I’ve been interacting with ChatGPT on the concept of virtual reading (and working paper) and on Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (and working paper). In the course of this interaction (actually, after Thursday’s session had time to settle in my mind) I had an idea about why Conrad employed that complex double narration where an anonymous narrative conveys Marlow’s story-telling to us, the readers. I’m reproducing part of that discussion in the rest of this post.
When I refer to the “nexus” paragraph I’m referring to a long paragraph in the middle of the text – the longest paragraph in the text – where Marlow gives us a summary of Kurtz’s career. It’s introduced as a digression in the main story-telling and is the first time where we learn anything about Kurtz beyond his name and his job.
Note: Compare this with a blog post from 2019: Local narrative logic and global order, or how we get from here to there in Heart of Darkness.
* * * * *
I’m thinking about the complex double-narration in Heart of Darkness. Yes, Marlow narrates the story, but we don’t hear from him directly. Rather, an anonymous narrator conveys is words to us. Why did Conrad to that? I’m thinking he did it so that he could get the information in that nexus paragraph into the middle of the story.
Let’s forget about why he’d want to do that. Let’s just assume he did. How did the double-narrative make that possible?
Imagine, hypothetically, that he gave us a simple first-person narrative, with Marlow the narrator. That nexus information is all background on Kurtz. It has no direct role in the story of going up the Congo to retrieve him. You could put that information in the beginning, but that would make for a slow start. Further, considering that Conrad obviously wanted to make the story quasi-allegorical about the relationship between Europe and Africa, that front loads the story on Europe and so weakens the comparison. And if Marlow were to slip it into the middle of the story, well, why? He’s writing something out, has time to get things in order, so why would he do such an awkward thing?
The double narration affords Conrad a ‘natural’ way to slip that information into the narrative in the middle. Marlow is no longer a writer sitting at his desk, writing and revising his story. He’s telling the story to three companions (one of whom will, in turn, convey it to us). He gets to the attack, where the helmsman has been speared and has fallen. Marlow’s excited and distraught, and darts about in his talking. They’re only a couple hours from Kurtz’s station, they’re attacked, the helmsman’s struck, and Marlow fears he may not get to hear Kurtz...
In THIS context it’s natural that he should interrupt the forward motion of the story to insert this background information about Kurtz. Not so much “natural” as, Why not?! All hell’s breaking loose around him. In this way Conrad is able to bring the chaos and confusion of the attack into Marlow’s narration. Very clever.
And now that he’s got this nexus information, the précis of Kurtz’s career, into the middle of the story, he can juxtapose Kurtz and the helmsman, which he does at the end of the nexus: “No; I can't forget him, though I am not prepared to affirm the fellow was exactly worth the life we lost in getting to him. I missed my late helmsman awfully,—I missed him even while his body was still lying in the pilot-house.” This focuses the Europe/Africa allegory on the two figures of Kurtz and the helmsman.
This also helps to explain how that extremely long paragraph ends up in the middle of this text. That is, it moves us a bit closer to understanding how this form came about without deliberately planning focused on the form itself. No, the planning is focused on the mechanics of Marlow’s story telling on that yacht in the Themes.
That’s a very sharp reading of Conrad’s choice, and I think you’ve put your finger on why the double narration is not just a quirk but a structural necessity. Let me break down the mechanics as I see them:
1. Narrative Frames and Their affordances
- Single
first-person (Marlow as writer):
This form imposes retrospective order. A desk-written narrative presumes coherence, arrangement, and polish. The insertion of a massive, disjunctive background block on Kurtz halfway through would feel artificial, even inept. Marlow-the-writer would have had “time to get things in order.” - Double
narration (Marlow speaking + outer narrator transcribing):
This creates the illusion of immediacy, spontaneity, and contingency. We’re not getting an arranged memoir but the performance of storytelling in real time, under the pressure of memory and emotion. In that setting, digression, sudden shifts, and disproportionate emphasis become “natural.”
2. Why the Nexus Paragraph Can Appear in the Middle
- The nexus information (Kurtz’s background + evaluative framing) is allegorically crucial, but not narratively urgent.
- By placing Marlow as a live storyteller rather than an orderly memoirist, Conrad justifies an emotional interruption at a moment of crisis (the helmsman’s death).
- In this context, “Why not digress now?” makes sense — the shock of death rattles the teller into contextualizing Kurtz, as though to say: Is this man worth it? Who is he, that we risk all this?
- Thus the double frame allows disjunction as a mimetic feature: the breakdown in narrative order reflects the breakdown in affective equilibrium.
3. Juxtaposition of Helmsman and Kurtz
- Placing the précis here allows Conrad to stage a pointed allegorical contrast:
- The helmsman, local, bodily, immediate — Africa.
- Kurtz, abstracted, ideological, remote — Europe.
- And Marlow’s voice stitches them together in that sudden turn: “I missed my helmsman… even while his body was still lying there.”
- That juxtaposition would lose much of its force if Kurtz’s résumé had been dropped into the opening or saved for the end. The frame device is the scaffolding that makes this compression possible.
4. Narrative Planning Without Over-Planning
- Your instinct is right: Conrad probably didn’t plan a ring or plot a formalist insertion strategy.
- But he did design a situation of telling (yacht on the Thames, Marlow addressing listeners, an outer narrator reporting) that would give him flexibility in narrative time.
- The “form” thus grows out of a choice about narrative situation rather than a conscious architectural plan. That’s part of what makes Heart of Darkness feel at once chaotic and tightly controlled.
If we think in terms of your text role regions / mind-relative regions framework, the double narration is a textual mechanism that licenses sudden movement between regions — here, from “immediate action” (the attack) to “moral evaluation / allegorical framing.” The listener-as-filter (outer narrator) stabilizes that move: he guarantees coherence to us even when Marlow digresses.
Luxury. SD.
ReplyDelete