Watt, Ian - Essays On Conrad (Cambridge, 2000)
Watt, Ian - Essays On Conrad (Cambridge, 2000)
Watt, Ian - Essays On Conrad (Cambridge, 2000)
Ian Watt has long been acknowledged as one of the nest of post-
war literary critics. TheRiseof theNovel (:q) is still the landmark
account of the way in which realist ction developed in the eight-
eenth century and Watts work on Conrad has been enormously
inuential. Conrad in theNineteenth Century (:qq) was to have been
followed by a volume addressing Conrads later work, but the
material for this long-awaited second volume remains in essayform.
It is these essays, as Frank Kermode points out in his foreword,
which form the nucleus of Essays on Conrad, Watts ownphilosophy,
as well as his insight into Conrads work, was shaped by his experi-
ences as a prisoner of war on the River Kwai. His personal and
moving account of these experiences forms part of his famous
essay The Bridge over the River Kwai as myth whichcompletes
this essential collection.
IAN WATT is Professor Emeritus at Stanford University. He is
author of TheRiseof theNovel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson and Fielding
(:q), Conrad in theNineteenth Century (:qq) and Myths of Modern
Individualism(:qq6). Born in :q:, he was educated at Dover County
School for Boys and St Johns College, Cambridge. In the Second
World War he was a lieutenant in the Fifth Battalion of theSuffolk
Regiment. Captured by the Japanese at the fall of Singapore, he
was a prisoner of war on the River Kwai for three and a half years.
His subsequent teaching career took him from Cambridge to the
University of California at Berkeley (:q.6.), the University of
East Anglia (:q6.) and Stanford University, where he has been
Professor of English since :q6.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ESSAYS ON CONRAD
I AN WATT
Stanford University
PUBLISHED BY CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS (VIRTUAL PUBLISHING)
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 IRP
40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
http://www.cambridge.org
Ian Watt 2000
This edition Ian Watt 2003
First published in printed format 2000
A catalogue record for the original printed book is available
from the British Library and from the Library of Congress
Original ISBN 0 521 78007 1 hardback
Original ISBN 0 521 78387 9 paperback
ISBN 0 511 01374 4 virtual (netLibrary Edition)
Contents
Foreword Frank Kermode pagevii
Acknowledgements xii
: Joseph Conrad: alienation and commitment :
. Almayers Folly: introduction .o
Conrad criticism and TheNigger of theNarcissus 6
Conrads Heart of Darkness and the critics 8
Comedy and humour in Typhoon q
6 The political and social background of TheSecret Agent ::.
The Secret Sharer: introduction :.
8 Conrad, James and Chance :
q Story and idea in Conrads TheShadow-Line :.
:o The decline of the decline: notes on Conrads reputation :o
:: Around Conrads grave in the Canterbury cemetery
a retrospect :86
:. The Bridge over the River Kwai as myth :q.
Index .o8
v
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Foreword
Frank Kermode
Readers of the nal chapter of this book may nd it surprising that the
man who spent years labouring on the River Kwai should have returned
after the war to an inconceivably different way of life and immediately
embarked on a distinguished academic career. Little more than a decade
later he published TheRiseof theNovel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson and
Fielding(:q). After the war years many of Watts contemporaries, even
if they had not spent them in painful captivity, found it difcult to
adjust their lives to more sedate civilian routines. What readers of this
collection as a whole will observe is that the strength of mind the
character displayed in the nal chapter also informs Watts critical
writing. The persistence of this quality goes some way to explaining
Watts devotion, over many years, to Conrad an honourable stoicism
that shuns illusion without being an enemy of pleasure, especially the
pleasure of ne technical and aesthetic discriminations.
In TheRiseof theNovel Watt maintained that realism, as he dened it,
was the quality that distinguished the work of the early eighteenth-
century novelists from all previous ction. Before that period there were
of course thousands of ctions, but the novel, as we know it, became
possible only when the general acceptance of certain social, economic and
philosophical assumptions, and the coming into existence of a literate,
middle-class and predominantly Protestant audience, made possible such
extraordinary works as Samuel Richardsons Clarissa (:8). Watt dis-
criminates between the kind of realism exemplied by Defoe, with his
unmatched power to persuade readers by minute presentation of detail
that what they are reading is true, and a richer realism that concerns
itself also with personality and civilized values generally. This variety of
realism is essential to the kind of writing that we agree to call the novel.
It is not merely a matter of making the narrative seem authentic as to
local and period detail; it is also a matter of establishing the authenticity,
the complex art and humanity, of the work as a whole.
vii
Watts view of the rise of the novel has often been contested, most
recently and most emphatically by Margaret Anne Doody in her vast
book TheTrueStory of theNovel (:qq6). Her title itself indicates dissent
from Watt, whose version of that story is, she claims, untrue. Her
argument is that the novel has a continuous history of .,ooo years;
that form of ction for which Watt reserves the appellation novel
cannot, by his own criteria of realism, or indeed by any other criteria,
be distinguished from the romance, a category into which most of that
earlier writing is conventionally placed. That the English invented the
novel in the eighteenth century is a literary lie. Ms Doody is a strong
feminist, and might want to add that the claim is also a masculine lie.
The interest of her remarkable book, in the present context, is that she
needs to tell the whole history of ction in the West, and assert that
its genius is entirely female, in order to undermine the forty-year-old
contentions of Watt. I do not believe she succeeds.
It is not a simple coincidence that Doodys book belongs to the
modern era of magic realism. It seems unlikely that works in that
mode, much admired of late, would meet Watts criteria, and although
I am only guessing I will say I believe he would not admire them.
Doubtless it should be admitted that more permissive notions of realism
now prevail both in practice and in literary theory, and it would not be
beyond the wit of man (or woman) to devise reasons to show that this
alteration of focus has been brought about by the social and economic
changes in our world since :q. Nevertheless TheRiseof theNovel is a
landmark, one of the very few works of modern literary criticism that
may be said to have achieved classic status. As early as :q: Watt
published an important and provocative essay stressing the economic
signicance of Robinson Crusoe, so it can be said that for the better part
of half a century practically any serious discussion of this book, and the
eighteenth-century novel, has had to establish a relationship, even if
questioning or dissenting, with Watts work.
After resuming his interrupted career, he taught at UCLA and Harvard,
at Cambridge and at the new University of East Anglia, before settling
at Stanford, where he eventually became the rst Director of the Stanford
Humanities Center. A good deal of his published work has been on the
period considered in his rst book, but a vital supplement to Watts
bibliography is his work on Joseph Conrad, which culminated in Conrad
in theNineteenth Century (:qq). This exemplary work was to have been
followed by another treating Conrads writings in the twentiethcentury,
viii Foreword
but it now appears, most regrettably, that we shall not see this second
volume. However, the present collection contains a number of essaysand
lectures on Conrad, most of them on the later part of the novelistscareer.
Watt has long been acknowledged to be among the nest and most
learned of Conrads expositors. The long and carefully researched
chapter on Conrads rst novel, Almayers Folly, is a ne example of his
powers as biographer and critic. His observations on Conrads early
inuences, and on his command of English (a topic that still requires
attention) has not, I think, been bettered. Always attentive to what
other critics have to say, he can here be seen adjudicating between
angry commentators, himself perfectly composed and conspicuously
true to his own Conradian idea of virtue.
When Conrad writes of Singleton, in TheNigger of theNarcissus, that
he steered with care, Watt comments: It is the climactic recognition
of our utter and yet often forgotten dependence, night and day. . . on
the labors of others and he adds that there is perhaps a moral for the
critic here: for, in making us look up, briey, to Singleton at the wheel,
Conrad gives us a moment of vision in which, from the height of our
modish attachment to ever-developing discriminations, we arecompelled
to afrm our endless, intricate, and not inglorious kinship with those
who cannot write. Another such exemplar is MacWhirr in Typhoon, a
character both funny and admirable, and an instance of the paradox-
ical fact that superiors who are in many respects inept can nevertheless
be very good at the job; indeed, their very lack of interest or skill in
conversation and books, the main values of verbal culture, may even
have left them freer to do in a more single-minded way the one thing
that they have trained themselves to do. One might say without much
fear of contradiction that Watt learned this Conradian moral when in
uniform or in the prison camp.
His delity to the spirit of the author, whom he tells us he rst
admired at the age of twelve, enables him, in the chapter on Heart of
Darkness, to speak temperately on complex issues of colonialism, and, in
the chapter Conrad, James and Chance, to settle the question of how
the two great men stood on the vexed problem of Jamess disapproval
of Chance. What is most striking is Watts ability to think with Conrad,
and he has that ability not only by reason of his literary intelligence but
also from his conviction, strengthened at Kwai, that human society,
horribly imperfect though it is, depends, if it is not to be even worse, on
the devotion and courage of people honestly doing their jobs, whether
commanding or commanded, whether writers or not.
Foreword ix
And here one must glance with admiration at the chapter on theRiver
Kwai. Watt is interested in the truth of that matter, but also in themyth
that has been developed from it. What the world now thinks about the
building of that bridge depends on a lm that depends on, and departs
from, a novel which is itself far from describing things as they reallywere.
It seems that the Japanese had more prisoners than they could handle,
and so the prisoners themselves took over the business of disciplined
production. It is recorded that their lives were painful and close to
desperation, but the point is made without reference to the writersown
discomforts, save in that he was one of them. They had to settle for the
kind of life available. There was no chance of escape. They organized
their own police force, conscious of a need for order of some kind. One
ofcer, especially efcient, found ways to make their lot easier, and,
inevitably, also expedited the building of the enemy railway bridge.
By chance a French writer came to hear about this episode, and
based a novel on it. He seems to have represented it as primarily a
comment on the way modern technology destroys human meanings
and purposes. And he began the transformation of the actual efcient
ofcer into the character played by Alec Guinness in David Leans
movie. The lm was wholly false to the situation of the prisoners; it was
colonialist, it misrepresented the kind of bridge involved, and, contrary
to the facts, blew it up. Watt was there; and he has since that bad time
gone back to the bridge, and can say what happened subsequently to
the railway. He prefers reality to myth, unlike the movie-makers and
unlike their audiences.
Why did the myth take over? The answer is Conradian: the deep
blindness of our culture both to the stubbornness of reality and to the
continuities of history. That blindness encouraged the public to accept
the movie-fantasy of Nicholsons unconquerable British individualism,
his triumph over his powerful but racially inferior captors. Watt believes
our whole society is prone to distort the truth by such mythical thinking.
It fails to observe that the world will not do its bidding, that the best
and only decent form of conduct for the prisoners, as now for us, was
work and restraint two of Conrads imperatives. These imperatives
have always operated powerfully in Watts world, and are the enemies
of self-indulgent myth. It is to be noted that he nowhere dwells on his
own work and suffering; his concern is entirely with facts and false
interpretations.
His interest in myth, and its part in the creation of undesirable social
and individual fantasy, led to the writing of his most recent book, Myths
x Foreword
of Modern Individualism(:qq6), a study of Faust, Don Quixote, Don Juan
and Robinson Crusoe as myths that have acquired a special resonance
in modern culture. Of course they did not have that function originally,
but were recreated to suit a more modern and individualist sensibility
than they at rst possessed. One could read this new collection of essays
as a sober and unillusioned defence of the principle of unmythicized
reality as it can be studied in the novels of Conrad. He too has his
fantasizing individualists his Haldins, his nihilist professors, his cor-
rupt anarchists but he has also his MacWhirrs and Singletons, the
men without conversation, who dont write and rarely read, but who
command and are commanded, and do the work of the world. Like
Conrad, Watt admires such men. Rarely has a critic shared so fully the
virtues of his author.
Foreword xi
Acknowledgements
Copyright in all essays rests with Ian Watt. His essays are reproduced
from the following sources: Joseph Conrad: alienation and commit-
ment (Cambridge University Press); the introduction to Almayers Folly
(ed. Ian Watt, Cambridge University Press); Conrad criticism and The
Nigger of theNarcissus (Nineteenth-Century Fiction); Conrads Heart of
Darkness and the critics (North Dakota Quarterly); Comedy and Humour
in Typhoon (Murisa International); The political and social background
of TheSecret Agent (The Macmillan Press); the introduction to The
Secret Sharer (The Limited Editions Club); Conrad, James and Chance
(Methuen & Co.); Story and idea in Conrads TheShadow-Line (Critical
Quarterly); The decline of the decline: notes on Conrads reputation
(Stanford Slavic Studies); Around Conrads grave in the Canterbury
cemetery a retrospect (Radopi, Amsterdam); The Bridge over the
River Kwai as myth (BerkshireReview).
xii
Joseph Conrad: alienation and commitment :
:
cn\r+rn :
Joseph Conrad: alienation and commitment
The doubts of the critics about the whole history-of-ideas approach are
understandable enough: one way of not experiencing King Lear is to
underline a few passages containing recognizable ideas, and to make
the gratifying reexion that the Great Chain of Being is really there.
The search for such portable intellectual contents as can be prised loose
from a work of imagination is likely to deect attention from what it can
most characteristically yield, in exchange for a few abstract ideas whose
natures and inter-relationships are much more exactly stated in formal
philosophy. And if we cannot base our literary judgements on philo-
sophical criteria, we must be equally on our guard against the criteria of
the historian of ideas, which naturally place most value on literary works
which are ideologically representative; whereas the greatest authors
actually seem not so much to reect the intellectual system of their age
as to express more or less directly its inherent contradictions, or the very
partial nature of its capacity for dealing with the facts of experience.
This seems to be true of Chaucer and Shakespeare; and it tends to
become truer as we come down to the modern world, in which no single
intellectual system has commanded anything like general acceptance.
All these are familiar objections; and as regards criticism of modern
literature they have been reinforced by a new form of philosophys old
objections to the cognitive validity of art by the symbolist aesthetics
rejection of all forms of abstraction and conceptualization. The ancient
notion was that ideas were the natural and proper inhabitants of mans
mind; T. S. Eliots resounding paradox that Henry James had a mind
so ne that no idea could violate it transformed them into dangerous
rufans threatening the artist with a fate worse than death.
The alarm, we can now agree, was exaggerated; indeed, the recent
tendency for much literary criticism to add moral to formal analysis might
well proceed further, and make inquiry into intellectual backgrounds
an essential, though not a dominating or exclusive, part of its critical
. Essays on Conrad
procedure. For instance, an understanding of Conrads intellectual
attitudes, and of their relation to the various ideological battlegrounds
both of his own and of our time, seems to me to illuminate several literary
problems which have not yet been satisfactorily answered, despite the
increasing critical attention which his works have lately received. At the
same time, the consideration of these problems seems to indicate that it
is not in ideology as such, but in the relationship of systems of ideas to
other things, things as various as personal experience or the expectations
of the audience, that we are likely to nd answers to literary questions.
The position of Joseph Conrad (:8:q.) among his great contem-
poraries is unique in at least three respects. First, he has a much more
varied audience: one nds his admirers not only in academic and
literary circles, but among people in all stations of life. Secondly,
Conrads reputation, after a relative decline following his death in :q.,
seems to have grown steadily ever since the Second World War; and
it continues now, just as one detects a certain mounting impatience,
just or unjust, against most of Conrads literary peers mainly against
Joyce, Pound, and Eliot, but also, to some extent, against Yeats. The
reasons for these two features of Conrads literary appeal seem to be
connected with a third and equally wellknown matter his obscurity.
For although the charge of obscurity against modern writers is not
novel, it takes a very special form in the case of Conrad. E. M. Forster
expressed it most memorably when he asked whether the secret casket
of [Conrads] genius does not contain a vapour rather than a jewel,
and went on to suggest that the vapour might come from the central
chasm of his tremendous genius, a chasm which divided Conrad the
seaman from Conrad the writer:
Together with these loyalties and prejudices and personal scruples, [Conrad]
holds another ideal, a universal, the love of Truth. . . . So there are constant
discrepancies between his nearer and his further vision, and here would seem
to be the cause of his central obscurity. If he lived only in his experiences,
never lifting his eyes to what lies beyond them: or if, having seen what lies
beyond, he would subordinate his experiences to it then in either case he
would be easier to read.
:
The continual contradiction which Forster describes between the
seer and seaman, between philosophy and experience, seems to offer a
key to the three literary problems I have posed. For whereas Conrads
further vision was very similar to that of his great contemporaries, his
nearer vision, his actual range of experience, was not; and in his works
the two perspectives combine in a way which seems directly related to
Joseph Conrad: alienation and commitment
the varied nature of his audience, to the renewed topicality of his view
of the world, and to the unresolved conict of attitudes which underlies
his obscurity.
Conrads further vision was dominated by the characteristic despair
of the late Victorian world-view, which originated in all those develop-
ments in nineteenth-century geology, astronomy, physics and chemistry
which combined with industrialism to suggest that, so far from being
the eternal setting created by God for his favourite, man, the natural
world was merely the temporary and accidental result of purposeless
physical processes. In one letter, written in :8q, Conrad used an
appropriately industrial metaphor to express this notion of the universe
as a determinist mechanism denying all mans aspirations towards
progress and reform:
There is a let us say a machine. It evolved itself (I am severely scientic) out
of a chaos of scraps of iron and behold! it knits. I am horried at the horrible
work and stand appalled. I feel it ought to embroider but it goes on knitting.
You come and say: This is all right; its only a question of the right kind of oil.
Let us use this for instance celestial oil and the machine will embroider a
most beautiful design in purple and gold. Will it? Alas, no! You cannot by any
special lubrication make embroidery with a knitting machine. And the most
withering thought is that the infamous thing has made itself: made itself
without thought, without conscience, without foresight, without eyes, without
heart. It is a tragic accident and it has happened. . . .
It knits us in and it knits us out. It has knitted time, space, pain, death,
corruption, despair and all the illusions and nothing matters. . . .
.
In such a meaningless and transitory universe, there is no apparent
reason why we should have any concern whatever with the lives of
others, or even very much concern with our own:
The attitude of cold unconcern is the only reasonable one. Of course reason is
hateful but why? Because it demonstrates (to those who have the courage)
that we, living, are out of life utterly out of it. . . . In a dispassionate view the
ardour for reform, improvement, for virtue, for knowledge and even for beauty
is only a vain sticking up for appearances, as though one were anxious about
the cut of ones clothes in a community of blind men.
Essays on Conrad
In Lord Jim (:qoo), Stein contemplates a buttery, and discourses like
a discouraged version of the great evolutionist Alfred Wallace, on whom
he was in part based:
Lingard
had apparently helped the Sultan of Gunung Tabor, just across the
river, either in a sea battle with a neighboring sultan or by forgiving
him his debts or supplying rice (at a fairly high price) during a famine.
As a reward the Sultan ceremonially named him Pangeram (Prince)
Almayers Folly: introduction .
and Rajah Laut (King of the Sea); and he also, probably at Lingards
request, ceded him a piece of land on which he built a store and living
quarters. The Dutch authorities were annoyed that one of their sultans
should receive a foreigner without their permission, and in February
:86 sent a gunboat up the Berau River to investigate. Its commander
made a report which showed that the Sultan apparently had more or
less cleared himself; but thereafter Lingard learned that it was wiser to
keep on good terms with the Dutch.
Olmeijer had been William Lingards representative in Tanjung
Redeb for some seventeen years; and the two men had apparently both
prospected for gold further upriver and dealt in contraband arms and
gunpowder with the Dyaks, the more primitive inhabitants who had
preceded the Moslem Malays and Arabs in the occupation of Borneo.
But Lingards fortunes had declined; his monopoly of trade in Berau
had been broken and his last ship, the Rajah Laut, was put up for sale in
:88.
6
There are few records of him between his return to England in
:88 and his death in :888.
S FOLLY
When Unwin was explaining his terms to Conrad he gave as one
advantage that you know that whatever we bring out always receives
serious critical attention in the literary journals. You are certain of a
long notice in the Saturday Review and the Athenum, not to mention the
press in general. That is why we are planning not to publish you until
next year, in April, during the season (Letters, :, :8o). Unwin was
something of an innovator
In America the New York Times, whose general judgment was exception-
ally favorable, ended with the comment: The reader may have been
carried away by the cleverness of a Pierre Loti or a Lafcadio Hearn
through their high literary art in the description of far distant countries,
but Mr. Joseph Conrad is quite their equal, and for dramatic effective-
ness, their superior (:. May :8q).
The heading of the Times review was An Oriental Romance, and this
term was used by a good many reviewers, including that of the Guardian,
who wrote that It is a romance in all senses of the word; the scene laid
in the strange, weird world lying within the Malay Archipelago, and
the actors, Dutch, Arab, Malay, and half-caste, essentially romantic
personalities (CH, p. ). The Academy saw it as a romance and then
congratulated Conrad for possessing the art of laying on just sufcient
local colour, but not going so far as to make his work unintelligible to
the general (CH, p. ). The Daily Chronicle liked the way that the
story made one feel that the old notion of hero and heroine may still
have some excuse, that there are still novelists who can breathe life
into the old ideals of love and bravery. It also congratulated Conrad
on his powers in the art of creating an atmosphere, poetic, romantic
(CH, pp. qo).
Conrad, who was himself aware that some elements in his novels
made it unlikely that he would nd much popular appeal, must have
paid particular attention to the reviewers who pointed in that direction.
He commented, for instance, that the poor old World kicks at me (in
Almayers Folly: introduction
: lines) like a vicious donkey (Letters, :, .:q). What the World said may
be indicated by quoting its rst sentence and its last two: Almayers
Folly . . . is a dreary record of the still more dreary existence of a solitary
Dutchman doomed to vegetate in a small village in Borneo . . . The life
is monotonous and sordid, and the recital thereof is almost as wearisome,
unrelieved by one touch of pathos or gleam of humour. Altogether the
book is as dull as it well could be (CH, p. :). There were several
reviewers who objected to the conduct of the action. The Sketch, for
example, found that Conrad committed the terrible offence of forcing
his readers too often to turn back and re-read something of import-
ance to the narrative; while the National Observer complained of Conrads
laboured and muddle-headed involution which made the sequence of
events . . . very hard to follow.
8
Few reviewers were so completely
negative; but even some sympathetic critics noted weaknesses in Conrad
which might well have discouraged readers. H. G. Wells wrote that It
is a gloomy tale, and the Bookman, though in general laudatory, found
several faults: human nature has not in Mr. Conrad so powerful a
painter as have the wood, the river, the Eastern sky by night and day;
the reviewer also wrote that as a whole it is a little wearisome, and
hard to follow, that the action drags, and that the style has beauty,
but it lacks swiftness (CH, p. 8).
There were, then, lots of lessons which Conrad could, if he chose,
learn from the reviewers; but, at the same time, he must have felt that
Fisher Unwin had been as good as his word, and that he had been
better launched on his literary career than he, or anybody else, could
reasonably have expected.
To this account of the reception of Almayers Folly, we can add three
notes. First, that its sales proved somewhat disappointing. Conrad wrote
triumphantly on . May :8q to Marguerite Poradowska that the rst
edition of ::oo copies has been sold (Letters, :, .:). So quick a sale
would have been a remarkable success for a rst publication; but Conrad
had been deceived by the unintended effects of Garnetts enthusiasm.
Garnett wrote later:
The fact that the critics handsome praise of Almayers Folly failed to sell the
novel is attested by my old friend, Mr. David Rice, then Mr. Fisher Unwins
town traveller, who at my instigation had prevailed on the booksellers to
subscribe practically the whole edition. Mr. Rice tells me that the majority of
the copies rested for years on the booksellers shelves, and that the title Almayers
Folly long remained a jest in the trade at his own expense. Conrads rst book
took seven years to get into the third impression. (Garnett, p. xx)
q
Essays on Conrad
Second, even though the general public did not nd Conrads work
to their taste, he had not only won golden opinions from most of the
critics, but from old friends and new admirers. One of the latter was
Justin McCarthy, a celebrated writer and politician (Letters, :, ..);
another was Harriet Capes, who was to remain a friend, and whose
appreciation Conrad found to be very rare (Letters, :, .).
The third point, which Conrad did not know for over a year after
the appearance of Almayers Folly, was that it had received the attention
of reviewers in far-away Singapore with unexpected speed.
o
The rst
(anonymous) review came out in the Straits Times on :6 January :8q6.
Under the title of A Romance of the Indian Archipelago it contains a
fairly long account of the novel, and ends by conceding that although
our author is weak in his Malay . . . in error in representing Bali as one
kingdom, and in describing a prince of Bali as a Brahmin, these
blemishes did not detract from the general truthfulness of the book.
The reviewer commented on how the natives are forced to judge white
civilization by the ethics of the trader and the manners of the beach-
comber, and concluded with an emphatic judgment on the racial
conict: The power of the European has substituted a sullen peace for
the open war of the past. It has done so in the interest of trade, not
of civilisation, however much we may disguise the fact. Civilisation
makes no proselytes; it indeed rejects them with its barrier of racial
prejudice. . . . The result is deplorable but it has nonetheless to be
faced.
This racial interpretation of Almayers Folly produced another and fairly
lengthy comment which was published in the Straits Times on the next
day. It is signed only by G, and is largely concerned, as one who knew
well the late Captain Lingard, the Rajah Laut of Bornean waters, to
refute a few of the pernicious libels on his memory. The writer has no
difculty in showing that Lingard held the respect and esteem of all
who knew him, and was never, as the reviewer wrote, a penniless
adventurer who disappeared in the labyrinth of London life. More
surprising, G believes that the author and his reviewer must know
very little of Dutch Indian Society when they dwell so deeply on the
social disabilities of the results of mixed marriages. He believes that it
is ludicrous to suppose that Almayers society, which is that of a
mercantile clerk in Macassar, would be similar to that of Kiplings
British India. There is no time here to give the full argument, but we
can note that the letter writer was probably correct in believing that
Conrad exaggerated the racial disability which Almayer felt in his
Almayers Folly: introduction
marriage. We must also observe that G found Almayers Folly to be
undoubtedly, a powerful and interesting work.
+nr xo\rr
Language
The narrative begins with Almayer, having been called to dinner, still
irresolutely lingering on the verandah of his private domain, the Folly.
:
He is
looking xedly at the great river that owed indifferent and hurried before
his eyes. He liked to look at it about the time of sunset; perhaps because at that
time the sinking sun would spread a glowing gold tinge on the waters of the
Pantai, and Almayers thoughts were often busy with gold . . . There was no
tinge of gold on it this evening for it had been swollen by the rains and rolled
an angry and muddy ood under his inattentive eyes, carrying small drift-
wood and big dead logs, and whole uprooted trees with branches and foliage,
amongst which the water swirled and roared angrily.
One of those drifting trees grounded on the shelving shore, just by the house,
and Almayer, neglecting his dream, watched it with languid interest. The tree
swung slowly round, amid the hiss and foam of the water, and soon getting
free of the obstruction began to move down stream again, rolling slowly over,
raising upwards a long, denuded branch, like a hand lifted in mute appeal to
heaven against the rivers brutal and unnecessary violence. Almayers interest
in the fate of that tree increased rapidly. He leaned over to see if it would clear
the low point below. It did; then he drew back, thinking that now its course
was free down to the sea, and he envied the lot of that inanimate thing now
growing small and indistinct in the deepening darkness. ( pp. 6)
As narrative writing this is more than competent. The traditional
opening description of the place and time of day has been skillfully
combined with an initial preguring of character, situation, and theme;
and these are given considerable visual and psychological effectiveness
by being presented through combining concrete images of the external
world with the internal reverie of the protagonist. The visual imagery is
not particularly arresting in itself Conrad still tells rather more than
he shows: nevertheless, by making us identify with the developing
sequence of Almayers observations, the passage makes us both par-
ticipate in his consciousness and yet anticipate the fate to which he is
still blind, but which is presaged in the imagery.
Almayers fate began in the past, with his dreams of gold; but now
the sun is setting on a stormy present, with the angry ood suggesting
6 Essays on Conrad
the capsizing of Dains boat, and hence the nal wreck of Almayers
hopes; while the future is pregured when our attention is captured by
the mute appeal of the denuded branch. It is a strong dramatic irony
that Almayer should have envied the lot of the uprooted tree because
its course was free down to the sea; only two days later he will go
down the river to the sea with Nina and Dain, but from there he is
bound not for a voyage to Europe and his dream, but for a return to
Sambir and his death.
That we look for general implications in the passage is largely because
it is so full of verbal emphasis. The most obvious manifestation of this
emphasis is repetition for instance, in the three uses of the word gold
in the rst paragraph, and in the duplication of angry and angrily at
its end. Tautology and anaphora are the easiest of rhetorical devices for
demanding attention; and Conrad uses them a good deal throughout
Almayers Folly.
In the present passage the repetition is too heavily done. Some of this
may be the inadvertent residue of difculties with the English language.
For instance, Conrad could easily have avoided one of the verbal
repetitions, that of tree, by writing Almayers interest in its fate, which
would also have been less cumbrous than interest in the fate of that
tree. Even the tree would have sufced, but Conrad often had trouble
with articles, probably because there are none in Polish; and here the
difculty may have been compounded by the fact that Conrad had
learned French long before he knew English French often uses the
demonstrative (cet arbre) where the indenite article would be normal
in English. Another and more general result of not being a native user
of the language may also underlie Conrads tendency to repetition: it is
the anxious overexplicitness of any foreigner; he says it twice to make sure.
Ford Madox Ford much later diagnosed the slightly stilted nature of
Conrads earliest prose as being the result of his knowing only two of
the three English languages. Conrad had mastered the ofcial literary
tongue that of the Edinburgh Review which has no relation to life, as
Ford put it;
.
and he was also fairly familiar with the slang of the streets
and the forecastle; but of the third language, which Ford called the
dialect of the drawing room or the study, Conrad had had relatively
little experience; and it is, of course, precisely that middle style which
lays the basis for rapidity and ease in written prose.
The stiltedness to which Ford refers is partly a matter of vocabulary.
Very few of Conrads lapses are of the kind which would have been
avoided by consulting a dictionary; they mainly seem the result of
Almayers Folly: introduction
Conrads late exposure to educated colloquial English, together with
the contamination of his previous exposure to Polish and French. Thus
when Conrad wrote they had dwelt together in cordial neighbourhood
( p. 6), his dictionary would probably not have explained that, whereas
voisinage in French is very currently used for neighbourly intercourse,
this particular sense of neighbourhood is so rare in English as to sound
anomalous and awkward.
Many of Conrads difculties with grammar and syntax are of a
similar nature. He once unidiomatically joked: I know nothing of
grammar myself as he who runs may see (Letters, ii, .:6); and most
writers, one imagines, have been much less inuenced by their formal
knowledge than by their intuitive linguistic sense, absorbed through a
lifetimes experience; so it is not surprising that Conrad had particular
difculty in the more indeterminate areas of English grammatical
practice. One obvious example, that of tense sequences, is found in a
passage about a womans look of surrender: Men that had felt in their
breasts the awful exultation such a look awakens become mere things
of to-day ( p. :.q). Sequence demands that it be either have for had
at the beginning or became for become at the end, while the sentence
as a whole requires the present men who feel . . .. Behind Conrads
difculties here one could no doubt trace the equally complicated but
much more denite rules for tense agreements in French, and the quite
different but equally categorical rules in Polish.
There is, however, little reason to suppose that Conrad was particularly
indebted to any of these, beyond their part in creating an audience for
narratives about foreign lands.
In any case, the exotic novel could hardly have provided a perman-
ent direction for Conrad, if only because he had been ashore much too
briey to have anything but the most supercial understanding of
Malay life. But in Almayers Folly the genre at least afforded Conrad an
opportunity of developing one of his characteristic strengths as a writer,
his power to describe the outside world. The power is of a special kind:
Conrad looks at the visible universe with the eye of one who believes
that only by deciphering its features can the individual hope to nd
o Essays on Conrad
clues to lifes meaning or lack of it. For instance, in the scene where the
lovers, Dain and Nina, are parting after a secret tryst, the passage
begins like an Oriental travelogue, but soon modulates into something
quite different:
the two little nutshells with their occupants oated quietly side by side, re-
ected by the black water in the dim light struggling through a high canopy of
dense foliage; while above, away up in the broad day, amed immense red
blossoms sending down on their heads a shower of great dew-sparkling petals
that descended rotating slowly in a continuous and perfumed stream; and over
them, under them in the sleeping water; all around them in a ring of luxuriant
vegetation bathed in the warm air charged with strong and harsh perfumes,
the intense work of tropical nature went on; plants shooting upward, entwined,
interlaced in inextricable confusion, climbing madly and brutally over each other
in the terrible silence of a desperate struggle towards the life-giving sunshine
above as if struck with sudden horror at the seething mass of corruption
below; at the death and decay from which they sprang. ( p. )
The passage is typical of Conrad in presenting a picture, not of a static
landscape but of nature in motion: within a single sentence the lush
tropical aubade, with the jungle showering the happy lovers with nuptial
petals, is soon disclosed as an ephemeral moment in a larger and grimmer
process; natures cycle begins in death and decay, and though some
spectacular owers may manage to thrust themselves up into the sunshine,
they soon fade, die, and sink back into the corruption where they began.
This kind of writing exhibiting what Cedric Watts calls the anti-
pathetic fallacy
6
is rather common in Almayers Folly. It emphasizes,
contrary to the pathetic fallacy (which suggests a conscious harmony
between man and nature), that for Conrad the opposite is the case: the
Darwinian struggle for survival affords man no consolation, and all
human aspirations can plainly be deciphered among its fated victims.
The reviewer for the Athenum had cited the passage as an example of
Zolas inuence; and, more generally, we must see that the determinist
perspectives which dominated the Naturalist novel are in direct contra-
diction to the basic assumptions of the popular romance: its heroes and
heroines require a world offering that unconditional freedom which is
the essence of individual wish-fullment. In themselves Nina and Dain
are perfect romantic lovers they have ideal beauty, grace, courage,
mutual devotion; and their destiny (the wandering son of a great rajah
arrives from beyond the sea and bears away the granddaughter of
another) is equally romantic. Yet, as we have seen, the environment
denies the primary absolute of romantic love that it is eternal; while
Almayers Folly: introduction :
as regards plot, Conrad though seeming to follow, actually undermines
the prescriptions of popular romance.
Almayers Folly, like much of Conrads later ction, embodies many
standard adventure-story motifs: Lingards secret channel up the river;
his notebook with its vague clues to the treasure; pirates and gunrun-
ning and mysterious political intrigues; and, above all, the hunted hero,
Dain. At different times Dains life is threatened by the Dutch, the
Arabs, the Malay chief Lakamba, even Almayer, and he is saved by
two of the most implausible but time-hallowed devices of ction: rst,
that of mistaken identity the false clue of Dains ring on the drowned
corpse; and second, that of the heroines dauntless self-sacrice Nina
interposing herself between her lover and her irate fathers drawn
revolver. Despite these standard melodramatic elements, however, the
novel never reads like a romance or an adventure story for very long:
by the accepted convention such intrigues and dangers are clever,
exciting, larger than life; but in Almayers Folly they come to seem foolish
and irrelevant because they are overpowered by the dominant pres-
ences of the novel the changeless torpor of Sambir and its symbolic
representative, Almayer.
Almayer is an example of what we have come to call an anti-hero;
and he belongs to a variant of that tradition which is typical of the later
nineteenth century. Conrad was characteristically unhelpful about what
literary models may have inuenced Almayers Folly, and wrote only that
it was very likely that on the evening before I began to write myself
he had read one of Anthony Trollopes novels (A Personal Record, p. :).
But it was surely not Trollope, any more than Scott, Marryat, Dickens,
or Thackeray, who had provided Conrad with the antecedents for the
character of Almayer, or shaped his idea of the novel. For Conrad at
this time the exemplary novelists were French, and, in particular,
Flaubert and Maupassant.
It was probably Guy de Maupassant who inuenced Conrad most
directly and powerfully at the outset of his career. He would feel
personal afnities with another aristocrat, skeptic, orphan, depressive,
even would-be suicide; and as a writer no one had a clearer conception
of his craft than Maupassant, or worked at it more assiduously. When
Conrad took up writing, he studied both Maupassants theory and
practice intensively. I fear I may be too much under the inuence of
Maupassant, he wrote to Marguerite Poradowska in :8q; I have
studied Pierre et Jean thought, method, and all with the profoundest
despair. It seems nothing, but it has a technical complexity which
. Essays on Conrad
makes me tear my hair (Letters, :, :88). There is no doubt that
Conrads works show a considerable indebtedness to Maupassant: there
is imitation and even much detailed borrowing, of which a good many
convincing, and even disturbing, examples have been pointed out;
the
grave charge of plagiarism, however, must be somewhat qualied when
we consider that Arthur Symons wrote that Conrad always had a
volume of Maupassant open on his worktable,
8
and that Ford recalled
that Conrad could recite a great deal of Maupassant by heart.
q
Most of
the borrowings look like unconscious residues of Conrads remarkable
but erratic memory: he probably forgot that he was remembering. In
any case, although Conrad was perhaps too proud to own up to what
he owed, he was also too proud to owe very much to anyone; and as
regards inuence in the wider sense, Conrad is never very much like
Maupassant. The economy of Maupassants style, the rapidity of the
narrative development, and the cool distant clarity of his moral analysis
were not Conrads way; and in a :qo essay on Maupassant he made it
clear that he found the determinism of the Naturalist perspective too
narrow as a view of life. It was primarily the conscientious art of
Maupassant
o
which won and retained his enthusiasm.
In the last half of the nineteenth century the supreme gure of the
novelist as artist was unquestionably Maupassants master, Gustave
Flaubert. Hugh Walpole wrote in :q: of the unmistakable inuence
of the style of the author of Madame Bovary on Conrads.
:
Conrad at
once wrote Walpole a letter strongly denying that he had been under
the formative inuence of Madame Bovary, and claiming that he had
read it only after nishing Almayers Folly (LL, ii, .o6). The chronologi-
cal argument is certainly wrong, for a letter of :8q. survives in which
Conrad writes that he has just reread Madame Bovary with respectful
admiration (Letters, i, iii). Admittedly Conrad mentions him less often
than Maupassant; but there is no question of his early and detailed
familiarity with Flaubert,
.
and it is likely that Madame Bovary had some
inuence on Almayers Folly.
Almayer is a Borneo Bovary. Like Emma, he devotes his entire life to
one obsessive fantasy though not of great love, but of great wealth.
Both Almayer and Emma begin by making a loveless marriage merely
as a step towards realizing their fantasies; and then, refusing to abandon
their early dreams and come to terms with the ordinariness of their own
selves and of the lives offered by Sambir or Yonville, they are steadily
driven into a deepening tangle of circumstances from which death is
the only way out.
Almayers Folly: introduction
Albert Bguin said of Madame Bovary that it is the book of the
impossible escape, the heavy-hearted poem of eternal ennui.
Almayers
Folly represents a different and later variant of Emma Bovarys attempt
to escape the boredom of ordinary life. Since the brave days of the
Romantics, the idea of existence as essentially an attempt by the individual
to realize his private dream had been widely diffused and progressively
debased both in literature and in life. In the decades after Madame
Bovary the diffusion and internationalization of Romantic individual-
ism had proceeded in highbrow as well as in popular literature; and
Almayers ennui can be seen as a distant demotic variant of that aunted
by the decadent heroes of J. K. Huysmanss novel A Rebours (:88) and
Villiers de lIsle Adams play Axl (:8qo). The world-weary isolation of
Des Esseintes and Axl is obtained and solaced through great wealth;
and these two might perhaps have recognized, as Emma certainly
would not, a remote kinship to their contemporary Almayer, whose
sense of selfhood is expressed by his unique pony and ock of geese, his
owered pajamas, his pet monkey, and even his nal recourse to opium
in the architectural extravagance of his folly.
If Almayer in some measure belongs both to the petty bourgeois and
the Decadent stages in the history of Bovarysme, the narrative methods
by which he is presented are much more direct developments from
Flaubert. Conrads obtrusive detachment as narrator, for instance, fol-
lows from Flauberts conception of the novelist as God, felt everywhere
but never seen.
The term racism was not known to Conrad; the word was
not mentioned in the Oxford English Dictionary until the :q8 Supplement.
But we know that it means the doctrine, whether avowed or not, that
nds racial differences in character, intelligence, etc. and that asserts
the superiority of one race over another or others, or in practice
discriminates, segregates, persecutes and dominates
on the basis of
this theory of racial superiority. What evidence can we nd in Heart of
Darkness for racism in this rather general sense?
There is in fact more evidence than we have time to deal with. For
instance, Marlow gets his job because his predecessor in command of
the river steamer, a Dane called Fresleven, had been killed in a scufe
with the natives.
6
The scufe began when Fresleven decided he had
been overreached in his dealings for two black hens, and decided to
take the law into his own hands, and whacked the old nigger the
village chief mercilessly; whereupon his son made a tentative jab
with a spear and it went through quite easy (). Later we observe
that Marlows aunt shared the current humbug, as Marlow calls it,
about weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways (q).
Weaning, of course, implies that the Congo natives are children, and
their ways are assumed to be necessarily horrid. But when we come to
Marlows own experience, and his expressed views, the racial perspect-
ive changes. On his way out, the boats from the shore, he says, were
paddled by black fellows. You could see from afar the white of their
eyeballs glistening. They shouted, sang; their bodies streamed with
perspiration; they had faces like grotesque masks these chaps; but
they had bone, muscle, a wild vitality, an intense energy of movement,
that was as natural and true as the surf along their coast. They wanted
no excuse for being there. They were a great comfort to look at (6:).
We may perhaps nd some racist assumption in their faces being
described as like grotesque masks, but there is no doubt that Marlow
nds them a comfort compared to the white people aboard his ship.
Once ashore, Marlow nds a similar contrast in favor of the blacks,
though not one that is any comfort. First Marlow sees a chain gang of
six blacks who were called criminals, but who only know that they are
being punished by an insoluble mystery from the sea; the whites, of
course, regard their fate as high and just proceedings (6). Conrad
Heart of Darkness and the critics 8
makes Marlow regard the whites as pitiful representatives of a abby,
pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly; and he
essentially sides with the blacks against them. When Marlow comes to
the blacks in the grove of death, in all the attitudes of pain, abandon-
ment and despair, we notice that his pity leads him to give the dying
young black all that he can nd, a biscuit (66).
Later, Marlow nds that his crew on the steamer are cannibals; and
his homage to them is considerable: Fine fellows cannibals in their
place. They were men one could work with, and I am grateful to them.
And, after all, they did not eat each other before my face (q). One
may nd the comic irony of the last sentence in bad taste, as well as
wrong in its assumption that the crew would eat each other; but Marlows
admiration and gratitude are surely genuine. The blacks living on the
river banks are a different matter; Marlow sees and understands them
very little, and that little gives him an uncomfortable notion this
suspicion of their not being inhuman. It would come slowly to one.
They howled and leaped, and spun, and made horrid faces; but what
thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity like yours the
thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar
(q6). Before we condemn Marlow for his surprise, we must take account
of two incontrovertible facts: rst, that there really was a great deal of
cannibalism in this part of the Congo;
The intentional humorous effects are surely obvious: the clothes looking
a shade too tight; the bowler hat, the suit, and the black boots, which
illustrate MacWhirrs inability to grasp what is due to the difference of
latitudes; and that old comic standby, the umbrella. The climax of the
paragraph also sets up the main comic structure of the story. It is based
on the interplay of the three ofcers: young Jukes with his excessive
concern with the social forms, who is ashamed of his captains turnout
for going into town; old Rout, vastly amused at the inappropriateness
of young Jukess portentous gravity; and MacWhirr, simply but absent-
mindedly grateful for Jukess courtesy, and as totally unaware of Jukess
implied criticism of him as he is of its appeal to Routs comic sense.
i
Throughout the rst chapter everything that MacWhirr does and says
makes him a gure of fun. Toms an ass, says his father, who treated
him to chafng as if upon a half-witted person (); and it is at least true
that MacWhirr has a Lockean aversion against the use of images in
speech (.) and confesses to Jukes that I cant understand what you
can nd to talk about (::8). So it is very natural that we should agree
with the narrator in expecting that he will die ignorant of life to the
last (:q) and disdained by destiny or by the sea, which, we are told,
had never put itself out to startle the silent man, who seldom looked
up, and wandered innocently over the waters (:8).
This constantly mocking attitude to the protagonist is a little like the
early chapters of Conrads previous novel, Lord Jim; in both the language
of the narrator expresses irony and contempt. But whereas Jim is young,
complicated, and will develop, MacWhirr is middle-aged, apparently
Comedy and humour in Typhoon qq
successful, and wholly set in his ways. Still, we soon learn that he is not
disdained by destiny. His rst act in the chapters narrative present is
to observe that a barometer he had no reason to distrust recorded so
low a reading that it was ominously prophetic (6). MacWhirr, however,
draws from this only the conclusion that There must be some uncom-
monly dirty weather knocking about. That record low reading initiates
the theme denoted by the title; but in the whole rst chapter there are
only two references to the coming typhoon.
In the second chapter we have a description of the appalling heat
and the terrible rolling of the ship, which gets so bad that Jukes decides
that the ship really ought to be put head on to that swell (o). He goes
to suggest this to MacWhirr, but without success. Jukes speaks of the
swell getting worse, to which, with his usual total literalness, MacWhirr
returns, Noticed that in here . . . Anything wrong? Then Jukes men-
tions our passengers, to which MacWhirr wonders gravely, what
passengers? to him it seems a shockingly inappropriate term for the
cargo of .oo coolies below deck. When Jukes hints more openly that
the ship be headed east to face the heavy seas directly, MacWhirr is
even more indignant: Ive heard more than enough of mad things
done in the world but this . . . If I didnt know you, Jukes I would
think you were in liquor. Then MacWhirr goes on to say that he has
been reading up the chapter on the storms (.), but has decided not
to follow the practice recommended there of trying to get out of the
typhoons way. He gives two very characteristic reasons for this: that
nobody can know that a typhoon is actually there until he is actually
in it; and that, if it is there, very well. Theres your log-book to talk
straight about the weather ( ).
In the whole of this conversation, the narrator says, MacWhirr has
been making his confession of faith, had he only known it (). Two of
its articles are that you dont nd everything in books, and that A gale
is a gale, Mr. Jukes . . . and a full-powered steam-ship has got to face it.
Theres just so much dirty weather knocking about the world, and the
proper thing is to go through it with none of what old Captain Wilson
of the Melita calls storm strategy.
That remains MacWhirrs xed strategy throughout Typhoon, and in
all matters. The reader, however, should not admire his decision to
maintain his course directly into the typhoon. The ofcial instructions,
which MacWhirr should have learned for his Merchant Navy exam-
inations, were very widely known. For instance, in The Sailors Hornbook
for the Law of Storm, which reached its seventh edition in :88q, Henry
:oo Essays on Conrad
Piddington supplied many examples of ships which had either encoun-
tered or avoided typhoons in the China Sea. He also stated that in
those waters nearly all typhoons, or cyclones, come from the east, and
that the center of the typhoon is eight points (that is qo degrees) off the
wind (as MacWhirr comments () ).
In any case MacWhirrs argument against changing the ships course
is very weak. If the ship sails directly into the typhoon the expenses to
the owners in repairs will be vastly greater than the pretty coal bill
which would be run up in dodging the bad weather (); and though
the log would no doubt clear the captain of any wrong-doing, that seems
rather a specious and unworthy argument from Captain MacWhirr,
especially if one considers the human lives that his short-sightedness
will and does endanger.
For Piddington then, MacWhirr would certainly have been a ne
example of the kind of ofcer he attacks, the men of the old school
who do not like new-fangled notions, because they are too proud,
too ignorant, or too indolent to take the trouble to learn.
A vessel
powered by steam is not as vulnerable to storms as a sailing ship, but it
is clear that MacWhirr is wrong not to alter the Nan-Shans course. On
the other hand, this is by no means the only issue which affects our nal
judgement on MacWhirr.
Towards the end of the second chapter MacWhirr is having a nap in
the chart-room when he is awakened by the sounds and movements
which betoken the actual onset of the typhoon. There follow a variety
of humorous episodes in which MacWhirr prepares for action he
catches one of his sea-boots skidding along the oor, kicks at the shoes
hes discarded, jerks himself into his oilskins, and ties on his sou-wester
with all the deliberation of a woman putting on her bonnet before a
glass (6). Once out on deck he nds that Jukes has made all the
possible preparations; Keep her at it as long as we can, MacWhirr
shouts, but before had squeezed the salt water out of his eyes all the
stars had disappeared (8).
The main continuity of the third chapter comes from the actions and
thoughts of Jukes. This is no joke, he thinks, when the full fury of the
storm hits the Nan-Shan, and feels uncritically glad to have his captain
at hand (q). But when Jukes comments to MacWhirr that the sea has
swept away two lifeboats, he is disappointed that MacWhirr merely
remarks that losing things in such a storm stands to reason (). Jukes
is privately convinced that Shes done for; in one relative lull he tries
to outscream the storm, and asks MacWhirr, who is holding on to him
Comedy and humour in Typhoon :o:
tight, Will she live through this? He expects no reply, but after a while
he heard with amazement the frail and resisting voice of MacWhirr:
She may! (8). The narrative emphasis is on the word resisting; and
Jukes even hears snatches of further consoling reections from his cap-
tain; they include, builders . . . good men . . . Rout . . . good man. When
MacWhirr removes his arm from him, however, Jukes, immediately
lets himself sink slowly into the depths of bodily misery. Then he feels
something touching him at the back of his knees, and later exploring his
person upwards with prudent, apologetic touches, as became an inferior.
It is the boatswain, who has come up on deck to report to his captain.
In Chapter Four, Jukes is sure that he will never see another sun-
rise, and is completely dominated by an overpowering dislike towards
any other form of activity than keeping his heart completely steeled
against the worst (:). But another more important activity is soon
demanded of him. MacWhirr, who had earlier been anxious to know
where the men have taken refuge, has now learned some very bad news
from the boatswain. In the course of acceding to the crews demand that
they at least have some light to see each other by (), the boatswain
had gone to the tween deck for a lamp, and discovered that, their boxes
all having worked loose and got broken, the coolies were ghting each
other for the seven years pay they were taking home, and which was
scattered with everything else on the deck. MacWhirr tells Jukes to go
and see what the situation is: this is because his sense that he cant
have . . . ghting . . . board ship overpowers the contrary motive that
he would much rather keep you here . . . case . . . I should . . . washed
overboard myself (6o). MacWhirrs busy concern sickens Jukes like
an exhibition of blind and pernicious folly (); but very unwillingly he
goes down to investigate. He is helped by the boatswain, who keeps
cheerily yelling: What would my old woman say if she saw me now? to
which he imagines her answer: Serve you right, you old fool, for going
to sea (6:).
Once Jukes gets as far as the bunker next to the coolies, he thinks of
getting out again, but the remembrance of Captain MacWhirrs voice
made this impossible (6.). So he opens the door, and glimpses the
terrible scene of the coolies madly battling for their dollars. As ordered,
Jukes immediately closes the door again, and makes his way to the
engine room. There he tells the captain through the speaking-tube,
that nothing could stop the coolies now except main force. Then he
awaits the captains order, hoping to be dismissed from the face of that
odious trouble intruding on the great need of the ship (.).
:o. Essays on Conrad
In Chapter Five the ship is swept from end to end. When that is
over, Jukes, still in the engine room, hears MacWhirr tell him to Pick
up all the money. Bear a hand now. Ill want you up here (). Jukes,
hoping for sympathy, tells Rout: Got to pick up the dollars. To this,
Rout answers, I dont care, and adds, Go away now . . . You fellows
are going wrong for want of something to do. His ironic jocularity
exemplies the old animosity between the deck and the engine room,
but it infuriates Jukes. His anger and the unacknowledged leadership of
the boatswain combine to work a minor miracle. The two men collect
the crew in the alleyway; they then lead them into the bunker, drive the
coolies forwards to the end of the tween deck, collect all their belong-
ings, including the money, and nally rig lifelines to give the coolies
something to hang on to. This done, Jukes bolts the door again and
makes his way back to the deck. There he sees the captain holding on
to a twisted bridge-rail and reports: We have done it, sir. Captain
MacWhirr merely returns: Thought you would, and then adds the
dismissive comment Wind fell all at once (8:).
Jukes, of course, feels that more attention should have been paid to
the great risks he has just taken for the coolies, but MacWhirr merely
repeats his reason: Had to do whats fair by them. He is already
brooding about his next problem as captain, and says to Jukes that:
According to the books the worst is not over yet. Leaving Jukes in
charge, MacWhirr goes into the chart-room. It is very dark, but he can
feel the disorder of that place where he used to live tidily (8). He
strikes one match to read the barometer, and then a second: There
was no mistake. It was the lowest reading he had ever seen in his life.
The aneroid glass conveys the same gloomy message, and then, we are
told, MacWhirrs feeling of dismay reached the very seat of his com-
posure. He is careful to put the matches back in their appointed place,
but before he removed his hand it occurred to him that perhaps he
would never have occasion to use that box any more. For an innitesi-
mal fraction of a second, we read, his ngers closed again on the small
objects as though it had been the symbol of all these little habits that
chain us to the weary round of life. MacWhirr lets himself fall on the
settee; there he unsealed his lips and, as if addressing another being
awakened within his breast, says half aloud: I shouldnt like to lose
her (86). The combination of laughter and tears is the traditional
hallmark of humour, and we certainly have it here.
At this point we might perhaps briey consider the nature of Conrads
humour in the narrative tale as a whole. Thomas Mann sees Conrads
Comedy and humour in Typhoon :o
The Secret Agent as rich in a humour which is refreshingly comic and at
the same time ultramodern, post-middle-class.
: Essays on Conrad
Conrads self-mockery about the pretty dedication only partly pre-
pares us for the lacerating embarrassment of the letter to James which
accompanied the book. It begins
I address you across a vast space invoking the name of that one of your
children you love the most. I have been intimate with many of them, but it
would be an impertinence for me to disclose here the secret of my affection. I
am not sure that there is one I love more than the others. Exquisite Shades
with live hearts, and clothed in the wonderful garment of your prose, they
have stood, consoling, by my side under many skies. They have lived with me,
faithful and serene with the bright serenity of Immortals. And to you thanks
are due for such glorious companionship.
The thanks continue, and the letter closes with Conrad asking James to
accept his book and thus augment the previous burden of my gratitude.
Psychologically one senses the paralysing apprehension of an insecure
worshipper approaching a distant and redoubtable deity; or of a lover
whose abject fear of rebuff almost invites humiliation. The laborious
indirection of the prose has echoes of Jamess own reluctance to specify
the referents of his pronouns; but the primary inuence is French, not
only in making children stand for books, but in that special tradi-
tion of abstract and hyperbolic magniloquence which gushes from the
Immortals of the Acadmie Franaise on ceremonial occasions.
Some months after receiving this effusion, James reciprocated by
sending Conrad his just-published The Spoils of Poynton, with the inscrip-
tion: To Joseph Conrad in dreadfully delayed but very grateful ac-
knowledgment of an offering singularly generous and beautiful.
Then,
a week later, on :q February :8q, Conrad announced jubilantly to
Garnett: I had a note from James. Wants me to lunch with him on
Thursday next so there is something to live for at last.
The meeting probably took place in Jamess London apartment at
De Vere Gardens, Kensington it is there that Conrad later re-
membered that he had chanced upon the Pepys epigraph for his next
book, The Nigger of the Narcissus. But Conrad was then living in Essex,
and occasion for the two to meet very often was lacking. Eighteen
months later, however, James and Conrad were brought closer together.
In the summer of :8q8 James became the lessee, and later the owner, of
Lamb House, in Rye; and in October, the Conrads moved to the Pent,
a Kentish farmhouse some fteen miles to the east, and fairly close to
Sandgate, where H. G. Wells was living. The Fords soon moved nearby,
and there followed a period of quite close literary frequentation, of
which many picturesque episodes have been recorded: Wells tells of
Conrad, James and Chance :
Conrad driving a little black pony carriage as though it was a droshky
and encouraging a puzzled little Kentish pony with loud cries and
endearments in Polish;
6
Mrs Conrad recalls Henry James taking the
Conrads small son on his knee, and forgetting his existence, now and
then giving him an absent-minded squeeze, while baby Borys, with an
instinctive sense of Henry Jamess personality . . . sat perfectly resigned
and still for more than half an hour;
But it did
not alter their personal friendship which continued to the end: when, in
the summer of :q:, James solicited a contribution for a war charity
anthology, Conrad replied with all the old warmth to his cher matre
(. July :q:). But one understands how it must have hurt, not only that
James didnt like Chance better, but that he went out of his way to say
so in print, especially after his own public praise of James in the North
American Review. For Conrad, rightly or wrongly, the obligations of
friendship outweighed those of literary criticism: Curle tells of hearing
Conrad say of some living author, I like him and I dont want to talk
about his books; in public, at least, if Conrad could not praise he
preferred to remain silent.
But, as Conrad knew, James was quite different; he had never been
known to spare the critical rod even for his closest friends. With an
:8 Essays on Conrad
intimate, such as Edith Wharton, James had been savage enough in
private criticism:
6
for some reason perhaps Conrads devotion to him,
or his disarming politeness James had not, probably, been as frank
with Conrad, and his reservations clamoured for expression somehow.
In the end it comes down to an invincible difference of temperament. The
impulse to love and be loved was not as close to the surface in James as
in Conrad; it was there, but always at the mercy of many other conict-
ing impulses; above all, the truth about what mattered most the art of
the novel; and it was difcult to disentangle this felt truth completely
from other more personal impulses the urge to dominate, to get other
people in your power, to achieve in fact the absolute satisfactions of the
Godhead, or of its latter-day embodiment, the critic. And this, in the
end, is surely the functional strategy of the later Jamesian style and point
of view: that formidable digestive instrument really does produce a
bafed relation between the subject-matter and its emergence, because
the subject-matter people can only emerge in subordination to Jamess
detached analysis of them in abstract terms of his own choosing.
It was a subordination which came to dominate his life as well as his
ction. Our poor friend is the implied stance which James adopts for
Conrad, as well as for Strether and for his later ctional protagonists;
and it is difcult not to see it, ultimately, as a strategy of patronage: in
his last letters, Conrad as a person, and even Jamess feelings about
him, seem to have become merely pretexts for prose, artifacts to be
manipulated by an Omniscience with a capital O.
It is not, I think, a question either of emotional insincerity or of
intentional patronage on Jamess part. To anyone at all self-conscious
about literary expression and personal relationships, the difculty of
writing a letter increases in exact proportion to the writers awareness
of the recipients awareness of these things. James would have felt he
was insulting Conrad, as well as betraying his real self, if he remained
at the level of the usual epistolatory banalities, from the opening Sorry
I havent written before, through the central lets get together, to the
nal regards to your wife. Instead James felt bound to encompass in a
unied rhetorical structure everything from the immediate business at
hand the hackneyed items of apology, invitation and salutation to
the remoter and yet intimate presences of past relationship and present
feeling. So ambitious and all-enveloping a compositional imperative
inevitably pushes towards abstraction and indirection; and in the process
the sense of mutuality and naturalness is fatally compromised. As James
came to live more and more for his art, other people, in the letters, as
Conrad, James and Chance :q
in the novels, became the victims, not of any conscious patronage, but,
purely incidentally, of Jamess condence in a nally-achieved stylistic
mastery over his material.
Conrads powerful critical mind may have proffered some such re-
deeming explanation; but the disappointment at what he called being
rather airily condemned
By an ironic
compensation, then, Conrads newfound economic success provoked
Conrad into deeper disgust with his writing. Of the story The Planter
of Malata, in Within the Tides, for instance, Conrad wrote to Galsworthy
that it had earned eight times as much as Youth, six times as much
as Heart of Darkness. It makes one sick.
I
have argued elsewhere that in fact the method of Chance can well be
regarded as a response to the challenge from without;
8
in literature
the remarriage of widows has always called for supreme authorial tact.
There had to be one witness, Powell, who begins the book, then tells
the story of De Barrals suicide, and Floras long delayed physical union
with Captain Anthony, before being himself nally joined to Flora, at
the end, after Anthonys death; but Conrad also needed Marlow for
commentary. One can see why Conrad felt that he had been rather
airily condemned;
q
and it was in any case odd to be treated as part of
the new generation since he was, after all, years old. Still, we must
not forget the more favourable aspects of Jamess essay; only Conrad is
called a genius; and James makes Conrad his major example of the
remedy for the current disconnection of method from matter which
was the error of no less than Leo Tolstoy.
:o
Most of the contemporary reviews or comments on Chance were
extremely laudatory. In the Daily Telegraph W. L. Courtney called
Conrad, one of the marvels of our literature, and estimated that
Chance was one of the best works which Mr. Conrad has written
comparable with Lord Jim and Nostromo; D. S. Meldrum thought one
may well declare the latest to be the best of his books; while Arnold
Bennett sighed: This is a discouraging book for a writer, because he
damn well knows he cant write as well as this.
::
Chance has certainly
remained on most critics list of the canon of Conrads major works.
F. R. Leavis, for example, rates it one of the ve great Conrad novels:
Nostromo, The Secret Agent, Under Western Eyes, Chance and Victory it is an
impressive enough tale of books.
:.
Douglas Hewitt complained that Chance was full of clichs . . . defensive
irony . . . imprecise rhetoric.
:
We must concede there are a good many
cases of these faults; but whether there are more than in Heart of
Darkness or Lord Jim is questionable. There are also some passages
which Hewitt dislikes, but which seem quite acceptable to me. Here is
one example from Marlow, near the climax of Chance:
if two beings thrown together, mutually attracted, resist the necessity, fail in
understanding and voluntarily stop short of the the embrace, in the noblest
Notes on Conrads reputation :
meaning of the word, then they are committing a sin against life, the call of
which is simple. Perhaps sacred. And the punishment of it is an invasion of
complexity, a torment, forcibly tortuous involution of feeling.
:
The prose is not distinguished: after an overlong sentence, Perhaps
sacred is a redeeming brevity; but the last phrase is awkward and rather
lame rhythmically; in any case, there should surely be an a before
forcibly. But that is not Hewitts objection. He writes:
There is no attempt to show any inherent inadequacy in Anthony; there is no
suggestion of any deep inhibition of feeling in him. The involution is entirely
a temporary matter a matter of this particular situation. As soon as Anthony
and Flora realize they are in a false position, all can be well.
:
No doubt it can be made well, and indeed it is; but since they are both
orphans to a certain extent in John Fynes splendid phrase,
:6
their
inhibitions have been a part of their characters for a very long time;
and they have surely been unprepared for the particular situation on
the Ferndale, or for anything remotely like it. Hewitts criticism seems to
me to be too easy.
Victory was very well received when it came out in September of :q:.
Robert Lynd expressed the general opinion when he wrote that Victory
is, compared to Chance, an unambitious story, but it is the true gold of
genius.
:
The book was, the Atlantic Monthly thought, the nest thing
that the season offers.
:8
On the other hand, Gerald Gould, despite
much praise, concluded that Conrad does not quite bring it off .
:q
The outstanding opposition view was expressed very professorially by
William Lyon Phelps: Despite many ne passages of description, it
is poor stuff, and its author should be ashamed of Mr. Jones, who
belongs to cheap melodrama. He added that the work should be seen
simply as one of the lapses of which nearly all great writers have shown
themselves capable.
.o
The later critics have been deeply divided; it has been seen favourably
by several later critics, from F. R. Leavis to Harold Bloom. Harold
Blooms list of major novels is exactly the same as Leaviss; except
that Lord Jim replaces Chance. Leavis, it should be explained, is not
an enthusiast for Lord Jim, as an over-romantic sea tale.
.:
Both these
independent-minded critics agree in the fairly rare denigration of Heart
of Darkness.
..
The main critical difference about Victory seems to arise from a basic
disagreement about narrative modes. The standard new critical, and
more generally modernist, assumptions seem to be twofold: rst, that
: Essays on Conrad
the author should not speak in his own voice, but present the larger
meanings of the novel indirectly and objectively, through the complex
associations of his imagery and metaphors: the text itself, and all its
referents should be delusively simple and referential. With this goes an
assumption that the ideological values of the literary work should be in
some sense new; it should be new, that is, in forcing us to review our
own too-conventional assumptions, attitudes and habits; the truths we
are made to see should be unpleasant; they should make us wince.
That, of course, is a parody; but there is surely a general truth behind
it; modern criticism expects a radically new way of confronting our
daily life as the signicant element in literary experience; and, as we all
know, todays kids at grammar school are all too complacently aware
that they were born equipped with hearts of darkness.
Victory, rather different from Conrads usual mode of writing, is
claimed by John Palmer, in his Joseph Conrads Fiction: A Study in Literary
Growth (:q68), as the chief work in what he describes as Conrads third
creative phase. The rst phase dealt with individual problems, from
Almayers Folly to Lord Jim: the second with the individual in society, from
Nostromo to Under Western Eyes; and the third phase takes up the problem
of the metaphysical bases of moral commitment. Conrad, therefore, is
less concerned with apparently realist narrative; he uses allegory as a
technique, and metonymy, rather than metaphor, as the basis of his
description.
.
As in The Tempest, the isolated extremity of a desert island
is a t setting for a relatively abstract treatment of the largest kind of
human concern. On Samburan Conrad challenges the three good
gures with their evil opposites: the isolated intellectual Heyst is opposed
to Jones; the sexual expert Lena versus Ricardo; and the savage Wang
against the simian Pedro. Of course this allegorical confrontation may
seem over-simple to modern taste, although we may note that metonymy
has recently found favour in Paris, and Palmer, it should be noted,
subtitles his chapter on Victory, The Existential Afrmation. Conrad
himself thought highly of Victory; at least he chose the last scenes of the
novel for his only American reading, in :q., at the gathering of not-
ables in the Park Lane residence of Mrs Curtis James.
Conrads next published work was The Shadow-Line, published in
March :q:. The Nation wrote that Mr. Conrad is an artist of creative
imagination, one of the great ones, not of the present but of the world.
.
Not all reviews were wholly enthusiastic, but I cannot spend much time
on the book since, at least since F. R. Leavis, it has come to be
universally seen as a masterpiece which miraculously escaped from the
Notes on Conrads reputation :
indignity of Conrads alleged decline. In this it shares the honour with
Conrads relatively late short story, The Secret Sharer, which was
written in :qoq although only published in October :q:. in Twixt Land
and Sea. Conrad wrote to Garnett that the story between you and me,
is it. Eh? No damned tricks with girls there. Eh? Every word ts and
theres not a single uncertain note.
.
The Secret Sharer has also long
been regarded as a masterpiece, as I can testify, having recently done
an introduction to it for the Limited Editions club; in that edition
Conrads title was further honoured by being printed in gold on an
inlay described as genuine Nigerian Oasis goat.
Conrads next novel was The Arrow of Gold, which certainly might be
called a trick with girls. Conrad wrote to Sidney Colvin that the rst
notices . . . are very poor, puzzle-headed, hesitating pronouncements;
yet not inimical.
.6
The New Statesman wrote, in a review that delighted
Conrad: If it is ever true of any book, then it should be true that a new
novel by Mr. Conrad is an event even if, as in the present case, the
new book is something of a disappointment. There are praises: the
review says that it should be admired, if only for the gentle and valued
persistence with which Mr. Conrad continues to teach English writers,
who ought to be able to nd out for themselves, how to manage their
adverbs. On the vitality of even the minor characters, the critic writes
that It is hard to think of any other living writer capable of this endless
prodigality of creation.
.
Other reviews were denitely unfavourable,
though usually respectful. W. L. Courtney complained that in this
long-dragged-out romance there is a great deal that is tedious, while
some of the conversations do not advance the narrative in the fashion
of true and helpful dialogue.
.8
I must confess that The Arrow of Gold seems relatively hard to defend
very strongly; although both the scene of the events, and most of the
characters, are very well presented. We should, however, mention
some very favourable views. Graham Greene for example has written
in his autobiography, A Sort of Life, about his early novel, Rumour at
Nightfall:
Conrad was the inuence now, and in particular the most dangerous of all his
books, The Arrow of Gold, written when he had himself fallen under the tutelage
of Henry James.
.q
We need not accept Greenes view of Conrads tutelage here to Henry
James; and we notice that in general Graham Greene is by no means
an uncritical admirer of Conrad. But the inuence was there; indeed
:6 Essays on Conrad
Greene recalls in A Sort of Life, that in :q. Never again, I swore, would
I read a novel of Conrads.
o
He had abandoned Conrad because his
inuence on me was too great and too disastrous. The heavy hypnotic
style falls around me again, and I am aware of the poverty of my
own.
:
Nevertheless Graham Greene also wrote in his essay on Conrad,
that Victory is one of the two great English novels of the last fty
years.
.
Conrads chief view of the next novel, The Rescue, which came out on
.o June :q.o, was to rejoice that he had managed to at last nish the
novel he had attempted, but failed, to write from :8q6 to :8q8: I am
settling my affairs in this world, he wrote to Garnett, and I should not
have liked to leave behind me this evidence of having bitten off more
than I could chew. A very vulgar vanity. Could anything be more
legitimate?
notably in
the review of The Rescue. Her earlier views on Conrad were admiring.
She began a review of the reissue of Lord Jim by complaining about the
sad green colour of the binding, and continues: it is not a question of
luxury, but of necessity: we have to buy Mr. Conrad; all our friends
have to buy Mr. Conrad.
6
Elsewhere Virginia Woolf writes that There
is no novel by Mr. Conrad which has not passages of such beauty that
one hangs over them like a humming-bird moth at the mouth of a
ower.
This was probably true in England; Ford Madox Ford and Graham
Greene are his main disciples; neither Joyce nor Lawrence nor Forster
were great admirers, although T. S. Eliot was. On the other hand the
American younger writers certainly were. It is nice to remember the
story that Scott Fitzgerald and Ring Lardner, deprived of the opportun-
ity of meeting a writer they much admired, planned to do an informal
dance to honour Conrad on the lawn of his American host, Nelson
Doubleday; sad to relate, the only person who noticed them was the
caretaker, who naturally turned them off the property.
Much has
been written about the Conrad inuence on William Faulkner; and
although Hemingway was somewhat less enthusiastic, he at least paid
Conrad, and The Rover, a memorable tribute.
It was in an obituary notice in the Conrad Supplement of Fords transat-
lantic review. He begins by challenging the low repute of Conrad among
his friends. It is agreed by most of the people I know that Conrad is
a bad writer, just as it is agreed that T. S. Eliot is a good writer.
Hemingway then goes on to pronounce with obvious irony: If I knew
that by grinding Mr. Eliot into a ne dry powder and sprinkling that
powder over Mr. Conrads grave Mr. Conrad would shortly appear, look-
ing very annoyed at the forced return, and commence writing I would
leave for London [he was then in Paris] early tomorrow morning with
a sausage-grinder. This nal comment was, no doubt, rude (and very
personal); but it was surely what newspaper men used to call a grabber.
And the basis of the grabber, was Hemingways recalling how he read
The Rover all through the night in his hotel room. Then, when morning
came I had used up all my Conrad like a drunkard . . . and felt like a
young man who has blown away his patrimony. But, I thought, he will
Notes on Conrads reputation :q
write lots more stories. He has lots of time. But now Conrad had gone,
and Hemingway afrmed, again with heavy irony: I wish to God they
would have taken some great, acknowledged technician of a literary
gure and left him to write his bad stories.
Hemingway wrote his tribute in a hurry, with Ford waiting for it to
be done; and later he somewhat repented. I cannot reread them [the
novels]. That may be what my friends mean by saying he is a bad
writer. But from nothing else that I have ever read have I gotten what
every book of Conrad has given me.
6
Hemingway, then, was a Conrad addict. And if we glance at another
Conrad obituary, in the Times Literary Supplement, we shall nd little talk
of declining powers either. It is by Virginia Woolf. She had not been
popular for her review of The Rescue, as she makes clear in her diary: I
was struggling . . . to say honestly that I dont think Conrads last book
a good one. I have said it. It is painful (a little) to nd fault there, where
almost solely, one respects.
Third. The sense of scene. In the review of Lord Jim, after quoting
Marlows remark that he saw the French lieutenant as though I had
never seen him before, Woolf comments that Conrad expounds his
vision, and we see it too.