I believe the book's tagline says it all: "The horror, the horror."

I hated this book. HATED. I remember one day when I had done my reading section for English class, not understood a thing, except that they were on a boat and things were happening. Maybe they were being attacked. But in class we kept talking about the man in pink pajamas. I didn't remember any mention of pink pajamas. I could barely force my eyes continue reading the words on the page.

The spine of the centuries

Didn't like his style, didn't like the storyline. Wasn't appealing at all. Sexist and racist writing that even considering the time period, I still can't ignore. I read it for a course, but I don't recommend it.

okay okay so why is this book so well-loved? first of all, it’s boring. marlow cannot stop rambling and seems to only remember the LEAST IMPORTANT details from his journey in the congo. second of all, how is this even remotely historically accurate in any way??? it is told from the perspective of a colonizer and glorifies both slavery & subjugation of Black/African people because they are “inferior.” the book uses the N-word multiple times and uses the pronoun “it” to describe African natives. third of all, this book is in no way better or more insightful than any book from the perspective of the oppressed. anything by toni morrison, even though her works are as difficult to read as this book was, would be infinitely better because it has a profound understanding of the Black experience. lastly, even if you put this book within the context of when it was published (1898), the rampant racism and acceptance of slavery as anything other than a chillingly disgusting piece of history still doesn’t make sense. England was on the precipice of the Industrial Revolution and slavery had been criminalized & outlawed long before, so why is the blatant racism so prevalent. not to say that 1898 England—and Europe—was not racist (it was very much so), but marlow’s thesis in the book is that Europeans are the real savages, so why is he describing Africans like they are not even human. disgusting. anyone who likes this book i will never understand you.

read this book for the first time in high school. we explored the novella from the perspective of a young adventurer wandering into the congo...hated it
read it in my death in lit class...provoked some interesting discussions on race...still hated it
read it again for brit lit...talked again about race and imperialism and my professor was so awesome i almost enjoyed the book for a smidgen of a second...but no.

rivets rivets rivets...boring boring boring...this 75 page novella takes more time to read than it would take for me to walk from new york to alaska. its worse now because i know the scenes i whould be looking for (crazy man firing cannonballs into the jungle, marlow describing the africans as "lesser beasts" and harder still, marlow not describing the africans and what does this mean?, london is the impentrable heart of darkness the end) but no...i will always be at odds with HOD.

Both Heart of Darkness and The Secret Sharer start off slowly and awkwardly, but quickly build into engaging, beautifully written, fast-paced narratives. Conrad has a knack for description - a true mastery of the English language which is amusing and unexpected in a Polish immigrant.

The Secret Sharer was interesting; Heart of Darkness was enthralling. It is open to interpretation by the reader. And although it can be interpreted as a symbolic commentary on life, religion, evolution, or the human condition in general, it also has value as a simple adventure story. I will read this again.

Classic literature has never been easy for me to read, (English is not my first language) not only because of the styles some authors used to write but because of the language. Out of the two The Secret Sharer was my favorite. I understood the meanings behind the words more. Maybe because it was written ten years later and Conrads English was better? Who knows. The profound bound that he creates between reader and character with little information or personal context is extraordinary. While I enjoyed the writing I can not say I enjoyed the story of Heart of Darkness. The story does live up to its title and maybe reading about the evils that humans can inflict so readily and with unconsciousness or remorse upon each other was something at this time I did not want to read. Overall glad I read it and can now check it off my list.

Perhaps this is unfair because I only made it through "The Secret Sharer" before plopping the book down with a satisfied "well that was every bit as pretentious as I thought it would be."

Maybe "Heart of Darkness" is the brilliant piece everyone says it is, all I know is that after 50 pages of Conrad's tediously detailed prose I needed a palate cleanser and had to reread part of Harry Potter #7 to get it.

Ok so this is the hardest book to finish, honestly.

It’s just a few pages but I feel like there’s so much information in here, and the author definetely jumps from the narration to a description of the surroundings or an additional mention regarding the characters.
It’s confusing, at some point I couldn’t even remember what I was reading a paragraph before.
I do appreciate the idea of the whole story, its emphasis on slavery and subtle intrespection on life and its meaning.
I think the whole point of this continuous mention of darkness could be only metaphisically explained.

4 stars for writing, 0 stars for morals

Now that I have finished reading Heart of Darkness, I can go watch Apocalypse Now and understand everything happening in the film, even the tiniest nuances such as Martin Sheen grimacing into the murky river like he's constipated, why Harrison Ford looks very un-Harrison Fordy in glasses and short hair. I will also comprehend the meaning behind it all; the war, the savagery, colonialism, imperialism, racism, nihilism, pessimism, everything-ism because I read the novella it was based on.

HA HA JUST KIDDING. DID NOT UNDERSTAND MUCH OF IT ACTUALLY. MUST REFER TO SPARKNOTES.

What the fuck was going on in that book? What the hell were you talking about Marlow? And the entire book is about Kurtz who appears in, what, the last two pages and then dies on us? And you know what is "impenetrable"? The language Conrad uses. For someone who could not speak English fluently until in his twenties, he sure has his own dense style and syntax down.

Need to read this again. In 30 years.

The Secret Sharer is a fast-moving, adventurous tale that can be enjoyed as the simple tale it is on the surface or be scrutinized for a deeper meaning. There is a Captain, and there is his double. Both are essentially moral, but both have a secret. They reflect on each other, but will they both be free?

Heart of Darkness was written in a time long before current attitudes. At least Conrad could see the evils of colonialism, and he tried to grasp (and failed, as most books from 1910 will) the sameness of all people. Still, even with contemporary flaws intact, we learn that man's heart can be shrouded in darkness. There must be a price to pay for letting all the greedy, power-hungry, and self-righteous thoughts bubble over in conceit to the destruction of many. Conrad's descriptions, his style, his way with words are phenomenal. This is unlike today, where tight editing tends to prevent excessive wording.

On a personal note, I enjoyed Secret Sharer more than Heart of Darkness. The journey is shorter and more to the point. I immediately watched Apocalypse Now after reading this book. I am glad I did.