In Part 1 today we looked briefly at ¶ 38. For this blog, consider Marlow's curious statement about devils.
You know I am not particularly tender; I’ve had to strike and to fend off. I’ve had to resist and to attack sometimes—that’s only one way of resisting—without counting the exact cost, according to the demands of such sort of life as I had blundered into. I’ve seen the devil of violence, and the devil of greed, and the devil of hot desire; but, by all the stars! these were strong, lusty, red-eyed devils, that swayed and drove men—men, I tell you. But as I stood on this hillside, I foresaw that in the blinding sunshine of that land I would become acquainted with a flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly. How insidious he could be, too, I was only to find out several months later and a thousand miles farther.
What sort of man or men fit this description of a "flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly"? Are there examples of them in Part 1? If so, who and why? Why does Marlow prefer the "strong, lusty, red-eyed devils, that swayed and drove men" over this breed? Are there any examples of the strong & lusty sort to be found in Part 1, or anywhere else for that matter? Who, if any—and why?
Sorry I didn't post this at 2:30. The Prowl got in the way, as I should have known it would. But I'll extend the deadline to 11 p.m. Thursday.
For discussion purposes Friday we'll use this topic as a starting point. Think also about these:
- Contrasts of dark & light
- Contrast between the representatives of "civilization" and the wilderness that surround them
- Atmosphere: a nebulous yet distinct product of diction, phrasing and description. In this work it is especially powerful
- Striking pairs. Examples—Marlow’s ¶13 with the 1st narrator’s ¶ 6. The torch becomes the “idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea…” OR Two black hens, ¶21 and the two “Fates” ¶23 & 25
- Irony that borders on humor. Examples—The death of Fresleven, ¶21. “The supernatural being had not been touched after he fell.” OR The old doctor who measures heads ¶27 OR ¶51 The drunken officer “looking after the upkeep of the road…” though, Marlow says, “Can’t say I saw any road or any upkeep, unless the body of a middle-aged negro, with a bullet-hole in the forehead, upon which I absolutely stumbled three miles farther on, may be considered as a permanent improvement.”
These and other issues will be our topics of discussion Friday. We'll gather in a circle and I'll be noting participation.
See you then.
35 comments:
The devils of folly are all the men who try to retain something european, or civilized, about themselves, and those who strive to create this "ideal" in others. Such men are prevalent within the Congo. The Chief Accountant, who retains his european appearance, even to the point of standing out from everything else around him, is one such man. The Station Manager, and the others who work for him, are also in this class. Because these men are largely symbolic of the european colonists as a whole the men who work in the Congo are almost entirely devils of folly. Perhaps the only man to resist this sort of demonic title is Kurtz, who, by his acts of violence and surrender to his most base self, mark him as the only one of the strong and lusty sort. He sees that what the others do is foolish, and as such rather than attempt to civilize while profiteering, he allows Africa to push him to a more primitive state.
The distinction between the two types of devils parallels the two main locations of part 1: Europe and the Congo. “Strong, lusty, red-eyed devils” are at work where Marlow first resides, making tendencies toward violence, greed, and hot desire rather normal vices (Conrad 28). He recognizes the forces that “swayed and drove men.” The men driven to the Congo, Marlow realizes once there, have a strangely different type of sin, one caused by the “flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devils” (28). Most of the men Marlow meets before trekking inward to Kurtz’s station have this form of vice. The “manager” is one such person. He doesn’t seem to be particularly violent, nor greedy, nor an individual full of hot desire, and yet he partakes in the hideous rape of the Congo, acting as a high officer in the ordeal. He has an air of pompous about him, irking Marlow into thinking him as a “chattering idiot” (39). The manager does not exude one of the simple sins, and instead is hiding a “rapacious,” predatory, manner that Marlow has yet to understand (28).
This is why Marlow prefers those possessed by the “strong, lusty…devils” (28). The latter men are understandable in their actions, yet the “weak-eyed devils” create a more internally corrupted product. Not strong enough to create central vices, these devils underhandedly press their evils on their victims, too “weak-eyed” to be direct, perhaps then more dangerous. Marlow sees the boisterous and well-known evils as easier to handle than those that are opaque.
Kurtz has his fair share of both types of devils. His initial reasons for working in the Congo can be inferred as caused by the strong devils, greed-based and infused with violence. However, his “work” allows the intrusion of the flabby devils, etching away at his conscience, until he becomes a maniac, ivory no longer satisfying greed and killing not satisfying violent tendencies. Kurtz has become an image of the “pretending” devil himself.
Oh, I forgot to say. This was such a difficult prompt that my language is likely pretty abstract. Apologies!
In Marlow’s description of the "flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly" he felt he would soon come to meet, I was reminded of our discussion today on impressionism as seen in art and in Heart of Darkness. Marlow doesn't explain outright who these "devils of folly" are however, he alludes to them being involved further in the story. As we talked about today, one needs to take a step back from that sentence to really understand the nature of his description. I think that by Part 1 it can be concluded that men Marlow describes as "devils of folly" are the colonists. His description characterizes their behaviors and their falsities. When speaking of the Chief Accountant that Marlow meets, he is introduced as a white man in elegance that Marlow "took as a sort of vision." We talked about his appearance at the top of the hill as that of a deity looking upon the broken, brooding, and dying land. His very image is that of a "devil of folly." He is dressing in a way that one would believe him still to be in London. ..
I have to leave for work, hopefully I can finish my point when I get back. My apologies!
Megan.
I'm of the same opinion that the "flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly" is indeed speaking of the manager. The reason is simple; he is not a man of action, and the only reason he has risen to the position of manager is that fact that he is the only white man in the Congo who seems to not have contracted malaria. He believes in the Company and the ideas of the Company, and sends out other people to do his dirty work.
Marlow prefers the "strong, lusty, red-eyed devils" because they speak to the animalistic part of your brain, and feed your primitive desires. They are straight forward, and are active, unlike the "flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil" who needs others to do their dirty work.
Kurtz is one of Marlow's "red-eyed devils". He is passionate, and draws people to him with his great orating talent. Marlow doesn't imagine him as a corporeal human being when he first hears of him; he imagines a voice, sinuous and seductive. This is the ideal of the devil of lust.
There is also the matter of Kurtz's Intended. He has two of them in reality: the one waiting for him back home complacently and the vivid hoyden of Africa. The former fits the Kurtz who lived before the Congo and its corrupting nature; the second completes the image of him as The Voice. Without these two women for motivation, Kurtz potentially could have become just another of your average "flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly".
I believe that it is Kurtz whom Marlow is referring to when he describes the "flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly." Not only does Marlow state that he is foreseeing a man that he would meet months later, but Kurtz also fits his description of this type of devil. Kurtz has made his reputation as a conceited and greedy character whose appetite for ivory is not only insatiable but unmatched by any other man. Kurtz is a "pretending" man because he is not ravaging the Congo for ivory as many suspect, but rather to inflict his own internal evils upon others. After his death, Marlow appears to feel no pity for Kurtz. While he may feel remorse for the deceased man, I believe Kurtz' evil character prevents Marlow from feeling any sincere pity for him. If there is any pity on Marlow's behalf it is toward the Intended, who is crushed by his death but never understood the true character of Kurtz.
Marlow prefers the "strong, lusty, red-eyed devils" like the manager and the Chief Accountant because violence, greed, and desire are nothing Marlow has not seen before--there are men of such character everywhere. However, Kurtz and the "devils of folly" are temperaments that Marlow will "become acquainted with," inferring that he has never encountered such men before. I believe it is this fear of the unknown that causes Marlow to prefer the "red-eyed devils" to Kurtz and his brand of evil.
The "strong, lusty, red-eyed devils" represent the men who thirst for wealth from the Congo and they are so driven that they try to achieve their malicious goals with haste and determination. These are men of action who know what they want and what they have to do, at any cost, to get it. These devils sway men like "one of the reclaimed" Africans described in paragraph 38, who has been turned into an oppressor of his own people. His strong lust for survival and to be accepted by the Europeans has turned him into a monster of the same breed. He has no trouble leading his chained peers through the jungle and even recognizes Marlow as a confederate.
The "flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil" on the other hand, represents those who know about the ensuing horror and do nothing to stop it. An example would be the two women who seemed to be "guarding the door of Darkness" (par. 26) at the office in Brussels, though they are not actively involved in the matters occurring in Africa, they are aware but still indifferent towards it and towards the people who come through. These devils are weak and pretending because they are not taking outright action and it is unclear if they mean harm. They are simply quiet participators and enablers of the same darkness.
I think Marlow favors the "strong, lusty, red-eyed devils" more because it is easier to distinguish their evil. Their objectives are clear, and their motivation is easy to understand. However, the "flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil" is harder to distinguish and figure out because it works in subtle ways, slowly wreaking havoc and destruction under the radar. It is harder to decipher their actions and pinpoint what their evil doing is.
It seems that Marlow is referring to the manager and other colonists when he speaks of a "flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly." These are the people that are not evil due to their violence or greed, but because they don't recognize what they are doing as wrong and have been blinded by a false thought that they are helping. These people are unable to realize that they are extremely ineffective in their methods and completely wasteful of their resources (they blow up cliffs for no reason...). This type of evil is very apparent in the widespread decay of the companies stations, not to mention there are broken machines lying all over the place. This type of evil is very foolish and ineffective, just like the manager.
The other type of evil, the "strong, lusty, red-eyed devils", are shown in Kurtz, who is fully aware of the widespread death and destruction he has brought upon the Congo. He is known to have the natives beaten by other natives for no good reason. He uses fear tactics to make the natives work harder for him to collect as large a profit as possible. Marlow chose this type of evil over the other because these people know what they are doing is wrong and do it for personal reasons such as profit, unlike the other type of evil who fall for the nonsense that some good is being done in the Congo and what is happening is necessary to accomplish such a goal. A man who does evil for himself is better than a man who does evil due to him being shortsighted and foolish, and unaware what he is doing.
I am under the impression that the Marlow prefers the "strong, lusty, red-eyed devils" because they, like many men have strong desires and are acting upon them on their own. These men I percieve to be the other white men who are doing their part in the Congo. Although they are doing monstrous deeds, they are not oblivous, they see what they are doing and still follow orders. These characteristics class them as strong, lusty and devilish.
"Flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly" men are oblivious, hence the "weak-eyed" classification. In a sense they are unwilling to see what is going on around them. I am refering to the manager as well as Kurtz. The manager and Kurtz are weak in the fact that they hires others to do their horrible deeds for their "rapacious and pitiless folly". That makes me think that their twisted conciouses know what is happening but their greed is too overpowering and they are weak because they refuse to see what they are doing in the Congo because they know it is devilish.
I liked Emelia's comment that the devils that are described as "weak-eyed" need others to do there dirty work. This reminded me of in the book where other natives are in charge of the enemies. The white men in the Congo get others to do what they desire not to. I also agree with Jen how the "weak-eyed" are those that know the truth of the Congo but go along with the plan anyways. Like she mentioned the women who are knitting and I would also include in that list the Manager as well as others have mentioned.
I think Kurtz is like the "strong, lusty, red-eyed devils." Which I think makes him most interesting. Kurtz is surrounded by those that have the devil of "flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devils" and he is different. This also reminds me of our discussion in class of juxtaposition. I think it is also important to point out that Kurtz is not physical strong per se but his words and thoughts are the strongest part about him. Marlow mentions this when he doesn't take time to see his Kurtz once he died because his body was of no importance. I think this is one reason why Marlow prefers the “strong, lusty, red-eyed devils.” Like previously mentioned this kind is easier to understand. I see this people being very persuasive and charismatic (like Kurtz) making the ideas more acceptable.
It’s important to look at the context of this excerpt. Marlow talks about the “flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly" in the middle of his depiction of the Congo. Just a couple paragraphs earlier he describes the “undersized railway-truck lying there on its back with its wheels in the air,” likening it to the carcass of an animal (18). He also comments: “The cliff was not in the way of anything; but this objectless blasting was all the work going on.” Later on he discusses the pile of broken drainage-pipes he sees, calling it a “wanton smash-up” (19). The idea Marlow is conveying is that the activities undergone in the Congo are ineffective and wasteful. Marlow doesn’t describe any apparent purpose for these doings, nor does he describe any productive activity. If we pay attention to the context, the “flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly" Marlow describes must be related to the evident inefficiency and disorganization in the Congo. I feel that the two best examples of these “devils” would be the manager and his uncle. Like we discussed in class, the reason the manager holds the position he does is because he does not get sick like others; it is not because of his work ethic, managing expertise, competence, resourcefulness, or effectiveness.
I’ve thought a lot about why Marlow might prefer the “weak-eyed devils” to the “red-eyed devils,” but I’m having difficulty coming up with a plausible explanation. Clearly they are both corrupt; although, the “weak-eyed devils” like the manager are more uselessly corrupt. At least the “red-eyed devils” are motivated and effective. Their intentions may not be pure, but at least they are productive. Marlow also describes the “weak-eyed devils” as “insidious.” Perhaps he feels that they are more dangerous. I agree with Katie – this was a very challenging blog. I hope that we can get somewhere further with it tomorrow.
I think that when Marlow speaks of a "flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly", he is not referring to any one person in particular, but rather to the people in general who are in charge of the whole operation of Congo, or perhaps the spirit that drives them to do the horrible things that they do. These people include Kurtz and the manager, and, though Marlow never meets him, King Leopold, who used the wealth he got from slaughtering and maiming millions to furnish lavish palaces for himself and his lover.
As several others have said, I think Marlow prefers the "strong, lusty, red-eyed devils" because they are the more obvious sort of evil. The human mind easily accepts an image of evil such as the stereotypical villain of movies, who strokes his cat as he talks about world domination. It's harder to accept an image of evil like that of the manager, who is flabby and very obviously normal, but who facilitates the torture and subjugation of the natives. Marlow recognizes that the most horrible deeds are often done by the least expected people, and that most vile people aren't "red-eyed devils" who jump out at you screaming "I'm evil!".
Conrad connects the brickmaker, who attempts to pry for Marlow’s connections in Europe, to the “flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly;” calling him a “papier-mache Mephistopheles,” (62) which is essentially a devil, the “papier-mache” seems to mark him to be false, unreal, and feeble, and the brickmaker is “rapacious,” truly wanting the infamous position of General Manager to further his influence in the Congo. Efficiency drives production in this land, and the “devil of violence, and the devil of greed, and the devil of hot desire” are the incentives for "strong, lusty, red-eyed devils.” Once inefficiency begins to surface people simply “crawl away and rest.” (41)
I think this is why Marlow prefers the strong to the flabby, because they are willing to succumb to these devils, lose their moral values for efficiency to be reached. For this reason, Kurtz is the epitome of such a devil. Conrad leads us to think so when the brickmaker mentions Kurtz as “an emissary of pity and science and progress, and devil knows what else.”(60) Playing with the saying “God knows what else,” makes the statement comical at first, until the meaning sinks in, and the reader realizes that Kurtz lost his morals during his expedition and is lustful for “his” conquests. Also I noticed that pity, science, and progress seem to parallel the devils of violence, greed, and hot desire. Coincidence? I think not.
I would have to agree with Bryn that the context is important in analyzing this quote. In class we talked about the irony of the sentence preceding 38 where Marlow says “After all, I also was a part of the great cause of these high and just proceedings.” He clearly notices that what is going on at the station is corrupt and unproductive. I believe that most of the characters that Marlow encounters in the Congo can be filed under the category of the “pretending, weak-eyed devil” because they are involved in such an atrocious operation. They hide underneath a façade of humanitarianism but their own greed is what keeps them going.
It is towards the end of the story where Marlow talks about his admiration for Kurtz. He says “I affirm that Kurtz was a remarkable man. He had something to say. He said it (87).” Marlow prefers the “strong, lusty, red-eyed devils” because they do not hide their true intentions. Even though what Kurtz did was detestable Marlow likes him because even after his death he will be remembered. He had direct intentions that he was not afraid to make known.
I agree with Austin. I interpreted the "weak-eyed" to be Kurtz. When Marlow meets Kurtz (several months and a thousand miles later) he is no longer holding up his strong facade. Although he is still greedy and pitiless he has faded to a sort of flabby fellow. A man not as strong as he once was. As Marlow draws nearer to Kurtz, Kurtz is boasted as a grand orator. Thinking about Kurtz as a whole, I am starting to wonder if his orating was used as a front for his pretending. He was obviously great at collecting ivory, or rather directing others to collect ivory, but perhaps, his orating skills were covering up something he lacked. Even a great orator can't control what their eyes say. I believe Marlow noticed these weak eyes in Kurtz's last moments.
I interpreted the "red-eyed devils" to be the manager and the other men working at the outer station. These men are driven and looking for efficiency. They have high demands and want their demands met. I like that Conrad included "lusty" in his description of the men. It gives me the connontation of the men sharing intense emotions (even if they're not right, by todays standards) and their lust for powers. To me, lust is not something you patiently, chip away at. You don't work towards something you lust after. You either go get whatever you want or you look on as your feelings boil within you. From the top of the hill, the white men have chosen to let their greed simmer and grow within them. Their drive comes out as they direct natives to lead natives and wrongfully use the natives to increase the stations efficiency.
Marlow encounters the “weak devils” in most Europeans in the Congo. Their “pitiless folly” identifies them. Marlow himself describes the pastimes of “the pilgrims” to be “backbiting and intriguing against one another in a foolish way” (¶ 57). The men are petty, low, and wholly unimpressive. They live in the Congo to get ahead, maybe earn a little prestige, a little money. Marlow includes “the devil of greed” in the list of strong devils, but these men don’t exhibit excessive desire, they just squabble and irritate. The man described only as “a first class agent” and the pilgrims do nothing, which makes the adjective of flabby – a wholly sedentary word – appropriate. Part one introduces many weak-eyed devils, and within the novella, there is only one true passionate devil.
Folly can be defined as “a lack of good sense, understanding, or foresight”. The weak men encountered in Marlow’s tale do not understand the consequences of their time in Africa, and likely do not care. At one point, Marlow declares the only redeeming feature of the crimes committed in Africa is “an unselfish belief in the ideal” (¶ 15). Sin and foul behavior do not disgust Marlow as much as indecisiveness and dithering. The strong devils have passions that direct their actions and they believe in their ideal, whether it is the sin of violence, greed, or desire. Kurtz is one man that feels strongly as Marlow recalls his powerful writing: “this was the unbounded power of eloquence – of words – of burning noble words” (part II). And Kurtz “swayed and drove men”; the natives guarded him possessively and Kurtz’ being fills Marlow’s mind for years (¶ 38). Those men that don’t have a higher goal, including members of the central station are the weak devils, with no passions to provide purpose for their behavior. Among them, there was only an air of “philanthropic pretense”.
Perhaps I have discussed the devils from the wrong point of view. Katie’s interpretation of the men as being influenced by the devils, rather than being devils themselves is more true to the meaning of “devil” and pervasiveness of a sort of insanity in the Africa. Also, the Marlow’s association of manliness and the strong devils (as discussed by Emelia), though very a stereotype, explains Marlow’s disgust more completely. Marlow declares his stance on the beast of nature, “Let the fool gape and shudder – the man knows, and can look on without a Wink” (part II). (<= Did I really just capitalize that? Product placement…) Perhaps he is implying a true man has a strong vice and can observe ills in the world.
Good night!
Along with many of my fellow classmates, I believe Marlow’s description of a “flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly” refers to the Manager. I noticed that other than Marlow and Kurtz all the characters in this story are given generic names such as Manager, Accountant, or Russian. By not naming his characters, Conrad makes them not merely a person who lives within his words, but a representative of their kind. The Manager is a white-man; however, the Manager should not be interpreted as a single person, rather as any other white-man who has the same position and responsibility as the Manager. So when Marlow alludes to the Manager as a “devil of folly,” he not only emphasizes the truth of the Manager, but all the other men of the company who are committing the same atrocities. These white people hide under the mask of philanthropic motives to bring civilization to a savage race, when in reality they are also forms of devils. They are blinded by the crude nature of Africa, and believe that they are merely doing what is best for civilization. Marlow warns that these types of devils may be just as, if not more, “insidious” than the “strong, lusty, red-eyed devils.”
Although Kurtz may not have always been a “red-eyed devil,” he surely morphed into one by the time Marlow reached his station. Kurtz recognized his own violence, and disregarded any moral obligations. This type bluntly acted as a devil. The more subtle devils of folly should be the ones that people should fear because they are hard to recognize. Marlow warns of these because overt devilish acts have more potential danger to the people around. When people don’t recognize the true nature of the devil of folly, they might believe that those acts do not hold true harm and be influenced by the concealed devils.
I agree, this one is challenging. But then again, Heart of Darkness is a very challenging piece of literature in general.
I believe that Emelia, along with several other of the later posters, make an excellent point of distinguishing the Manager as the "flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly", and Kurtz as "strong, lusty, red-eyed devil" (or vice versa), rather than lumping the two characters together and assigning them the same described traits, as I did at initially. After reading these posts, I was able to reassess my interpretation of that particular section and the characters of the book.
Now I, too, find the Manager as the "pretending, weak-eyed devil", cowardly, unsophisticated, and pawnlike in nature, whereas the "strong, red-eyed devil" is straight forward and self-aware. And again, as people before me have noted, Marlow's words and tone indicate that he favors the latter. Despite the obvious evil in both, the attitude associated with Kurtz is, for lack of a better term, more open, or as Shruti says, more "acceptable".
*Also wanted to add that I just read through the rest of the posts, and what Ariel said ("By not naming his characters, Conrad makes them not merely a person who lives within his words, but a representative of their kind.") was really interesting (not to mention thought invoking).
Marlow prefers “strong, lusty, red-eyed devils” over “flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devils” because the red-eyed devils are at least honest of what they want and KNOW what they want—they’re intentions are obvious. Kurtz is an example of a man that Marlow sees as a "strong, lusty, red-eyed devil". In paragraph 87, Marlow states: “I affirm that Kurtz was a remarkable man. He had something to say. He said it.”—Kurtz never tried to lie about what his intentions were.
The "flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil[s] of a rapacious and pitiless folly" would be the manager, Chief Accountant, and everyone else who was hiding under the disguise of humanitarianism. But as Sarah mentioned, when Marlow meets Kurtz much later, he's faded and has a sort of flabbiness that characterizes the "weak-eyed devil".
Marlow’s distinguishes the “flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly” from the “strong, lusty, red-eyed devils that swayed and drove men” which are the devils of greed, violence, and desire. Marlow dislikes the “flabby devil” more so than the “strong, lusty, red-eyed devil” because it seems that the weak-eyed devil would be someone who is, in a sense, “blind”, or foolish as to being unaware that what it is doing is wrong or inefficient (as when Marlow first sets his eyes on the Company’s station, the machinery were all rusted and decaying). The “flabby devil” symbolizes and portrays the colonials of the Congo who seek to take advantage of the natives. The chief accountant and the manager do resemble the “flabby devil” as both are there to reap profits from the Congo, uncaring for the natives and their habitat. The “strong, lusty, red-eyed devils” are those that are active and have strong motives and may know that what they are doing is wrong. Marlow probably prefers this type of “devil” because the “flabby devil” is unaware of the harm and devastation it is causing while the “strong red-eyed devil” knows exactly what it is doing and what for. The “strong, lusty red-eyed devil” is found in Kurtz as he believes that the whole river, all the ivory, etc. are his. Kurtz knows what he is doing and has a clear sense of action.
I believe that "strong, lusty, red-eyed devils" is a term that aptly describes Kurtz. As Ariel said, Kurtz was cognizant of his own evil and made the concious choice to close his eyes to any moral wrong-doings. My brother often said "There are two kinds of bad people in the world: people who participate in evil acts themselves, and people who see evil being done and do nothing to stop it." Kurtz falls into both these categories and therefore is the perfect fit for a "red-eyed devil".
Blogspot wouldn't let me copy and paste my writing. ):< Anyways, here is my blog post:
Because I didn't know what rapacious meant, I looked it up, and now, I know that rapacious means "given to seizing for plunder or the satisfaction of greed" according to dictionary.com. So, rapacious is a fitting word to associate with the "civilized" colonists of the Congo. Ironically, those that went to Africa to civilize the blacks and believed themselves to be civilized turn out to be the least. They are, aptly described in Conrad's terms, "flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly". These colonists are in the Congo only for money. They pretend to be civilized while underneath it all, they are even more cruel than the "savages". Their folly of raping Africa and not caring about the damage they have done makes them devils. The colonists are flabby and weak, unable to survive in the harsh climate of Africa.
In paragraph 51, Conrad again refers to the flabby devil. "The first glance at the place was enough to let you see the flabby devil was running that show." Marlow has arrived at his destination, and one man tells him the general manager awaits him. "The person "running that show" is the general manager. Thus, one character that exemplifies the flabby devil is the manager. He is cruel, concerned with making himself top dog. He is greedy, valuing money and power over everything else.
Marlow prefers the "strong, lusty, red-eyed devils" because they are straightforward and easy to understand, unlike the conniving "flabby devils" of the colonists. None of the red-eyed devils have hidden agendas. These red-eyed devils don't try to hide behind a mask. A character who embodies the "red-eyed devil" is Kurtz. He doesn't try to hide his goals. He displays his goals out in the open, unafraid of what others might do or say.
I feel that the devils are metaphors for temptation. This kind of relates to the “deal with the devil” cliché. In this interpretation, some end is accomplished through lamentable means. A strong devil therefore is a tough choice, a result so desired that it can inspire evil. An example of this is a father who robs people to feed his family. Marlow understands this type of lure and comprehends how difficult it is to avoid it. The “flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil” represents an easy choice where there is a clear right and wrong such as a person who robs banks to get rich. Marlow has no respect for these “weak-eyed devils”. Also, Marlow implies that the pilgrims and managers are falling into the allure of “rapacious and pitiless” absurdity. There is no excuse for their greed and violence. There is an obvious choice to be made and they choose selfishly. The reference to the “insidious” extent of this gluttonous appeal is a foreshadowing of Kurtz. It makes sense that the most revered person is the most demonic because by extension, Kurtz is admired only by feeble devils.
Rapacious:
1: excessively grasping or covetous
2: living on prey (MW)
The rapacious devils seem to be those only out for the bottom line. Earlier Marlow talks of the Red eyed devils which drive others to violence and lust. This is understandable to Marlow. Even he has had to fight off desires and wants. It is only human, as he emphasizes that “men” are being driven. The pitiless folly, on the other hand, is not to be forgiven. The definition of rapacious fits perfectly with the Company as a while and its representative, the Accountant. Here is a man unconcerned with trivialities such as death and starvation when they interfere with the bookkeeping. Throughout the novel Conrad uses depictions of “white” and “light” ironically to represent the evils of greed and colonization, and “in the blinding sunshine” he saw a most unscrupulous character “pretending” to wear the guise of good. The Accountant is spotless and white through and through (“…the place was enough to let you see the flabby devil was running that show.”).
As an aside, the first thing that comes to mind fitting the lusty devil for me is Kurtz. His wrath, pride, greed, and lust (he keeps both a Mistress and an Intended) are all part of the deadly sins that fit with the violent, greedy devils.
When Marlow speaks of a “flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly,” he’s directing this type of devil towards the colonists and the manager whose desires lie within the Congo. The Chief Accountant, for example, “his collars, his vast cuffs, his brushed hair” (44), resemble European apparel. These devils of folly try to act civilized and polished, when they act for corrupt reasons. The colonists believe that they are doing everything, but harm to the natives of the Congo. In this way, they are weak because they fail to realize their devilish acts.
The “strong, lusty, red-eyed devils” are strong and true to themselves. This kind is easier to understand, and therefore more acceptable. It’s a pretty direct sort of evil, the extreme evil that goes for violence, greed, and all of the typical aspects of evil.
I am surprised by how divided everyone is over who the “weak-eyed devil” and “red-eyed devil” are. When I first read the passage, I got the impression, like many others, that the "flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly" was personified in the manager (¶ 38). The manager is one of the men that Marlow detests, who is inefficient and “inspired uneasiness” (¶ 53). Other examples I found fitting were the drunken white officer who was supposedly “looking after the upkeep of the road” (¶ 51) and, as Keli mentioned, the idle bricklayer. These Europeans are wasteful and are taking advantage of the Congo and its natives, both things that Marlow disapproves of. He seems to prefer the "strong, lusty, red-eyed devils" who have a focused, almost primal goal. I thought that this was referring to the natives, such as “the reclaimed”, who Marlow just passed on the hillside. Marlow’s description of these devils shows that he already sees the company as evil, before he has even reached the central station. I am not sure exactly how Kurtz fits into this. It almost seems like Kurtz fits neither mold, which is why he is such a source of intrigue and mystery for Marlow.
Pheww! Right on the mark!
Well, at least my original post was right on the mark. Just had to fix some mistakes I made in a hurry. And I can't delete my old post for some reason.
The accountant, the manager of the outer station, the “brick maker”, and the unidentified agent whom Marlow calls “the papier-mâché Mephistopheles” are in the category of men Marlow refers to as “flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of rapacious and pitiless folly”. They are the men who came to Congo to exploit its riches only. For them, the humanitarian aims are nothing but pretense. Marlow considers them “weak” because they are not courageous enough to admit the darkness of their true intentions. The accountant, for example, dresses himself up immaculately so that he can distance himself from the evil and the chaos around him. These “weak-eyed devils”, unlike the stronger kind, do not have any real power; they try to advance themselves only by “backbiting and intriguing against each other in a foolish kind of way” (paragraph 57). Marlow notes their hypocrisy in trying to stay civil with each other while going about raping Congo utterly without qualms: “There is something after all in the world allowing one man to steal a horse while another must not look at a halter” (paragraph 57).
Kurtz, on the other hand, is one of the “strong, lusty, red-eyed devils that swayed and drove men”. At the inner station, Kurtz is held up as a god. Only he really has the power to sway men and get what he wants out of them without having to manipulate them behind their backs. Unlike the weaker devils who manipulated the natives to profit for themselves, despite the immorality of it all, Kurtz actually believes that what he is doing is right, that he, as a white man, is meant to bring light to the darkness of the African interior. Even though Marlow might disagree with Kurtz’s belief, Marlow does not think that Kurtz is weak, only because he is honest. Because of this moral conviction, Marlow prefers the strong, lusty sort of devil to the weak and pretentious one.
Ok, I don’t feel like saying the same thing as everyone else. .so this may be a stretch..
I find it interesting that this passage was chosen for the blog, during the class discussion I found this very section, and was mulling over it again and again. Conrads ambiguous and incredibly figurative language bemuses, confuddles, and startles me at once. The juxtaposition of the “devil…devil…devil” language of this section, and the “vision…white…amazing” language of paragraph forty-four (which we analyzed in class) struck me, for I do not think either are supposed to be taken literally. I think Conrad was utilizing a big Paradox.
The white men who pilfer African lands, and exploit the native people are anything but a “vision”, they are as Conrad describes; “weak-eyed devil’s. These weak-eyed devils are the manager, and the pilgrims, the whole driving force behind the raping of the Congo. Ironically they are not weak in will or might, for they nonetheless traveled to Africa to take advantage of the opportunity before them; but they are weak in their chosen ignorance of what was really going on. They exemplify a glazed over, distanced view of the Congo, the evil impersonal to them. “Pitiless” because they experienced and saw the raping before them. When faced with the terror of the treatment of the Congo these devils went on “pretending” their cause was just and humanitarian.
I think that when Conrad refers to the “strong, lusty, red-eyed devils” as the sort which usually drives men, when they think and know they are in the right. The image of the “weak-eyed devil” is used to convey the image of the manager, and pilgrims; “rapacious and pitiless” because they knew their deeds in Africa were wrong, and immoral. Most of the men Marlow encounters are the “lusty” devil; maybe when they first arrived to the Congo, but even Marlow, when encountered with the image of all it really was, became “weak-eyed”.
I relate all of this to the central theme of all the novels and plays we have read this semester: KNOW THYSELF. Kurtz, is the only Man Marlow encounters, who I feel chooses to know himself and be a “strong” devil; as Zach mentioned above, he chose to embrace all of the so-called savagery, just as Oedipus chose to embrace his true self. Marlow’s type of evil is personal to him; he even recognizes the scope of us evil when he says “The horror, the horror!” Maybe Kurtz is like John Savage- to his peers Kurtz seems to have gone off the deep end with “no restraint”, much as the Savage appeared to the citizens of the world state. The pilgrims and all of the “weak” devils remained guarded from their type of evil, distancing themselves with work.
I hope this made sense.
When I hear "flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly," my immediate thoughts go to the classic overweight playground bully who beats up on other kids simply because he has the brute force(and gravitational pull) to physically subject the other kids to his will. Conrad has already touched on this kind of devil in paragraph 17, when he speaks of conquerors and their "brute force-nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others." I believe that Conrad despises this kind of devil just as all who witness the playground bully, victim and bystander alike, despise his reaping of undeserved plunder.
The red-eyed devils represent a bully who has attained his/her status as a result of careful machinations or strength of will. In a sick sense, they have earned their plunder. Granted they have earned their plunder at the expense of others, rather then employing their skills in a respectable field, yet their dealings required action and work on their part. They have attained the American dream, they've struggled and fought to move upperword in the world and risen to a higher place in society, albeit over the dead bodies of a few fellow americans. I believe Conrad prefers this kind of Devil, simply because they have put forth effort to advantage of others while the flabby white devil has just inherited his station, and continues to sit atop it greedily as he suffocates those below.
The "flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devils" are the men doing small evils in the congo that don't really care one way or another what happens with the congo and its people. Devils like the manager and the officers who are only in the Congo for small profits and are tools to the "strong, lusty, red-eyed devils". The strong devils are people like Kurtz that are directly involved with the evils and suffering in the Congo. I suppose that Marlow prefers the strong devils because at least they have convictions unlike the flabby devils that are merely tools.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
You can also follow any responses to all entry through the RSS Comments feed.