Knight 1

Janne Knight
English 393
Dr. Cheryl Hindrichs
December 8, 2015
The Horror will not Translate
In Nature of the Linguistic Sign, Ferdinand de Saussure explains that it is clear that only
the associations sanctioned by that language appear to us to conform to reality, and we disregard
whatever others might be imagined (842). In Joseph Conrads Heart of Darkness, Marlow is
unable to imagine a reality outside of the language that filters his perception, and thus, like most
Western culture he describes the people and events of his tale in dichotomous terms. Even when
attempting to deny the stereotype that native people are subhuman, he is only able to describe
them as not inhuman, thereby rejecting the stereotype but unable to articulate a different
recognition of the subject. (50). This apuoria is ultimately demonstrated in his conversation with
Kurtzs Intended. I argue that Marlows lie to the Intended is not an act of stoicism but evidence
of his inability to translate the last words of Kurtz as well as his own experience. As his lie and
his aggression to his auditors suggest, Marlow sees himself as cut off from their reality but
struggling to communicate his experience and thus stabilize his reality.
Numerous critics have considered this moment in the text to be one worth discussing and
their critical approaches lead to a number of different possibilities as to why Marlow lies to the
Intended, proving that the perplexity within this moment of the text remains unresolved.
Gabrielle McIntire evaluates the moment when Marlow lies to the Intended and argues that his
decision to do so is in the interest of power preservation. In this analysis Marlow presumes to

Knight 2

have a power that women do not, and enforces that dichotomy by directing her away from
knowledge (342). McIntire argues that Marlow sees the Intended as incapable of any kind of
complex logic or factual understanding (340). McIntires assertions seem to imply that
Marlows lie is less about whether or not Kurtzs final words can be translated than it is about the
fact that the women within the text are confined to the territories they occupy, and that these
territories confine them on both a physical and intellectual level. While McIntires argument is
well founded, it does not prevent there from being room for the idea that Marlow avoids telling
the Intended for reasons that are more psychologically based.
Brook Thomas analyzes the same moment through a different lens, once again steering
away from stoicism and focusing on deeper psychological elements within Marlows deceit.
Unlike McIntire, who implies that Marlow attempts to keep Kurtzs final words to himself not
only because of sexist norms but also in order to deepen his tie to Kurtz, Thomas argues that
Marlow does it in order to align the Intended with the horror. Thomas uses Freudian theory to
asses Marlows suppression of the truth, asserting that by repressing his own memory of Kurtz he
protects himself from a truth that he does not wish to reveal (269). As Marlow approaches the
Intended he is unable to completely repress this counter-memory (269). Faced with the rising
counter-memory which he has worked to suppress, he succeeds in aligning the Intended with
the horror. In doing so he manages to conceal that truth which he is trying to suppress and is
able to protect himself and prevent the counter-memory of Europes exploitation from becoming
revealed.
As Thomas progresses his analysis he begins to take a closer look at the role of language
in this essay, and begins to open the door for an examination of Marlows ability, or lack thereof,

Knight 3

to actually tell the truth. Language is our only access to truth, writes Thomas and explains that
Marlow wants to forget the truth of human finitude that lies remind him of: the truth of our
existence in a fallen state in which we cannot have full access to truth, a state making lies
inevitable (279). While Thomas focus on language is useful, it is possible that it is not
necessarily that fact that Marlow has submitted himself to a reality in which he must lie to cover
up the truth, but an inability to translate for himself and for others the meaning behind Kurtzs
last words, and therefore the truth, which causes Marlow to lie to the Intended.
While both theorists signify the moment in which Marlow lies to the Intended as
important to understanding Marlows psychology and relationship with the kexternal, neither of
them truly address the idea that Marlow may be simply incapable of translating Kurtzs final
words, a possibility for which there seems ample evidence. Marlow never explicitly claims that
the horror is a reference to colonial violence, nor does the narrator do it for him. There are
many moments in the text in which Marlow is incapable of describing, understanding, and
telling. Early in the text he makes what seems like an attempt to rebel against conventional
racism, by insisting that the natives seemed to him as beings who were not inhuman (Conrad
50). Rather than assuming that Marlow is using this phrase to condemn the rhetorical
conventions of Western otherization, it is possible that Marlow is only able to acknowledge that
which he has been taught through language. If Marlows reality has been built around the idea
that the natives are inhuman, he would be unable to imagine a different description of them.
Marlows struggle to renegotiate his reality and transcend the boundaries of language is
evident quite early in the text, and not only in his understanding of the Other. Marlows attempts
to describe Kurtz to his audience are often in vain as he struggles, not simply to describe Kurtz to

Knight 4

his listeners, but to understand what Kurtz was for himself. Without the language to understand
him, Marlow explains I did not see the man in the name any more than you do says Marlow,
and then proceeds Do you see anything? (42). Marlows desperation is evident, for as Saussure
explains The linguistic sign unites, not a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound image
(842). Marlow is struggling to explain and understand Kurtz because there is no recognition in
his name, and no word to describe his person which would adequately bring about a sound
image. Marlow is not only unable to describe Kurtz, he is cut off from others because of it. His
experience is one which he cannot convey.
Whereas Thomas and McIntire develop arguments involving Marlows motives in
reference to his omission, it seems just as likely given other clues that Marlow is unable to locate
language with which to understand Kurtz and the Other and therefore cannot be expected to
understand what Kurtz means by the horror. There is no associative bond for Marlow between
the linguistic and the psychological in relation to Kurtz or his horror and just as it is impossible
for him to describe Kurtz, it is impossible for him to imagine something that he does not have
words for. Marlows only choice when speaking to the Intended is to dismiss the existence of
something he cannot understand in order to avoid having to experience the tribulations and
trauma associated with trying.
Once Marlow begins to tell his story he makes huge efforts in the name of describing
Kurtz and his experience because until he is able to do so he is unable to stabilize his own reality.
Do you see the story? Do you see anything? he asks his silent audience in vain, it seems to me
I am trying to tell you a dream (42). Of course, Marlow is not attempting to describe a dream,
he is attempting to describe the events of his own experience in Africa and with Kurtz. However

Knight 5

without the linguistic signs necessary he speaks in circles, never describing for his listeners the
truth and his own experience becomes more dreamlike the harder he tries. They cannot see
anything because there is no language with which to navigate his own experience, just as the
double negative not inhuman probably renders little comprehension on the part of his listeners.
Because not inhuman is as ambiguous of a concept as the horror, and no sound image
presents itself for his audience.
Marlows reality has become a place of isolation as he fails to ground it and unite his
reality with that of others, which causes him an anxiety that may be rooted in the possibility of
dismissal. The harder that Marlow tries to describe Kurtz, the more frustrated he becomes. It is
impossible. We live, as we dreamalone (42). Marlows constant attempts to tell the truth to
his audience is not only rooted in his need to ground his reality, but likely out of a fear which
commands him to preserve himself and his story. If that which cannot be imagined can be
dismissed, it would be imperative to Marlow that he tells his story, especially if that means that it
is written down. It seems as though within Marlows inability to express his experience through
language, he runs the risk not only of being dismissed by others but of dismissing his own
experiences as well.
Marlows omission to the Intended is simply a symptom of the larger issue, and his need
to convey the truth, to whatever extent possible proves that later on. When speaking with the
Intended Marlow spares himself from the frustration of trying to describe something that he
cannot describe or understand, and even if he had tried she likely would have failed to imagine it
without the associative bond necessary to understanding his tale. After Marlow visits the

Knight 6

Intended however he tries desperately to tell the truth, and is only made to feel more alone in his
every-flimsy reality.

Works Cited
Heart of Darkness: A Case Study in Contemporary Criticism. 3rd ed. Ed. Ross C. Murfin.
Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. 189-202. Print.
McIntire, Gabrielle. The Women Do Not Travel: Gender, Difference, and Incommensurability
in Conrads Heart of Darkness. Heart of Darkness: A Case Study in Contemporary
Criticism. 3rd ed. Ed. Ross C. Murfin. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. 340-42. Print.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. Nature of the Linguistic Sign. The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts
and Contemporary Trends. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. (842) Print.
Thomas, Brook. Preserving and Keeping Order by Killing Time in Heart of Darkness. Heart of
Darkness: A Case Study in Contemporary Criticism. 3rd ed. Ed. Ross C. Murfin. Boston:
Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. 269-79. Print.