggest an absolute, depth] darkness impression

Impenetrable [which lacks the attribute of depth] forest

- visual

So these are contradicting statements.

the stillness of an implacable force brooding over inscrutable intention Implacable force force of revenge Inscrutable intention with an unknown intention revenge is an intention, but if we cannot see the reason, then how can we say it is a revenge in the first place? the jungle was smiling, frowning... personification. The jungle is looking at us. he humanizes the jungle. The personification is his defeat of understanding, because he cannot understand and describe it. he wants to contain the jungle within his own language. The number of adjectives grows, because he cannot find a perfect one to describe the jungle.

Marlowe was fascinated with maps and the map reverses the meaning of white-black. White patches are the undiscovered lands, and the known are dark. He travels up the river, which is like a snake temptation. He meets these parki... fate spinners The question: is his whole description of Africa influenced by what happened, or chronologically reflecting his experiences? Africa was he neutral when he came to Africa, and the experience made him proclaim Africa as a seductive place, or he had a strong attitude before? If we assume that he goes neutral, and Africa changes him... make him think like this... but is it possible to have a neutral attitude towards this in the XIX century? do we believe in it? we would rather believe he would go there with certain assumptions. Africa did not change him, the change he describes in himself he sees Africa as a great transforming force, psychologically, he is transformed, in colonial terms, there is no change. When travelling up the river, he was entering, the jungle was opening before him and closing behind. we penetrated deeper and deeper, so the jungle is like a woman... that we discover. The jungle letting them in. There is a land, a virgin land, which is being in threat of being raped, or ravaged, by savages. And the white man defends this land. A white man explores the new colonized land as a woman, who accepts the white man, gives herself to the white man. In colonialist discourse, the word rape does not appear. In postcolonialist, it does. As a rape of a white woman by a group of black men. it is implicitly a group rape.

we penetrated not a single man. The land will become impregnated and bear the fruit of that good intercourse. A full acceptance that a group enters. But there is an undercurrent in the postcolonial discourse temptation. But Kurtz is possessed, destroyed. The jungle is described in erotic terms, caressing, embracing. And it is why it destroyed him. Colonial discourse uses sexual discourse without eroticism. Very often the new land is described as Eve. But Eve was tempted. When the native woman comes out, she is a soul of the jungle, they are on the steamer (already leaving the scene, having taken Kurtz on the boat). In normal hierarchy, she is the weaker, in power relationship. But she throws her hands up, standing in the light, and embraces the steamer with her shadow. And Marlowe feels not very comfortable. So, here the land is more whorelike, it tempts and destroys. As such, colonialism is dangerous. The jungle is dangerous because it is depicted in erotic terms. What are the implications? A woman, as an erotic being, is on the same level with a nigger. wild sorrow and dumb pain a woman, and a black man, in one person, irrational beings. Uncivilized, etc. The more Marlowe lies to the Intended, the darker it becomes in the room. Intended, woman and black are on the same level.