Blogs
The Darkness
In Heart of Darkness, Marlow travels because he is drawn to explore new places. As a child he used to look at maps pick out “blank spaces on the earth” that seemed “particularly inviting” to him. Although he is technically in the Congo to work what he really cares about is taking in the experience of the foreign place. In this way he is similar to Sal in On the Road and Kit and Port in Sheltering Sky. Yet as he travels he is less exposed to the authentic culture of the area and more to the evil created by imperialism. It would be impossible for Marlow to obtain authenticity during his trip while remaining with the trading company. Since the “pilgrims” are worse than even the most obvious tourist. They enter the Congo with the intention of making it as much like Europe as they can for the time that they need to be there. In the process they obliterate the culture and destroy the landscape. So, Marlow’s journey becomes more about understanding human nature. The further he travels into the heart of Africa the greater the effects of greed and isolation on men. At first he sees the effects in the dying natives in the shade and the waste land that the station has created. The further he moves inland the more the evil is apparent in the individual people. Kurtz is the ultimate representation, he tries to become one with the jungle but he cannot escape the violence and destruction that he and others have caused.
Traveling Motives
Yes, I definitely agree with you on the point that this travel fiction has gone away from the nature of the trip and the fact of being in a foreign country, to one more about how that foreignness influences the individual experience. It definitely, like Sheltering Sky and On the Road, takes into account the fact that an environment can change you, its innate and inherent qualities filter and soak into you. It’s not always intentional. The tourist, like Kurtz or Marlow, does not always travel with the intention of finding the “real authentic experience”. And this brings up a good point. What of those expatriates who have their own agendas? The colonialists, the missionaries, the ivorymen, the directors, or the workers? Their presence in the foreign lands is simply circumstance. They hardly exerted any willingness or empathy in their decision or choice as where they are going. They do not show any interest in recreation in the travel experience.
So are they still effected by the new environment, even if they (un)intentionally choose to turn that switch off? I think its only natural that the answer is yes. How can you not be influenced, and in turn influence, your surroundings? Isn’t it human nature, or to a greater extent, nature period? But that, I suppose, is up to further and more detailed study and examples…