A Response to a Response

For today’s post, I will discuss an essay by one of my favorite authors Chinua Achebe. While Achebe is most known for his novel Things Fall Apart, today I will take a closer look at his response to Joseph Conrad’s novella Heart of Darkness. Despite my adoration for Achebe and his work, I will put that to the side to form an unbiased response to his response.

Before I begin discussing my own response, I think it is important to explain the place Achebe’s criticism is coming from. Achebe was a Nigerian-born author who spent years teaching and lecturing in the U.S. Although he wrote a number of books throughout the course of his life, he is regularly remembered for Things Fall Apart. A major element of his work was highlighting the pitfalls of imperialism, especially its damage on Africa life. So, it is without question that he would be critical of other works that are proclaimed to be illuminative of imperialism’s evils. 

Additionally, I think it is important to note that Achebe does not from a place of malice in his criticism of Conrad. He actually applauds Conrad’s work in the beginning of his essay: 

Conrad, on the other hand, is undoubtedly one of the great stylists of modern fiction and a good storyteller to bargain. His [novella] therefore falls automatically into a different class-permanent literature-read and taught and constantly evaluated by critics.

I think this is important to note because Achebe’s criticism is coming much more from a place of respect than a place of disdain. He has no bone to pick with Conrad; he only wants Africa to have the respect Conrad has garnered over the years. 

With this being said, I agree with many of the claims Achebe makes in his argumentative piece and I can clearly see where his criticism comes from. A lot of Conrad’s language does come off as demeaning towards the Congolese and there is a point about Conrad’s casting of the region as the antithesis of Europe and thus of civilization.

[There is a trend] in Western psychology to set Africa up as a foil to Europe...Heart of Darkness projects the image of Africa as ‘the other world’, the antithesis of Europe and therefore of civilization.

I think this analysis particularly rings true in Conrad’s description of the setting; much of the explanation of what Marlow sees casts the Congo as a place which is all together otherworldly.  It is concerning that he depicts Africa as the complete opposite of Europe. However, I think Conrad uses an array of criticism towards European imperialists as well. Kurtz’s horrific treatment of the Congolese is most evident of this. While this does not excuse the demeaning manor in which Conrad discusses the Congo and the people who live there, it is worth to note that his novella is still critical of European imperialism. Could his criticism have been stronger or more poignant: without a doubt. Could Conrad have been more conscious of the way he demeaned Africa: obviously. So while Heart of Darkness does possess a startling amount of subtle and obvious racism, it is also relatively critical of imperialism.  

Love You Forever

Wuthering Heights is a seminal classic in Gothic literature.  In her isolated home in the English countryside, Emily Bronte crafted a novel rich with insight about love, death, betrayal, and sacrifice.

Throughout the novel, the relationship between Heathcliff and Catherine captures all of these topics. The love the two characters express for each other is ever-present in Wuthering Heights, looming over the story like a storm cloud. At times as volatile as a storm cloud, their relationship encapsulates many of Bronte's  ideas about love and betrayal.

Perhaps among the most prominent themes about love and betrayal is the idea of true love being eternal. From the time they are children to the time they are adults, Catherine and Heathcliff possess a deep, yearning love for each other. While Catherine did marry Edgar Linton (for reasons that could constitute a post of their own), she continued loving Heathcliff.

" So [Heathcliff] shall never know how I love him: and that, not because he's handsome, Nelly, but because he's more myself than I am. Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same; and Linton's is as different as a moonbeam from lightning, or frost from fire."

Catherine's love for Heathcliff is meaningful and far deeper than what she claims to feel for Linton (again, a complicated matter). Heathcliff and Catherine's souls are cut from the same cloth; they share an unparalleled connection to one another. The reasons Catherine loves Heathcliff are far less superficial than appearance. They are joined to each other for reasons more complex than beauty; they connect to each other because of who they are on the inside. Their souls are the same which draws them close to each other.

"My love for Heathcliff resembles the eternal rocks beneath: a source of little visible delight, but necessary. Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."

Although they cannot be together, Catherine knows that Heathcliff and her are practically made for each other. They are one in the same; Catherine is Heathcliff and Heathcliff is Catherine. Even after Catherine dies, Heathcliff continues loving her: the connection to one another is continuous and never dies. For years after Catherine dies, Heathcliff visits her graveside, even going so far as removing her body from the ground. Even in her death, Catherine is with Heathcliff. Her ghost visits him until his own death and once Heathcliff eventually dies, their ghosts join together. They might not have been able to be together in life, but they can in death. Bronte's use of their love helps showcases the eternal existence of true love.

Yet I was a fool to fancy for a moment that she valued Edgar Linton's attachment more than mine. If he loved with all the powers of his puny being, he couldn't love as much in eighty years as I could in a day.

Heathcliff knows that his love for Catherine and her love for him is greater than any other person's affections for them. They are meant to be together-their souls are made from the same material after all-and the feelings they possess are stronger than anything Edgar Linton could muster. This is why Heathcliff's greatest comfort is seeing Catherine's ghost: even in death they can be united and express their undying bond. The love the pair have for each other does not end when they die.

Love continued, even prospered, after Catherine died due to childbirth. Because they could not be together in life, Catherine and Heathcliff could finally find solace. Their love could not be contained to the confines of life. It was immortal. They were able to have the life they longed for after they were not longer alive.

"Base Details"

Siegfried Sassoon's Base Details is a classic poem about wartime. Through his use of irony, Sassoon conveys his speaker's cynical attitude towards army majors.

Throughout the poem, the speaker's discussion of both the soldiers and the war itself reveal his cynicism. The major who is speaking in the poem carries himself with a harsh, unforgiving tone that plainly states his true feelings about the war his soldiers will fight in. As Sassoon was a soldier himself in World War I, the poem likely reflects his own feelings about the military and war.

Irony is seen throughout the poem; the speaker of the poem repeatedly contrasts what is expected against what he sees:

[I will] speed glum heroes up the line of death.

Alright, so this quotation is a lot to take in. First,  describing himself (an army major) as someone who will "speed glum heroes up the line to death"  definitely catches the reader off guard (3). Since the speaker is a military official, it is unexpected that he would be so open about pushing young men to their inevitable deaths. This use of irony catches the reader off guard with its harsh, brash tone. The speaker sheds all emotional attachment from the men who are about to die. He is cynical and unapologetic about the reality of the men approaching the end of their lives.

The irony present throughout Sassoon's poem helps the reader understand the speaker's cynicism. Sassoon's use of irony contrasts typically proud, patriotic images of soldiers marching into battle with the major's bluntness about not caring.To the speaker, these soldiers would be mere objects he would use to advance his cause. He would not bothered by the likelihood of them dying on the battlefield. To him, all that would matter is the outcome; the 'major' he would be would not be phased by what it will take to succeed in the war.

This poem helps the reader understand what Sassoon believes about war; Sassoon feels that the majors are lazy and use men as objects. They are not brave nor valiant, they only use young men to advance their causes.

And when the war is done and youth stone dead,

I’d toddle safely home and die — in bed.

This quotation is another example of Sassoon's great use of  irony to convey his speaker's cynicism. Since the soldiers died in war, the reader wold expect the major to die alongside them. However, the major the speaker describes is able to die peacefully in his own home. After the young soldiers have died in battle ("youth stone"), the major leaves the casualties behind. This major can return home safely while the young men he sent into war have died. The speaker feels that soldiers have relinquished their lives for their country by dying on the battlefield while the major was allowed to sit back comfortably. Clearly, the speaker feels that the majors do not care about the young men giving up their lives for the military's cause. Due to the cyncism he convey's through his speaker's cyncical description of a major, the reader understands Sassoon's greater view of the military.

Previously, I have discussed the complicated history with Vladimir Nabokov’s satire Lolita-or rather, the debate over whether it is a satire or not. Building of my prior blog post, today we will look at what exactly it is that Nabokov is satirizing.

Although there is the obvious topic of the over-sexualization of young girls in society, Nabokov also satirizes revisionist history. Specifically, Nabokov touches upon how dangerous it can be to rewrite history in favor of an individual (or group if applied to the larger world). Since Humbert is the narrator of his own story, there is little to no way to tell if what he expresses is what actually occurred. As I mentioned before, Humbert is an unreliable narrator as he does appear to gloss over many events that would otherwise be viewed very differently if not illustrated through his point of view. By allowing Humbert a center stage to share his romanticized view of his time spent with Dolores and air his dark humor about their adventures, Nabokov allows Humbert to rewrite his own history. Humbert is able to change the way he looks to his audience by downplaying Dolores’ anger through understatement and humor. 

As Karen P.L Hardison, a college professor and writer at enotes.com, Nabokov took motivation for this aspect of his satire from different events he was witness to:

“Vladimir Nabokov wrote Lolita as a satire of two concepts. The first is the concept the ease with which an individual or group of individual can reconstruct past events in their favor, i.e., rewrite history. This satirical element is said to have been motivated by Nabokov's having experienced both the Bolshevist takeover of power in Russia and the Nazi usurpation of power in Germany.”

Humbert's revision of his own history erases the abuse, torment, and endangerment that Dolores was constantly exposed to. At no point does Humbert admit wrongdoing in his 'relationship' with Dolores. Instead, he reimagines her compliance as a way to rewrite the atrocious life he forced a young, unwilling girl into. This in itself is what Nabokov is saying about romanticized revisions of history: rewriting what happens in the past to downplay negative events is dangerous and erases the struggles of those who were harmed.
Lolita erases all of Dolores' thoughts and emotions throughout this time period. For a majority of the book she isn't even called Dolores which strips away her literal identity and personhood. It seems that as narrator, Humbert creates two versions of Dolores: the real Dolores, a naive young girl, and Lolita, the willing nymphet. Since we only hear about Lolita from Humbert, we never can truly gauge how Dolores feels or how much she is likely protesting what is happening to her. Humbert's description of Lolita erases the unsavory truth to child sexual abuse and instead paints a picture of a sultry preteen desperate for the attention of an older man. The harsh realities are completely erased through Humbert's view of his time with Dolores. His revision of their history erases the pain and suffering that inevitably and undoubtedly occurred within Dolores.

It is not uncommon for works of fiction to be misinterpreted. However, Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov is perhaps amongst the most frequently misinterpreted fictional works of all time. For years, thousands of people have considered this tale of abuse and obsession one of love and romance. Many  miss the satirical elements Nabokov uses in his novel. Even when I told a friend I would be reading Lolita for its satirical elements, her initial reaction was one of confusion:

"Lolita is a satire?"

What I did not understand about this confusion was that the narrator, Humbert Humbert (yes, his actual name is Humbert Humbert), is largely regarded as an unreliable narrator. Everything about Humbert- from his actions to his words- tell us as the reader not to trust him. Yet, many regard Lolita as a classic tale of love and passion. Early on in the first half of the book, Humbert makes his intentions clear: his love of prepubescent girls, or "nymphets" as he calls them. This is not a man searching for the great love of his life, this is a predator who cares little about the effects of his actions on the young girls he molests.

Reader must understand that in the possession and thralldom of a nymphet the enchanted traveler stands, as it were, beyond happiness. For there is no other bliss on earth comparable to that of fondling a nymphet.

Nabokov uses Humbert's delusion of consensual relations to illustrate how  untrustworthy he his. However, many readers do not grasp this. For a better understanding, consider this quotation:

Swell chance . . . I'd be a sap if I took your opinion seriously . . . Stinker . . . You can't boss me . . . I despise you . . .

Reading this, you likely imagined the speaker to be angry and displeased. However, when  Dolores (Lolita) says this, Humbert believes that she is being playful and flirtatious. Mind you, this is a girl who has not yet reached her thirteenth birthday. He believes that she is content with his molesting her, so how can people still trust Humbert as a narrator?

The Blame Game

Placing guilt can be a difficult concept, especially when it seems multiple people are at fault. Like an episode of Law and Order, works of literature can have a wide suspect pool in terms of who is at fault. While Shakespeare’s Othello is not exactly an episode of Law and Order, there is still major divide in discussion about whom is at blame. The reason for varied opinions over who is responsible for the tragic outcome of the play is because of a divide in opinion over how blame itself is placed. To explain further, consider this:

One person lies to another. As a result, the person who believes the lie does something drastic that cannot be undone. Who’s to blame?

With this in mind, I feel that Othello is at fault for the tragic outcome of the play because while Iago did consistently lie to him, it was Othello’s poor judgement and rashness which resulted in his choice to kill Desdemona and ultimately, himself.

            In many ways Iago did pull the strings in his relationship with Othello by gaining his trust only to betray the general, choosing to “follow him to serve [his] turn upon [Othello]” (1:1)*.  Although Iago’s lies set Othello’s actions in place- his insistence of Desdemona pursuing an affair with Cassio deeply and quickly enraged the general- it was Othello who decided to pursue his course of actions. Upon misinterpreting Cassio’s, Othello immediately concluded that Cassio and Desdemona must “rot, and perish, and be damned” (4:1). Othello’s heart “[was] turned to stone” (4:1) because of what he believed happened; a change occurred inside Othello that would set him down a violent path. He was obviously led to this choice to harm Desdemona by Iago’s lies, but the shift within himself is what brought Othello to reason that Desdemona and Cassio had to die. Much of Othello’s intense anger stemmed directly from observing Cassio holding Desdemona’s handkerchief. To him, the handkerchief was clear proof of an affair. However, like many of the events that occurred which convinces Othello that Desdemona was having an affair, they were not even directly caused by Iago.

In many cases, things appeared to simply fall into place for Iago. Early on, Desdemona and Cassio blatantly display their close friendship  in public. “With as little a web as this” (2:1), Iago’s plan to destroy Othello’s life practically happened by itself. “[Cassio] took [Desdemona] by the palm” (2:1) and whispered in her ear, thus casting suspicion on the pair with little help from Iago. Even Othello's fateful decision largely came from witnessing Bianca shouting at Cassio for possessing Desdemona's handkerchief and Iago never intended for this to occur. While he did plan to convince Othello that Cassio's comments about Bianca were in fact about Desdemona, Iago did not foresee Bianca storming in much less her pulling out the handkerchief.  So much of what caused Othello to kill his wife did not even happen because of Iago but instead by coincidence (or fate, but this is an entirely different discussion). Desdemona also repeatedly urged Othello to give Cassio his job back and often vouched for Cassio's admirable qualities. Iago did not encourage Desdemona to do this at all. Instead, she elected to repeatedly discuss Cassio's bravery and nobility with Othello. How can Iago be guilty when so much of what pushed Othello to kill Desdemona was simply coincidental?
Additionally, Othello's own poor judgement and rashness led to his downfall. By taking time to speak with Desdemona, it is possible the matter of her infidelity could have been sorted out with ease. Instead, he jumped to conclusions based on the words of Iago and a few chance occurrences. Often in life, we must take responsibility for our own decisions and choices. Othello's choice and execution of Desdemona's fate was from his own accord. Thus, Othello is to blame for the play's outcome.