The Kernel.

When speaking of Marlow, the unnamed narrator in Heart of Darkness says: “… to him the meaning of an episode was not inside like a kernel but outside…” (pg. 6) With this, the mystery narrator is explaining Marlow as a human being, but he is also explaining the idea of the book as a whole. To judge something accurately, one needs to bring oneself out of the situation and look at the problem from an outside point of view. This parallel between a personal problem and a worldwide concern is probably what Conrad was aiming for when he added an unnamed narrator in the first place, especially considering that Marlow narrates the story we are focusing on: the conquest of the Congo and the search for ivory. The unnamed narrator, I believe, is there to draw a parallel between Africa and Europe, The Congo and the Thames, the white men and the black men; the wild and the cities. Knowing only the story that takes place in Africa, we would never understand the meaning of the novel.

The description of the Thames in the first pages of the book is one of the many examples of this parallelism which is so vital to the story. Conrad personifies the river as an ancient survivor of wars and different epochs. According to the nameless narrator, the Thames “… had known and served all the men of whom the nation is proud… It had borne all the ships whose names are like jewels.” (pg. 4) When we compare this to the description Marlow gives of the Congo the imagery and symbolism of the Congo’s description has more impact than it would standing alone. Even though they are both rivers, the Congo is described as a snake while the Thames is shown as an ancient wonder. The snake, more commonly associated with the biblical story of Adam and Eve, holds the connotation of a traitor, a sneak and a misleading informer. However different these two rivers are described, they both share qualities of mystery that make them eerily similar. These similarities may foreshadow what the Congo is bound to become, they may symbolize that the Thames is not as civilized or wondrous as it is depicted, but mostly they are important because they create a bridge between two very different worlds: imperialist Europe and free Africa. Would we see these without the unnamed narrator? Would the reader be able to make these connections without the early description of the Thames? Not really, and that is why the hidden narrator is so important.

Just as the book starts, Marlow is mentioned as the only character with a name. The rest of the men in the Nellie are nameless, just as our narrator is. I believe this comes from the same idea mentioned previously of isolating two points of view, one inside the kernel (Marlow’s trip) and one outside of it (the unnamed narrator). Marlow has a name because the story is his. Mr. Kurtz has a name because he is important to Marlow (this could also be a strong bit of foreshadowing hinting that Mr. Kurtz will play a big role in the story). Everyone else is just there to create a parallel, to give perspective. The rest of the characters, including the narrator, are an audience just as the reader is. They listen to Marlow’s story as the reader does, and they probably have different reactions and thoughts about it, like different readers do. They are the outside of the kernel that is so necessary to this novel, and we are right there with them.