Blogs
there's something about kurtz..
evil masterminds..
Kurtz is crazy, that much is understood from the beginning of the novel to its end. His madness allows him to transcend typically human mores and societal norms in order to achieve his goals, and that makes him an asset to the Company before his madness manifests. Marlow first makes his impression of Kurtz based on hearsay, and the descriptions offered to him paint an almost unbelievable character: Kurtz is wise, charismatic, adept at writing, painting, music, and capable of instilling respect and trust in his peers. This portrayal of a near mythical being is grounded in some fact, but the truth is, Kurtz is still merely a man, and his talents influence others to cast their own thoughts onto him in order to make him an idol amongst men, despite the fact that Kurtz truly was “very little more than a voice” (Conrad 205).
Coupled with Kurtz’s madness, the fact that he was placed so very high in the beginning of the novel foreshadowed his eventual, massive plummet to the ground. Kurtz is somewhat of a cliché – it’s easy to picture him stooping his fingers together in glee at his own masterpiece, undeterred by the savage environment raging around him, filled with death and the systematic decimation of a native peoples. The difficulty with deciding whether or not Kurtz is truly evil rests in the fact that he can no longer be judged by typical standards. Kurtz had disposed of the principles typically found in European society in order to survive and thrive in the Congo, casting away rational limits in order to achieve the highest amount of success.
Strangely enough, Kurtz has a sort of bewitching character trait that even allows for the natives to follow him blindly, truly believing him to be a deity from above when truly his original intent was to “Exterminate all the brutes!”. This following also serves to boost Kurtz’s own confidence, enough to be able to claim everything around him as his own. His confidence is what eventually pushes him to his own demise. As if there haven’t been enough instances when the power-hungry find themselves self-destructing, Kurtz provides yet another example that when one person manages to obtain a great deal of power, there is hardly anything he won’t do in order to maintain it. The irony of Kurtz’s situation is that even after his death both the natives and the outside world still largely believe him to be some kind of demi-god, save for Marlow and others from the Company. Somehow, it seems as if the joke is on us.
madness
Is Kurtz mad? The definition of madness changes from century to century (opposite of reason, mental illness, mental instability), and from field to field (legal, psychological, etc.). What might we call it today? Mental instability, abnormal mental patterns manifested as violation of societal norms. The question arises, then; who's to judge? Whose "normal" and whose "societal norms"? Why is Kurtz deemed "mad"? Because his "methods are unsound". Note: it is not because he exploits and massacres people for ivory, this is what the "sane" pilgirms do. The ends are fine, even spectacular by European standards - dead Africans but a large shipment of ivory - but it is the means of the means by which he obtains the ivory that is deemed "mad". As if to say, "you can and should exploit and kill, but when you do it you must act like a European." I think Kurtz is an explicit, unveiled manifestation of European colonialism; the ugly side (heads on stakes). Without this philanthropic veil (educate ignorat millions from their savage ways) Kurtz sees (or has already seen and done away with such pretence) "the horror!"
Not to specifically point to a sort of moral relativism, but I think you're right, the question of "evil" is as highly complex in this book as it is in real life, a good selling point for the story.
evil
I agree that it is difficult to judge whether Kurtz is evil by our own(western) standards because it seems as if they typical European standards no longer apply to him. But it seems that it is that very question that Conrad is contemplating, something like 'what is universally good and what is universally evil?' To answer this we must transcend the societal lens that we use to examine situations and decide what makes something or someone evil. Is it intentions? Is it murder? Is it deception, manipulation, and cheating? In my own opinion evil is all of these things. Regardless of how civilized a society is, or how primitive Conrad seems to be commenting that these distinctions separate the good versus the evil. Even the 'cannibals' (natives on the ship) don't resort to this sort of behavior even when they are nearly starving. I think it is pretty clear that Conrad is stating that there is at least some evil to each of the colonizers/traders.