On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, James Heartfield wrote:
> Can I slow you down just a bit, there. There's a problem with Conrad's
> book? This is a novel that is acknowledged to be one of the greatest
> works of fiction; so if you have found a problem with it, you ought to
> make a great impact on literary criticism.
I doubt it.
> Michael writes 'He wanted to get at truth,' whoa, hold your horses. He
> 'wanted to get at the truth'? What truth, exactly? I think Conrad wanted
> to write a good novel. 'The truth' - if 'truth' is the name you give to
> what art does - that he is looking for is not some journalistic account
> of what was happening in the Congo.
Yes I left out my premise, for which I am obviously in a minority: I think Conrad can't write for shit. I performed that same experiment as Sir Michael Smith and opened the book to look at it again, and within five sentences was stunned with boredom. What a tuneless, rhythmless git, I thought. What a pantomime of lit-tri-chur.
It's for that reason that, for me, the ideas and the real world references are so important -- because great understanding of the world can give life to even the most leaden of prose.
And since Conrad fails even worse on that count -- despite his best intentions, by all accounts -- the book for me has not only no value, but negative value. It was worse than a waste of my time. And the reason I feel it so strongly is that it wasn't an involuntary waste of my time. I was forced by authorities to try to find redeeming value in it, so much more of my time was wasted and much needless suffering was involved.
Your tastes in literary style are obviously different and you have every right to them. Enjoy.
Michael