Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent
I'm a little confused by your post, but from what I understand Achebe's problem with Heart of Darkness is that he doesn't believe that a work that perpetuates negative (and untrue) stereotypes about black people should be considered a (great) work of art. However, I think Conrad's descriptions of Africa and black people are mostly based in ignorance, and his work does have the ethical imperative of confronting the darkness humanity is capable of rather than remaining asleep in a state of dazed naivite. Kurtz dies crying "the horror! the horror!" not "heart of darkness fuck yeah!" if you see what I'm getting at. So from my perspective it does take on an ethical responsibility, even if it falls short of fulfilling it, and that responsibility in turn leads it into dark territories (of the soul). The book isn't about "look at how evil Africa and black people are" but "look at how evil we all have the potential to be, better stay wary and aware..."
|
I think I get what you're saying here, but if I'm reading you correctly this would open a massive world of variables.
Who's to say the author grasps the moral issues at hand? Or has the compass to give him the ability to by empathetic to a given moral situation? Are we ready to punish the person for genuine lack of knowledge? If what you're saying about Achebe's position is true, it puts the onus on the writer not the reader. My problem with that is, its essentially asking authors to be a guiding compass to any given read and furthermore assumes that we should listen.
It also starts carving into the path of the writer. I remember sitting in a fiction workshop and some kid wrote a story about 4 townie kids sitting around and calling each other "f
ags" because they wouldn't man-up and talk to women or drink beer fast enough. The author of that piece was ripped to shreds, likely for the same reason Achebe is attempting to take on Conrad - its not terribly PC. The problem I have with that is that for better or worse, thats how townie people talk.
I hope you understand I'm not arguing with you, CA. But whats being proposed here is that we're so enamored with social justice, that we aren't even allowed to write about social injustice. We can no longer put a face on it.
What confuses me about your latest response is that it seems to contradict the first one in this thread that you've made. To clarify let me ask you this - should Conrad write the way he did, or do you think he was a failed writer for doing so?