Edward Said begins his essay with an outstanding paradox in the ways Marlowe behave while narrating his voyage to the heart of Africa. Depicting their heartbreaking situation; their being hungry as a wolf, their being thin and weak , he objectively gives account of what he sees with these native inhabitants, saying that “They were dying slowly, it was very clear. They were not enemies, they were not criminals, nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation…”. However, he also mentions the enormous power of Mr. Kurtz throughout the novel up to his death. He seems as if to be fascinated by his authority to oppress the native peoples. This is also the point which draws my attention at first sight. Because it is controversial, it can be interpreted from both sides. I can clearly say that this dilemma makes me think of an alternative narrative method used by Joseph Conrad to encourage the reader to philosophize over the “facts” deeply. This “enormous” power of Mr. Kurtz may symbolise the deeper meaning beneath the word; Europeans’ imperial acts to colonize more and more non-Western, non-Christian people. Because, in another passage, we understand that all European point of view is the same with Kurtz’s. "All Europe conributed to making of him.” Joseph Conrad, then, by using this power relationship throughout the novel seems to imply that this “work” will never end as long as human nature and his characteristics continue to exist such as greed and underestimation of others, unless there is a radical change.
In another point, in relation with the previous paragraph, I do not agree with Edward Said’s comment about Marlow who “misstates” the situation in the land. We talked in our sessions, too, that they fire “into a continent” meaninglessly, but not to a specific person or people. We see Marlow’s friendly attitude towards natives from the beginning of the novel. For instance, he shares the biscuit in his pocket with the native man and feels sorry for him....