This article describes a conversation between Achebe and a reporter about Conrad's "Heart of Darkness."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/feb/22/classics.chinuaachebe
Does Achebe make a good case? Is there any merit in the reporter's good opinion of Conrad?
Why, if Achebe dislikes Conrad so much, does he spend so much time on Conrad's work? I would think that if Achebe thinks that Conrad is racist and therefore should not be considered part of the canon, then he would try to give Conrad less attention, not more. Achebe's focus on "Heart of Darkness" has probably increased the attention that "Heart of Darkness" receives, and while most people do consider Conrad a racist writer now, "Heart of Darkness" is even more firmly a part of the canon now.
Rachel,
ReplyDeleteIt's always difficult. It's hard to label Conrad a racist, and yet admit hundreds of years of Western European literature/art (before and after Conrad) that regarded people of color as animals. I think the issue, rather than identifying who is/is not racist, but rather how we receive these works both in their historical contexts (what was current) and how their works affect us now. The problem w/ the canon is how we regard it. Too many of us think that it's God's table of contents for human literature, and it's not. There are so many great books (Heirs of Columbus, for example) that have been ignored for obvious reasons.