V.V.(9) Vheissu

[jbor]

----------
>From: "Otto Sell" <o.sell at telda.net>
>

> Marlow = Conrad: no
> The frame makes clear that there is another narrator who introduces Marlow.
> Even this narrator isn't Conrad, it's a narrator *in* the book and not the
> author *of* it.

Yes, there is that extra frame, but remember that Marlow's recount in the
novel is based on Conrad's own journey up the Congo in 1890 (see his 'Congo
Diary' published posthumously in 1978). I don't believe that Conrad the
author aligns himself with Marlow the narrator, but could it be that
Marlow's reactions were the *younger* Conrad's on that traumatic and
terrifying journey. As you say, Marlow's attitudes do change a little in the
course of his recount, but I wonder if this "change" happened while he was
there or only as he is recounting it later on the *Nellie*? (cf. Fausto's
journals in _V._ perhaps?) But this needn't be in conflict with your
following thoughts either:

> Therefore I'm not sure if Conrad totally "shared" the opinions of the
> character he had invented (and more, we will never be able to answer the
> question) or if he was giving an impression of what the people believed and
> how they saw Africa in his time, a picture that was necessarily false
> because it had been build up by explorers and imperialists to certain
> purposes.

And it's probably this *ambivalence* which is problematic. As you say:

> Conrad still carried the virus that colonialism in general could be a good
> thing if done properly, whatever he had in mind how this should be done.

I don't think that *anywhere* in Pynchon's texts can such a claim be made.

> It's a very much selected audience
> Marlow is speaking to, so you can imagine what readers Conrad was thinking
> of.

Yes, Charlie's listeners have been carefully chosen by Conrad: a Director of
Companies, an Accountant, a Lawyer, and the anonymous narrator (cf.
Stencil's listeners in _V._ perhaps?)

I agree pretty much with everything you say. Conrad's critique of
colonialism came from *within* colonialism -- it could not be otherwise --
but it certainly paved the way for a change of attitudes and
post-colonialist dialogues which have followed. And Hugh Godolphin is indeed
bound up by the same cultural conditioning you have outlined for Conrad and
his era. But -- keeping to _HoD_ as a possible model for this sequence, and
I agree with you that it's an important text for Pynchon -- I see Hugh's
experience in Vheissu as a take on Kurtz's rather than Marlow's. (Note
especially how all of the others on the Vheissu expedition died or went mad,
and how near to madness old Hugh has been and still is.)

And I agree that there were certainly many voices who had already spoken up
against the false messages of colonial imperialism. Have you read J.M.
Coetzee's _Foe_? It cleverly deconstructs Daniel Defoe's ("De-Foe", geddit?)
writing of _Robinson Crusoe_. I think you might like it.

> Yes, because his feeling of superiority is badly hurt by realizing that the
> upside-down turned binary opposition might bear maybe more truth
> than his former assumptions.

And that's the thing, isn't it. The binary opposition needs to be turned
upside down *first*: the awareness that it's the *act of constructing* such
false binary oppositions (Elect/Preterite, civilised/primitive, good/evil,
us/Them etc) which is the source of the problem can only come *after* this
first revelation.

best