Joseph Conrad's Heart Of Darkness

Was the forest dark? No, it wasn’t just dark. It was gloomy and somber and full of shadows…. I heard they quarreled over hens, but never did I verify that rumor. Details shmetails… Was that how their conversation ensued? I think my memory may be clouding the truth of the scene. Ah well, these gents won’t know the difference… Readers can almost hear Marlow’s skirmish with the story in his head as it simultaneously spills out of his mouth. Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness reveals to readers the scene of Marlow and three of his companions aboard the Nellie, a British ship sitting on the River Thames. While sitting aboard the ship, as the evening turns to night, Marlow recounts from his memory the nightmarish journey he took through the African

interior with a Belgian ivory trading company known only as the Company. Through the course of his story, some things Marlow says seem to compromise his reliability.

Marlow himself even acknowledges his insufficient narration. Add to this his limitations as a human being, and it is clear to see that Conrad has pulled Marlow’s strings in such a way as to give an unreliable narration of his story.

Marlow’s story stretches the course of an evening, and through the course of that evening, on more than one occasion, Marlow makes statements which give his listeners reason to distrust his story. “I heard the original quarrel arose from a misunderstanding about some hens. Yes, two black hens. Fresleven—that was the fellow's name, a Dane—thought himself wronged somehow in the bargain, so he went ashore and started to hammer the chief of the village with a stick,” (7) Marlow tells his companions aboard the Nellie. The problem is, Marlow does not know this to be the truth. Miscommunications, falsehoods, and exaggerations are sure to be mixed with the true story before it reaches

the ears of Marlow; and even then, before it leaves his lips. Like the rest of his story, Marlow has no evidence to show that this altercation ever occurred as it was described. However, unlike the majority of his story, Marlow himself has been given no evidence to show this is true. Furthermore, Marlow is uncertain of how events are unfolding around him. Marlow recalls nearing the entrance to the river which would take him into the heart of the continent, telling his listeners, “Once, I remember, we came upon a man-of-war anchored off the coast. There wasn't even a shed there, and she was shelling the bush. It appears the French had one of their wars going on thereabouts” (). “It appears,” Marlow says. Marlow often seems as confused as his listeners. Listeners to Marlow’s story are unable to understand anything which Marlow does not understand himself, diminishing his dependability. [Maybe that other piece of evidence too?] It is difficult to put trust in a narrator who asserts rumors as truth and who himself does not thoroughly know the events of his story. Marlow’s reliability is constantly compromised by his failings as an informed narrator.
Marlow himself admits to his less than optimal narration on more than one occasion. Speaking of the enigma which is Kurtz, he says, “Do you see him? Do you see the story? Do you see anything? It seems to me I am trying to tell you a dream —making a vain attempt, because no relation of a dream can convey the dream-sensation…” He later contributes further to this same sentiment in saying, “It is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one's existence —that which makes its truth, its meaning —its subtle and penetrating essence. It is impossible.” Marlow vocally expresses the great struggle he faces in attempting to describe his experiences and the people he comes across on his journey, and does not spare the fact that he is failing to do the job sufficiently. He says that he is making a “vain attempt,” implying that there was no way his telling could convey the actuality of the subject of description, thus claiming to be telling his story to the full potential of the human ability. Therein lies one of the main flaws which plagues Marlow.
As a character in his story, Marlow is only human.

He faces human limitations as all other characters in his story face—limitations which a non-character would not have to face. Marlow is forever describing scenes, characters, and objects with an endless string of words, never able to find the exact words which might accurately portray what he has experienced, and omitting background information which would greatly contribute to the understanding of his story. "The earth seemed unearthly. We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there—there you could look at a thing monstrous and free. It was unearthly, and the men were—No, they were not inhuman. Well, you know, that was the worst of it—this suspicion of their not being inhuman. They howled and leaped, and spun, and made horrid faces; but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity—like yours—the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar" (32). Marlow’s inability to find and define words, here relying upon a word’s antonym to obscurely define its meaning, shows the insufficiency of his narration. He is telling his story orally, without having pre-arranged his thoughts or words, and his story is inexact because of it. He omits biographical information about himself. "Fully fledged characters tend to be fleshed out with personal history, family background, home address; apart from a solitary aunt in Brussels, Marlow has none of these" (Greaney

58). These sparse details contribute to the lack of clarity his listeners gain through the narration of his story; and as a member of his story, Marlow has personal relations with the individuals referenced and cannot tell his story without revealing his own biases. A narrator removed from the story would have the ability to tell a story free of bias, leaving it to the reader to judge for themselves with whom or what they might choose to side. A story cannot be sufficiently told if the reader is left without the ability to make their own judgments. Contributing further to the unique challenges facing Marlow is his obligation to tell his story completely from memory. “Although people usually remember the general gist of what they experience, the fallibility of human memory is disturbing... In fact, each of us has the potential to confidently and vividly remember the details of some event—and be completely wrong” (Hockenbury 253). If Marlow had recounted his story from a journal taken as the events of the journey took place, his recounting of the tale could be more greatly trusted, but as Marlow cannot be removed from human limitations, his memory cannot be trusted to tell the story with accuracy. The limitations inflicted upon Marlow by his own humanity are enough to compromise the reliability of his tale, making his narration an insufficient one.
Some may argue that any narrator telling their own autobiographical story faces these same human limitations which Marlow has faced. Many other narrators tell their story orally, thus lacking the ability to find the right words on the spot. Many other narrators lack robust background information. Many other narrators display their own bias. Many other narrators are forced to tell their story from memory. It would seem as though Marlow tells a no less sufficient narration than any other 1st person narrator. However, it is rare that all of these limitations would be imposed upon the same narrator. Unlike most other narrators telling a personal story, Marlow must trudge through each and every one of these limitations of his humanity in order to spit out the best tale he can tell.
Joseph Conrad succeeds in putting together a striking modernist work of literature through the unreliable narration of his puppet, Marlow, who compromises his own reliability through assumptions, misunderstandings, and contradictions; admits to the deficiency of his narration; and faces countless human limitations. Conrad picks up the pieces of Marlow’s defective narration, and masterfully assembles them into scenes of art which cause his readers to feel the deep, profound emotion of Marlow’s story. It may not be vivid, but it is poignant. Marlow knew the failings of his story, but his maker knew the potential of his story. The artwork could never have been assembled without Marlow first providing the broken parts.