In my early quest to attempt to read the great books of history, I saw “Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad on many top 100 lists. Sitting at little more than 100 pages long, and eager to notch a book on my list quickly, I decided to take a crack at it. And with a recent popular thread for many declaring their dislike for the book, I figured this might be a good start for my first review.

I regretted the choice almost immediately. Conrad has brilliant literary prose in many of his books (see my upcoming review of my favorite of his, The Secret Agent!) but it was not to be found here. I compared it often to Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” and found it, in many ways, lacking. Sinclair’s prose was more striking, his characters more sympathetic, and his plot more entertaining and interesting. As I read Conrad’s description of the atrocities in the Congo, how long and detailed he went, I found it out of place for a novella and more for an investigative journal article.

And in Conrad’s defense, that was, essentially, what it was supposed to be. My job here then is not to convince you to love Heart of Darkness, but rather to say why it remains in the public conscious as one of history’s most discussed books.

Its historical significance as a novel comes in its exposure of the brutality of African colonialism. Today, any reader who picks up HoD knows going in about the brutality of the imperial project in Africa, and the atrocities committed in the Congo Free State. Its patron, King Leopold II, was not known as one of history’s most vile creatures; his Congo project was thought to be a **charity** and he was widely respected, which is how in part he secured the Congo for his own personal use.

As modern readers, we have read horrifying exposes on the brutality man has commuted against other men. Horrifying stories of what happened in forced labor camps, or even modern slavery that occurs in the Gulf States. We know these things occur, and as Conrad describes the conditions of the Congo, we might find it repetitive; yes, we KNOW the Congo is bad, and its descriptions of the forced labor is something we have studied and condemned. But if you were an average reader, you would not know this. You would not know that Leopold was using charitable purposes to mask one of the most brutal slaver regimes the world had ever seen.

After the release of the Heart of Darkness, the world mobilized in greater support for reform in the Congo; the British sent a consul to confirm the atrocities detailed in the book. The Belgian Parliament eventually “forced” (along with a generous payout) Leopold to relinquish his colony to Belgian authority. It did not end the colonial project by any means. Forced labor would continue in the colonies of Germany, France, and Britain. Atrocities would continue to be committed. However, the worst of the atrocities, which had no end in sight, were ended, in part because of HoD. And for that, we should acknowledge that Conrad’s novella helped change the world in a concrete, immediately recognizable way; few journal articles or books can claim the same.

So how should we receive HoD today? Many find the main character, Marlow, and the broader novel’s plot to be so racist that it’s difficult to read. I will point out that Conrad’s views are markedly different than Marlow’s, and he is trying to point out how absurd the imperial project is. Others find the prose to be too difficult or tedious to read, which all I can say is “Fair enough”.

It is not a timeless masterpiece of literature that can be read at any time and any country and still resonate with readers. But when we say “Books can change the world”, the first book we can point to is Heart of Darkness.