what Do you think is the main idea William Butler Yeats is trying to present to us as readers?

In Yeat's poem of "The Second Coming", in class we discussed multiple parts in which we could see this poem in the sense of being biblical through the literary device of Allusions.  We can see Allusion in when the author talks about the The body of a lion and the head of a man. This part of the poem is powerful in how in the Bible, the devil is compared to a lion in how a lion will stalk on the sheep, who are represented as lost individuals without Christ in their life. So with the body of a lion and the head of the man we can see, that this imagery is representing the coming of the anti Christ, and how the head of a man is used as deception among those who don't understand the truth, of that of Jesus. This is how we can see how the beast is slowing dragging it's self after the people in the dessert, who are either believers, or common people who are under the danger of being influence by lies and deception. In class though we discussed how the body of a lion and the head of a man is represented as the Spinx statue in Egypt, and how this represented going back to older traditions, as well as the part of the poem that talks about "The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity" and my question to all of you is, do you think that this poem is supposed to viewed in a more biblical way, or in a way that supposed to use allusions as a supplement in order to break down to the main point of  to vanquish evil in the world good men must not just sit and stare, but to rally and come to oppress the adversity, what do you think?

How do heart of darkness and things fall apart connect if at all?

In heart of darkness, we see the story is being told as a very racist and negative connotation, but that is because it is viewed through the eyes of Marlow, a white man who knows nothing else but racism. In Things Fall Apart, we have many different perspectives. Was it done on purpose that heart of darkness was done in only one perspective? Either way, these books have similar traits. They both are groups of people who are percieved to be doing wrong because their method is different. They tackle things differently than the rest of us do. Does that make it wrong? In both novels, the place that was once properly functioning is brought to ruins by the hands of the white people who percieve that this method of life is savegery. So to help them, they take total and utter control. So what makes these books so different?
- Trevor Denny

Do You think history tells the whole story?

At the end of the novel the commissioner decided that he wants to write a book. But, he gives Okonkwo only one paragraph to tell his story. Which makes you think about if the history books we read today are also a short summary of what happened. As society has a bias towards only looking at what we read or are told is true. As one of the reasons the author wrote this book was to try and dig out a more unbiased opinion of the situation in Nigeria. While also, trying to change and enhance the way we perceive information and how we need to cognitively analyze both parts of an argument. As it gives the commissioner a power within the story. As the book gives him a sense of higher knowledge of the situation at hand. Which makes him seem victorious and therefore we only see the perspective of the victor. So is history only told in the opinion of the winning side?

Have the townspeople of Ibo lost their conviction?

As we know, Okonkwo is looked upon as a strong and brave man by all of the Ibo people. He fights and collects heads to prove his worth and bravery, which the townspeople look up to and see as courageous. Even though Okonkwo has a positive reputation among the Ibo town, he engages in very unethical acts. First, he killed his own son, and lied to his God while doing so. He said he would not kill Ikemefuna himself, but went ahead and did it anyway, lying about it afterwards. After killing a young man who referred to him as “father”, he witnessed two twin babies getting murdered in the woods, and agreed it was okay since his God said it was a tradition and it must happen. Of course, the townspeople of Ibo did not see this as unethical or wrong, unless they have just lost all their conviction toward society, as they are unable to stand up to the courageous Okonkwo. The townspeople have lost their conviction as they are unable to stand up for what they believe in because they are afraid of embarrassment and disapproval. Okonkwo holds such a high place in the Ibo tradition that no one would ever question anything he did, because they would be frowned upon and seen as weak and cowardly. In reality, the fact that they lost conviction toward their town and do not stand up to unethical crimes makes them the culprit and just as bad as the ones who are killing infant twins and their own family. The townspeople of Ibo have lost conviction and agree with societies crimes because they are too afraid of getting reprimanded and looked down upon by everyone, but especially the “great leader” Okonkwo. 

How did Marlow feel about Kurtz's death?

We learned that Marlow’s main goal was to speak to Mr. Kurtz. During his travel through the Congo, Marlow learns more and more about the type of person Kurtz is. He states that he doesn’t even care about shaking Kurtz’s hand, all he wants to do is hear Kurtz’s voice. Kurtz is said to be a very talented speaker and he is the best Ivory collector in the company since he gets ivory through any means necessary. Kurtz is also described as being a very tall man even though Kurtz in german means short. Marlow becomes more and more interested in hearing this man Kurtz even though he learns all about what Kurtz has done to get all the ivory he has collected. Kurtz has destroyed many villages and has also kept many trophies as in dismembered body parts of the villagers from the villages he has destroyed in his search for ivory. When Marlow finally gets up the Congo he learns that Mr. Kurtz ha died. Even after hearing about all the horrors Kurtz had done he still walks up to his dead body and calls him a “remarkable man”. He viewed Kurtz as a remarkable man because whenever he had something to say he said it which shows something about Marlow’s character. All people he sees as “amazing” or “remarkable” are white men that do what they do, no one that actually does anything amazing is actually amazing to Marlow. Marlow never really heard Kurtz speak like I believe he wanted to. All he heard from Kurtz was “The horror! The horror!” I feel like Marlow travelled up the Congo for no true reason. He never officially heard the man speak like he heard in the stories. Conrad didn’t write about Marlow’s feelings towards Kurtz’s death but I feel like Marlow wasn’t too satisfied by just hearing a few words from such a “remarkable man” as Kurtz

Was the killing of Ikemefuna justified?

Ikemefuna was a prisoner until he began to live with Okonkwo's family for 3 years. The fact that he was once a prisoner makes him seem like a troubled kid, which Okonkwo does not approve of. Ikemefuna was like a son to Okonkwo, he lived with the family for over three years, and was starting to feel accepted. Okonkwo starts to notice something new arise in his son, Nwoye. He has started to act up, in a more masculine and troubled way than before. His father knows it is from the influence of the once prisoner, Ikemefuna. Ogbuefi Ezeudu pays Okonkwo a visit, demanding he must kill his disobedient son, Ikemefuna. He told Okonkwo that he must not kill his son, as they are too close, and they boy refers to him as "father", which would be unjust to do to him. Okonkwo is killed with a large machete by a man, while asking Okonkwo for help, he does nothing about it. Okonkwo decides to join in and kill his son. 

The fact that Okonkwo brought in a torubled boy who was a former prisoner, shows that Okonkwo wants change in the boys life. He want sot raise him to be respectful and have pride in his actions. After years of living together, he finally refers to Okonkwo as "father". The relationship is pushed from man to boy, to father to son. Okonkwo opened up to him and gave him a better life, and a loving father. Okonkwo promises that he would not be the one to kill his son, as he was asked, but goes ahead and participates in the murder. He not only lied about his actions, he also killed a boy who referred to him as "father".

Okonkwo's actions were unjust. No matter if God told him to kill or have someone kill his son, doesn't make it okay for him to do it. Not only was Ikemefuna a living human being, he was his son who loved his father and took pride in having such a symbolic father. Okonkwo was in the wrong when he killed his son and should be punished for it. I do not believe that just because God tells you do perform an unjust act, it is the right thing to do. Okonkwo shall earn no justice, as his acts were not justified. 

Is Okonkwo a hero?

  In the novel “Things Fall Apart”, Okonkwo, the main character, is regarded as a hero to his village. Through his strength and bravery, Okonkwo has battled in many wars and won. To his people, he has brought peace by making his village look like a force not to be reckon with. He make it seem as if any village were to go to war with them, they would lose. Okonkwo shares many values as a hero along with comparable traits. Chinua Achebe, the author, makes a very unique character who faces challenges against his elders, his family, and their religious figure who is connected to the people through the oracle.

  Some character traits that Okonkwo shares with a modern day hero is his inspirational figure. To become the strong and brave person he is today, he had to correct the wrongs of his father, who can be described with the quote, “In his day he was lazy and improvident and was quite incapable of thinking about tomorrow”(Achebe, pg.4). Another problem Okonkwo faced was the fact that his father was a debtor who owed everyone money. One of Okonkwo’s challenges was to pay back everyone of whom his father owed money to. In addition to these problems, he also had to shape his children so that they do not end up like his father, but soon finds failure when his oldest son shows rebellion by converting to Christianity.

  Many villagers regarded him a hero for saving his family name by fixing the problems his father laid out on them. Another instance of heroism was with his great power. Okonkwo was a fearless wrestler and fighter who has contributed to the victory in battle for his village, but, can he still be regarded as a hero when he performs such savagery actions such as taking the head of one of his enemies and drinking out of it? There are many clues that can classify Okonkwo as a villain. The way he beat his third wife during a Week of Peace was regarded as an abomination among the other clan members. Okonkwo usually treated his family with cruelty. However, there are moments when we see that Okonkwo cares deeply about his family. When one of his daughters Ezinma, was carried away by the priestess, he did not sleep and soon went after the priestess where he found the mother of his daughter waiting outside the cave and he stayed there until she came back with his daughter.

2/23/16

Jasper Gong

How does Okonkwo face fate and free will in the novel?

In the beginning of Things Fall Apart, Okonkwo's will allows himself to rise to the top of the Umuofia society. He first starts off as a son of a debtor and then rises to be one of the leaders of the clan, due to his hard work and hostility. He mainly becomes known for his wrestling skills, and luck has no say in his skills as stated in the novel. “That was not luck. At the most one could say that his chi or personal god was good. But the Ibo people have a proverb that when a man says yes his chi says yes also. Okonkwo said yes very strongly, so his chi agreed. And not only his chi but his clan too, because it judged a man by the work of his hands”, (Achebe). However, once things stop going Okonkwo’s way, he blames his fate. This starts off when Okonkwo kills Ikemefuna. Ikemefuna and the infant twins killed in the evil forest, represent the most candid victims. They aren't given a chance to act, but are instead acted upon violently. “The ill-fated lad was called Ikemefuna”, (Achebe).  Okonkwo blames the Oracle for him killing Ikemefuna,  even though it is argued by the clan's oldest member, Ezeudu, and by Okonkwo's neighbor Obierika, that he had a choice in whether to kill him or not. When Okonkwo's gun goes off and accidentally kills one of Ezeudu's sons, Okonkwo faces exile. Even though his crops are thriving in the neighboring clan and Okonkwo is allowed to return in seven years, he is completely discouraged by the experience. “A man could not rise beyond the destiny of his chi. The saying of the elders was not true--that if a man said yea his chi also affirmed. Here was a man whose chi said nay despite his own affirmation”, (Achebe). 

-          Sunil Shiwnath 2/20

Who does "Heart of Darkness" portray as the "savages"?

In Heart of Darkness, a constant repetition of the word savage, showing us that Conrad, the author is trying to expose us to and consequently, critically think about what truly constitutes a savage and how western society takes form of this savagery. In the beginning Marlow starts the book by alluding to the conquests of the Romans, naming the "uncivilized" territory as "Sandbanks, marshes, forests, savages,—precious little to eat fit for a civilized man" describing the way in which the Romans alienate the culture of the "savages" that they must conquer and civilize. Conrad continues this characterization of the savages when he writes, "march through the woods, and in some inland post feel the savagery, the utter savagery, had closed round him,—all that mysterious life of the wilderness that stirs in the forest, in the jungles, in the hearts of wild men." This shows the “savagery” that is perceived from the civilized world when looking upon the uncivilized world.  This savagery could most simply be defined as the allowance of letting the most primal and basic human instincts shine through.  This savagery, is then paralleled with the European populace whose society is basically equated to a "whited sepulcher".  This illustration shows how the western society knows and can clearly tell the underlying destruction that the society causes in order to maintain its way of life, however, this process is painted over and forgotten about in an attempt to distance the society from the harsh workings that have been conspired by civilization in order to maintain this high quality of life.  This harsh process is the colonization of the "savages" down in the Congo, leading us to the point where it can be inferred that the Africans who follow their traditions and primal instincts are not savages, but rather that the colonial force who knows full well the terror that is brought by its imperialism and continues to justify it through the means of helping the poor folks become civilized is the real savage.

In the novel “Heart of Darkness”, how is civilization portrayed within the novel?

The “Heart of Darkness”, the narrator states how the purpose of their mission is based off of spreading civilization to these less developed areas such as the Congo by practicing a sense of colonization towards the natives as well as the land. The narrator explains how civilization has changed over time from the era of the Roman empire to the ideas of civilization of today or for in this instance, the Belgians colonizing the Congo. The narrator also explains how handy the Romans must have been, building ships and setting up shops but then states, “ They were no colonists; their administration was merely a squeeze, and nothing more, I suspect. They were conquerors, and for that you want only brute force— nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others”(Conrad, 8). to differentiate the Belgians in the Congo to the Romans.

    For Marlow, the narrator hints that the idea of civilization today means people trying to gain high end positions that pay the most. This means that it is no longer about conquering but rather earning wages. in the novel, the Belgians are at the Congo in search of ivory, a hard material which they would use as profit. Almost everyone despised Kurtz because he held the highest position. This is what earns the manager’s distrust as he feels Kurtz in unfit to play his role in the Congo. He would be happy when Kurtz dies in the novel.

    In the novel, the colonist focus less on spreading civilization to the natives as much as their sole purpose for being there, which is hunting for ivory. Kurtz takes advantage of his power and his dominant arms to trick the natives into think he is their god. To exert his dominance, he showcases the heads of natives on stakes right under his window.

   “Heart of Darkness” showcases the different aspects of civilization and how it has changed over time from its general ideas to the overall goal of it.

2/16/16

Jasper Gong

How does the title, ''The Heart of Darkness'', tie back to the story as a whole?

        As seen throughout the novel, the main focus is the Congo. Through Marlow's words alone he states that he river "has been one of the dark places of the earth". The word dark is defined as the absence of light. In the novel, "Dark" meaning the physical appearance of the little sunshine that makes it past the abundance of trees lining along the river, and also dark in the metaphorical aspect of the evil that comes when trying to bring civilization to the natives in the Congo. Ironic in the sense that Belgium's efforts to bring the light of civilization to the river are uncivilized in capturing the natives and making them slaves brings them the fog of darkness.
       In the beginning parts of the book Marlow goes on to describe his fascination with the river by talking about the mystery behind the "blank space" on the map. The Congo was "the biggest, the most blank, so to speak— that I had a hankering after". This statement is not only emphasizing the importance of the river to Marlow, but how important it will be throughout the book as a whole. The Congo is the heart. The most vital organ in a body that pumps blood through an entire body to keep it functioning properly just as the river pumps its water. Also, another parallel to the Congo being the 'heart' as used in the title is that it is the main focus, or center, of the story written.
       "The Heart of Darkness" is a metaphor for the physical aspects of the Congo being "dark" and the river being a "heart" that pumps the water to keep the culture along the river alive just as a heart pumps blood to keep a human body alive. It is the ironic twist of the Congo being the center focus in the story that is so dark that it brings light to the situation.
     

2/11/2016
Rachael Williams

How does the psychological nature of the mind connect to imperialism?

In Heart of Darkness the author, Joseph Conrad, portrays the ways in which Freudian psychology is interpreted and shown throughout the mind;subsequently, this is shown by the three outposts which Marlow visits in the Congo: the outer station (representing the superego), central station (representing the ego), and inner station (which represents the id).  These were placed by Conrad in order of the most outward appearance being closest to the mouth of the river, the superego, while the inner primal rage resides in the landmass, the inner station.  In the outer station, Marlow meets the Company's chief accountant who is "respected" (Conrad) by Marlow for having "kept up his appearance" in the "great demoralization of the land" in the same way that your superego it the outward psychological portrayal which shows and allows for socially acceptable behavior.  It should be added that though the land is demoralized, it is not classified as primal or brutal.  Marlow's arrival at the central station gives rise to a middle ground of a somewhat acceptable environment with a clear underlying brutal diction. The person who is the metaphor for the ego, the manager, also takes rise from this station and represents the ego as he is ultimately the separator in appearance as he is described as a "commonplace in complexion, in features, in manners, and in voice. He was of middle size and of ordinary build."  This ultimately shows us that he is nothing special and stands on the middle ground between the the respectable appearance of the chief accountant and the obvious primal nature which surrounds Kurtz, who resides at the inner station.  This primal urge is seen from the decapitated heads which remain stationed on spears which reside just outside Kurtz's residence and represents the inner station as a whole.  Though I understand all of this, I find it hard to relate how this psychology can relate or rather to what the psychology points to about the nature of imperialism.  Perhaps it is just a theme in the story which simply points out how the mind manipulatively uses self defense mechanisms and through basic psychological understandings, further emphasizing the distancing which society places emphasis on when faced with imperialism, or perhaps it is a further effect to attempt to mirror the European psyche which is explained as behind the emphasis on outward appearance presented by the superego (which the Europeans approve of) or the primal nature which was expected to be found in the tribes of the Congo, though the tribes are ironically more controlled than the imperialists, as evidenced by the hungry crew of cannibals on the steamboat who refrain from eating the pilgrims on the boat.

Has Marlow gone through a metamorphosis?

As the rest of the novel unfolds we see Marlow continue to change as a character. He is still considered a racist due to his ignorance. But besides that, we can see that he has grown the most out of all of the other characters. Knowing this, is it safe to say that he has grown enough to go through a metamorphosis? When he finally gets close enough to seeing Kurtz jn part 3, the Russian begins to reveal some pretty gruesome information about the beloved Kurtz. He tries to back it up with some talk about love and wisdom, but Marlow is having none of it. He decides he has no more respect for Kurtz. I know this is not the end of the novel, but does this much count as a metamorphosis? Or is there more to it? And what's this all about "you can't judge Mr. Kurtz as you would an ordinary man" business? Why is he so special?

Is colonization false?

Most of the novella takes place in the Belgian Congo, as  Marlow states it is the "Darkest place on Earth". It portrays this European that is hopelessly and blindly corrupt. The novella depicts European society as hollow at the core. Marlow describes the white men he meets in Africa, from the General Manager to Kurtz, as empty, and refers to the unnamed European city as the "sepulchral city"  Throughout the novella, we can depict  that what Europeans call "civilization" is superficial, a mask created by fear of the law and public shame that hides a dark truth, just as a white sepulcher hides the decaying dead inside.  In the beginning of the book it talks about the Romans and how they brought upon civilization to England. Thus, in the minds of the Europeans giving them a somewhat justification to bring upon civilization to Africa. In Europe, colonization of Africa was justified on the grounds that not only would it bring wealth to Europe, it would also civilize and educate the "savage" African natives. The very important action is the intention of collecting Ivory. Ivory symbolizes the white man's greed and the white man's commercial mentality. The white man's chief concern in the Congo is to collect ivory and send it to Europe. The greater the ivory collected, the greater is his achievement. Ivory is a kind of money, which European wants to collect and take in their own control.  Marlow's story shows that in practice the European colonizers used the high ideals of colonization as a cover to allow them to viciously rip whatever wealth they could from Africa. You can also see the true blindness in the situation. Marlow said that the beautiful idea behind colonization masks the ruthless practice of colonialism. However, his aunt clearly buys the idea, as she states that he is an "emissary of light", and in doing so establishes civilization's inability to see its hollow corruption. So if the means of which civilization is brought upon does it make it false? 

- Leo Lanel 2/7

Who is the brickmaker?

The brickmaker is another useless worker for the people in the crew at the central station. People would think he would be useful with the name brickmaker, but he isn’t. Marlow throughout the text describes the brickmaker and how he looked like he was waiting for something or someone. He also states that he doesn’t really make bricks. Marlow, a handworker dislikes the brickmaker because the brickmaker only wants to advance his position whiles doing nothing to gain it. The brickmaker can only try to get a higher position in his job by sucking up to everyone who he thinks might help get higher on the ladder and make him get the job of his dreams. Marlow also describes the brickmaker with a forked beard and a hooked nose by calling him a papier-mâché Mephistopheles. “I let him run on, this papier-mache Mephistopheles, and it seemed to me that if I tried I could poke my forefinger through him, and would find nothing inside but a little loose dirt, maybe”, ( Conrad 41).This means he is calling the brickmaker a devil. The brickmakerhas the characteristics of the devil that Marlow describes him as. The brickmaker is lazy by doing no work, greedy by getting what he wants which is to get higher up in the company without doing any work, and ambitious by trying hard with his sucking up to get what he wants. He also has a silver tongue like the devil by trying to persuade people any which way to get up the ladder. The brickmaker can also be considered a late nineteenth century Jewish man by describing him with a hooked nose and showing that he has a candle to himself. “He was a first-class agent, young, gentlemanly, a bit reserved, with a forked little beard and a hooked nose”, (Conrad 37). This shows greed by being the only other person to have a candle which stereotypes describe this as a typical Jewish characteristic.

Why is Marlow racist?

Throughout the first part of the novel we see that Marlow is in fact a very racist person. He is seen describing the Africans he encountered in the Congo as "black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish gloom." He takes pity to these people but unlike the others that work for The Company he actually realizes that they are in fact people. The Company describes their purpose for being in Africa as a means to bring humanity to the people but they are just killing freely and no one realizes the horror in their true intentions, except for Marlow. Marlow has an encounter with a dying African he sees in the shade he is loitering in. As a generous donation, Marlow gives this man a biscuit he had in his pocket. He describes his action as "finding nothing else to do". He gazes upon the man and realizes that he is wearing white worsted. It startles Marlow to see such a "creature" as he describes them to be wearing such linen from oversees. He also notices other men that he described as being "acute angles", not even able to call them people even though he is able to share his food with them. To contrast, Marlow’s meeting with the white accountant that works for the company shows Marlow's feelings towards white people. The man is well dressed with "snowy trousers" and "white cuffs". Marlow had no problem seeing this white man wearing white attire, but once he saw the white worsted tied around the black man’s neck he questioned the meaning of it. As if he was saying that the black man was not allowed to wear anything white because he is a symbol of darkness and death. Marlow's racism mostly comes from what he has been told by the Company but he sees their true intentions first hand so why is he still so racist? 

How does the author parallel the Company and the congo? and what idea does it portray?

The author, Conrad makes it evident that the company is not what it portrays. For instance when Marlow first appears in at the company's headquarters he notices “a dead silence” much as how in the congo the towns were abandoned. Furthermore if reflected back to the story that marlow told about Forsleven the man who had Marlow's current job, before he was killed, Marlow describes his corpse in a very discrete manner by choosing to mention “grass growing through his ribs” much as in how when he describes the town the company is located he mentions “grass sprouting between the stones”. Furthermore when Marlow was recalling the story about the congo, he mentioned that the entire incident occurred because of two black hens, and when marlow first steps into the companies building he notices “Two women, one fat and the other slim, sat on straw-bottomed chairs, knitting black wool.” thus the two wool represents the hens. The parallels are used to  create an argument stating that the congo and civilization are not so different as it seen by the civilized man. The parallels demonstrate how both the congo and the company are considered to be “dark” places. This is evident when Marlow describes the building as a “whited sepulchre”. Thus the color white represents wealth because typically when a building was white in that time period it was made out of marble, thus portraying the company's immense amount of wealth. However he does not only describes it as white but as a “whited sepulchre” which means a white tomb or in this case it can be interpreted as an expensive tomb. Thus showing that the company is a temptation, it portrays wealth but however it is truly death much as how the congo portrays an image of possible wealth but what it truly is is death.

-Leandro Ferreira   2/2/2016

What is the purpose of making Marlow the main speaker?

It is stated at the beginning of the novella that there is a narrator and Marlow, yet Marlow has done most of the speaking. As we have learned in previous books, this is not done by mere accident or coincidence. There is a reason for a character as inconsistent as Marlow is. The reason for this is to show us the juxtaposition within ourselves, as a species. Marlow represents man itself as he is constantly debating between right and wrong. He begins contemplating whether or not the Romans were good or evil, and cannot sustain an answer. He argues with himself saying that they are peace bringers who brought us democracy, but at the same time they rape and pillage in the process. He fails to determine if they are in the right or in the wrong. He also evaluates the death of a general who started a fight with the African elder, dying in the process. He describes this event as a calm mishap, as if this sort of thing happens everyday. He also once again fails to realize who is in the wrong in this instance. He explains the story just as it happens, but through Marlow's eyes, it is the elder's fault. The author does this to show us the true juxtaposition: humans. Humans have misjudged and wronged people for as long as time goes back. We have been taking from those who can't defend themselves for our entire existence. From back when the Romans and were raping and pillaging villages, taking the little they have for themselves, to now, where the rich take from the poor and keep it for themselves. We have always praised and worshiped these people, although if you step outside of the box and look in, then you can obviously see what is going on. Just as Marlow allows ignorance in the form of racism get in the way of his better judgement, we all allow ignorance to happen without batting an eye. Marlow represents the human species as a whole, as we often cannot tell right from wrong yet still become the president of our country. The author shows us this juxtpaosition to show us that it is in our nature to be indecisive and not know the tight from wrong. Marlow is simply a mirror of our true self.