Met with the team to discuss Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'. Not a lot to say about the book itself. We pretty much went over the same ground that hundreds of researchers have done since its publication. It's a metaphor for this or that - although we didn't discuss it, there's someone on the web who even looks at it as a metaphor of Jungian psychology. Here I want to focus on a very tiny line from an essay by Chinua Achebe where he describes Conrad's novella as being part of "permanent literature". Achebe, of course, has more on his mind than 'permanent literature': "The point of my observations should be quite clear by now, namely that Joseph Conrad was a thoroughgoing racist." (I think you get the picture, though you should read the linked article because I think it is impossible to read 'Heart of Darkness' in the 21st century without reference to Achebe's opinion.) For me though I have never thought of certain books being classified as 'permament literature'. I like the term. We tend to think of them more as 'classic literature', but permanent is so much more definitive. From here on I will tend to ask the question of any modern book I read, as to whether it will become 'permanent literature'. A benchmark of sorts.
Posted by Joe at March 29, 2004 10:22 PMYes, Conrad is a racist, but Heart of Darkness a worthy read, and Achebe's essay on HD worthwhile. Nevertheless, reading HD has revealed to me just how seriously it is dissected by some and just how important the conclusions of those dissections are to some readers. I, for my part, feel that we lean too much on research of others. Of course, such philosophizing of content has its merit as a guideline, but let us not forget to read novels first and foremost for joy, with consideration of deeper but peripheral meaning left as a non-requisite but, hopefully, enjoyable second - in other words, put aside the crutches afforded by academia in order to formulate our own independant opinions as we wish, which - if necessary - can be matched against the "authority" post-read. Doubtless this sounds non-intellectual. But all too often readers expound the theories of analyzts without ever imparting their own views.
Posted by: martin at March 30, 2004 10:02 AM