Chinua is reasonable enough to credit Joseph Conrad as having good style and talent but he is taken aback by the way such a prejudice novel is welcomed by professors with open, arrogant arms. Indeed while reading Heart of Darkness myself, there were many passages that are nearly despicable when referring to the native “savages” – especially when out of context. That’s just the thing though: in the context of the story, I didn’t feel all too shocked by the nature in which they were described. This goes to show Chinua’s great point that western readers are predisposed to accept these likely exaggerations just because they’re the familiar stories of cannibals and wild tribesmen that we’ve grown accustomed to. At the very least, one should not blindly agree to these rulings. As Mr. Achebe wrote, “I will not accept just any traveler’s tales solely on the grounds that I have not made the journey myself.” Among the other enlightened points brought up by this author, another piece of observable evidence is the manner in which Conrad writes of their language. The only points in the novel where the natives’ communications aren’t simply incoherent grunts, they have been given a few English words to say, stereotypical of what a ‘wild jungle man’ would say. It may be argued that any racism can be blamed due to the speaker within a speaker style (Inception!) but this is battled with evidence from some of Conrad’s personal writings of meeting different peoples. These seem to solidify the accusation of Conrad as being prejudice, however wonderfully he may organize it on paper.
In the essay, Chinua did a very good job of using intelligence and wit to cover several tracks with which debaters might pursue. One flaw I must point out though, due to my own vested interests, is that Chinua mentions that Marco Polo failed to mention the brilliance of the Great Wall of China in his travel writings which is after all, “the only structure built by man which is visible from the moon!” This is a ridiculous but unrelated common misconception so obviously does not discredit Achebe in any way and I merely bring it up as a lecture to readers of this post, and also to perhaps demonstrate that even the most convincing of words should be taken with a grain of salt. Getting back to the essence of the essay, Chinua Achebe has undoubtedly raised a reasonable suggestion about the nature of Conrad’s famous book and I think reminds us to try to see all things first through an unbiased lens, however embedded a belief may be.
