Blog time what to ramble about this time; I know.... how about both Marlow and Kurt’s European banging buddy construct idealized versions of Kurtz in an attempt make sense out of their respective worlds, but ultimately, Marlow’s version of Kurtz is obliviously more profound. Marlow emphasizes his disgust at the complacency of the people he meets in Brussels in order to validate his own share of worldly experience. Marlow’s narrative implies that his version of Kurtz, as well as his accounts of Africa and imperialism, are inherently better and truer than other people’s because of what he has experienced. This notion is based on the bull[expletive deleted] ideas of heroism, involving quests and trials in the pursuit of knowledge. In fact, by seeming to legitimize activities like imperialism for their experiential value for crackers—in other words, by making it appear that Africa is the key to philosophical truth—the closing of Heart of Darkness seems to be the harbringer of a much more momentous horror than anything Marlow has encountered on his super awesome fun boat adventure. Are the evils of colonialism justifiable in the name of “truth” or knowledge, even if they are not justifiable in the name of wealth (I ask Neri)? This paradox accounts appears at least partially for the novella’s use of a frame story. Marlow recounts his experiences to his boat buds because doing so establishes an implicit comparison. The other men aboard the other boat are the sort of men who benefit economically from imperialism, while Marlow has benefited mainly experientially. While Marlow’s “truth” may be more profound than that of his friends or Kurtz’s Intended, it may not justify the cost of its acquisition.