Art

Novelist Achebe sparked a controversy when he called Conrad, the author of the classic The Heart of Darkness, “a bloody racist,” but this debate runs deeper. There are indeed arguments for Achebe’s point of view as well as counter arguments, but in the end the debate raises a more important question. Can an offensive piece of art still be considered a great work of art?

Achebe bases his argument on his belief that Conrad used Africa not just as a setting but as “a foil to Europe.” He says, “Heart of Darkness projects the image of Africa as ‘the other world,’ the antithesis of Europe and therefore of civilization.” He counters the argument of separating author and narrator by the claim that, “Marlow seems to enjoy Conrad’s complete confidence-a feeling reinforced by the close similarities between their two careers.” It is true that Conrad selects Africa as a setting of uncivilized mystique. It is also true that Conrad’s characters make racist remarks. The narrator supposes the age of an African and follows it up by the remark, “but you know with them it’s hard to tell.” This is an ignorant and stereotypical remark because it reduces an entire culture to a pronoun. The narrator hardly makes a good case for himself by continually referring to Africans as “creatures” and “niggers.”

However, Achebe’s criticism falls short when one takes into account the fact that he is criticizing an author born in 1857. When the three installments of the novel were published in a magazine in 1899, the mainstream Western opinion of blacks was that they were inferior and uncivilized. I do not maintain that this opinion is accurate. It is obviously racist, and its perpetuation endangered the rights and lives of blacks for too long, a phenomenon that is still going on today. However, Conrad was not an anomaly in his day. Therefore, Conrad’s narrator is a product of the time period in which he lives, and in order to create a realistic novel, Conrad had to reflect this in his writing. The narrator is racist, but he does feel humanity for the Africans, evidenced by the fact that he “stood appalled” at the sight of the African chain gang. It is also evidenced by the paragraph in which he describes dying Africans, using diction such as, “gloom,” “shadows,” and “horror.” Conrad’s narrator takes the time to thoughtfully observe the Africans, whom he does not understand. Achebe also makes a mistake by presenting invalid and erroneous arguments. He says that, “Marlow seems to enjoy Conrad’s complete confidence.” Really? When does Conrad actually say that? Achebe is convinced because their careers are similar. If Achebe is a serious literary critic following a New Critical approach, he would make the point of separating speaker and author.

Achebe’s argument already treads on weakness, but his own work, Things Fall Apart, can be read as a misogynistic from the point of view of feminist literary critics such as Linda Strong-Leek. Does this make him a misogynist? Does it make his contribution to fiction anything less than superb? According to his own argument, it would.

This brings us to the much larger question: Can an offensive work of art still provide artistic value? One of my favorite books and movies is Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind, which is often criticized as inaccurately depicting Reconstruction and being racist. However, I am so enraptured by the beauty of Mitchell’s other motifs-desperation, love, determination-and the mastery of her characterization and prose-that I still see value in it. The poem “To His Coy Mistress” is sexist, but I cannot deny that it is a well written, classic poem. It's a gray area, but offensive art and may serve a greater value than Achebe realizes, as long as it opens discussion about important issues.