Wanted to read it after listening to an actor talk about how Joseph Conrad describes the pathetic, sleazy, pale evil of "normal people". Read about the evil of resource exploitation and conniving White men.

But couldn't get over the fact that this book was neither anti-racist, nor materially anti-colonial. And definitely strong traces of misogyny, which some research about Joseph himself confirmed. So it put me off.

I would say there is better literature on the same themes that I'd enjoy reading more. But if you really want to, it's a super short book so you wouldn't lose much. Some passages are very vivid.

En komplicerad bok att recensera. Den är full av rasism, men ses av många som en kritik mot kolonialismen. 

Honestly, this was a disgusting read. I understand for the time it very much exposed a lot of the horrors of the ivory trade but even its protagonists are wrought with colonialism, racism, and sexism. 

Classics–particularly those containing themes that we have now seen as dated and backwards–are difficult for me to rate. This is no exception. Overall, a chilling exploration into the human psyche using perhaps the most “on the nose” extended-allegory in literature. Worth the read? Yes. Well written? Yes. Dated tropes and prejudice? Yes.

The writing reflects the inherent racism and dated views of a man at the turn of the 20th century. Not a single female character of note. The people of Africa featured in the piece are often referred to as savages or other slurs. That said, the book is well paced–slow, but that’s the point. It’s suppose to be a quagmire of perverse discovery. The writing itself is creative (the use of quotations, narration of Marlow, etc.). Worthwhile, and will leave you thinking about human nature as well as societal development since it's release. Potentially even, what comes in the future and what views we hold today as commonplace that those 120 years from now will rightfully categorize as backwards.

I’d recommend the 1997 Modern Library Edition with a forward by Adam Hochschild. Hochschild is the author of the fabulously written nonfiction account of the Belgian Congo, King Leopold’s Ghost, and rightfully calls out Conrad's failings while placing the piece in important modern context. Additionally, it includes robust endnotes which add further context and food for thought.

"The people had vanished. Mad terror had scattered them, men, women, and children, through the bush, and they had never returned. What became of the hens, I don't know either."

Conrad's Heart of Darkness has about the same appeal as a textbook— it's very dry and boring, and for being only 90-some pages, drags on and on incessantly. The most interesting aspect of the book is Mr. Kurtz, and he's only there for like three pages. Conrad also employs my least favorite 1800's trope in writing— having a character within the story recount the story to the narrator. This happened for like three chapters in Carmilla, and there I found it confusing. Here, it's the entire book. So sometimes when I start a paragraph and glance over the little apostrophe, I'm weirded out until I go back and reread. Maybe that's just a "me" problem, but I hate that kind of formatting. The prose, as some have called it, is more akin to a biology class handout than anything overtly literary. Conrad is a capable writer, but I do think this could have been tackled differently.

Those negatives still withstanding, this book is good. It's not just good, it's insanely readable. Because it has a sort of textbook vibe, you sort of feel like you're learning something— and what you're learning is a thinly veiled, scathing commentary on imperialism. You don't have to be a historian to know Conrad was shedding light on the deplorable Belgian Congo, with a semi-interesting plot to go across that torturous backdrop. The trip down the river is a horrifying one— but the terror starts before we even get on the water. Evil, greedy men in charge of a population of enslaved Congolese people (who are not painted in the best light), lying, pushing everyone to the furthest extreme, all for personal gain. Kurtz, who is somewhat of a villain, is ultimately a MacGuffin in the true search for more riches. His death, might I add, is one of the more haunting ones I've read. Chills! Heart of Darkness is endlessly nihilistic, too, and you know how I love a feel-bad book. Marlow enters with nothing, and leaves with less, becoming less of a human as he has seen and been party to the true evils of man.   

In total, this book is kind of lame and exploitative. But it did inspire Apocalypse, Now so it has that going for it.