Controversial Novel: Heart of Darkness

Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness has had major changes in the worlds view of it. It has gone from a classic way before its time to a racist & sexist novel. It is a controversial novel because of these majorly contradicting views that have changed over time. For instant Watts is in favor of the teaching of this novels in schools because of it’s ability to point harsh realities. At the same time Achebe believes that the book has more bad than good and should not be read.

When Conrad first published Heart of Darkness he was complimented for being an author way before his time because of his ability to acknowledge and understand the faults of imperialism. He was commended for his ability to use satire to show this. Yet years later when this novel was reviewed again it was suddenly brought to the public attention for what was considered a much need review on its stature. New critics raged that the book was sexist for its backdrop female characters denied even a name. They also argued that the novel didn't just acknowledge racism but participate with the inhuman representation of the Africans.

However Conrad’s novel in my opinion does have more positive aspects than negative ones. With consideration to his time Conrad was rightfully ahead of the general public yet with consideration to modern times he is of course behind. Yet as Mrs.G once said, “We can not judge past peoples as if they shared the same desires we do now” . Conrad’s novel also approaches majorly important motifs that make it worth teaching. Its pages are filled paradoxical and other complex literary devices making it academically worthy.

King Leopold's Ghost

In King Leopold's Ghost Adam Hochschild uses a uncommon structure to accomplish this goal. He reports facts through personal narratives unlike a traditional textbook. Although both still aim to portray historical occurrences Hochschild's work is built on primarily personal narratives. He claims at the start how almost all evidence left of the story of the Congo is the white colonists perspective, however he still manages to weave narratives to create or recreate the real story of the Congo.  The lack of congolice narrative is actually not at all uncommon even in western terms since our history books are primarily the white narrative.

Hochschild use of personal narratives however allows him something that textbooks do not achieve. He is able to accurately portray the personalities, views, and ideas of the people of that time. Early on in the book he uses these narratives to expose the myths legions and spiritual ideas surrounding the Congo and its inhabitants. He talks about the fear instilled in Europe in relation to the Congo as well as the fear instilled in the congolice by their own beliefs that the white colonists are ancestral ghosts.

Hochschild also include stereotypes as well as bias tones which isn't usual historical format. However since he does this through personal narratives it fits since it is only expressing that persons story. The inclusion of personal occurrences allows the reader a deeper personal understanding of what's going on. Which then overcomes the biggest adversity for history textbooks, that they lack the ability to allure the reader if the reader doesn't acknowledge that the people in the history books as real people.

Hochschild doesn't only use stereotypes to stereotype the congolice but also to dupe just about every powerful nation of that time. For example when Stanley goes forth to get the International African Association recognized as "the flag of a friendly government." he stereotypes Americans as lovers of freedom with the claim that IAA is an advocate for free states in Africa.