I haven't read the Secret Sharer portion yet but for the Heart of Darkness part...plodding. Very profound, very deep, but maybe I watched too much tv while still in my malleable childhood and have too short of an attention span; man, this was hard to finish. I was more moved by the impression that J. Conrad was trying so hard to describe an indescribable sense of something, than the actual something he was describing. I think many other books present the same subject while also being entertaining - does that make me uncivilized? So many people loved this book. Why don't I?

Heart of Darkness is by far my all-time favorite book. I can never speak too highly of it. I'd give it 10 stars if I could.

This is the 4th time I've read it. The Horror! The Horror! The depravity of us all. Probably not a good book for do-gooders. This is the 4th time I've read it, and each time I read it differently. This time I saw the trip up the river as a metaphor for America.

I LOVE JOSEPH CONRAD. I don't even know... there's just something about his writing that makes my brain happy.

I generally hate seafaring stories, but his are so much more than that. There's so much depth to his writing, and so much insight into the human psyche. Also, I have yet to read an author who does a more convincing oral-narration voice.

Also also... the man didn't even learn English until he was an adult. How he then managed to write in English with more finesse than 99% of English-speaking writers have managed to do before or since STAGGERS me. RESPECT, DUDE. Respect. *bows to Conrad's genius*

I read The Secret Sharer back in high school but didn’t read Heart of Darkness until now. The Secret Sharer was much easier to read. I didn’t enjoy very much some of the racially suspect language in Heart of Darkness, even if it is supposed to be a criticism of imperialism.

We were assigned Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness' and 'Lord Jim' in our senior AP literature class in high school. I much preferred the former even though I knew only generalities about the European exploitation of Africa and virtually nothing about the example of the Belgian Congo--an instance of exploitation without sanctimonious justifications in terms of "civilizing missions" and the like. We did have The Secret Sharer assigned but I frankly cannot recall reading it.

In 1979 Francis Ford Coppola took the theme of the novella and applied it to the attempted American take-over of Southeast Asia in his film, 'Apocalypse Now'. He did a good job of it. Read the novella, read something about Leopold's Congo and our Vietnam War, then see the movie if you haven't already.

So I read "Death of A Salesman" right before this and I couldn't help seeing a similarity between Willy Loman and Colonel Kurtz. So I was wondering if given the right circumstances could Willy Loman turn into Colonel Kurtz?

Anyways, story was good. A little ambiguous but it had great description. Reading it was like watching a slowly unfolding movie (like "Apocalypse Now" haha).

I had high expectations for this book, and if it weren't for a warning from a friend (thanks Whitney), I would have been let down a little. Overall, I still liked the book but did find it a little difficult to read. Despite being a story told by a sailor to his shipmates, it's not very conversational. I had to reread certain sections to understand Conrad's meaning. I'd give it three stars over two because I did find the book interesting in its portrayal of the expectations Marlow had towards his meeting of Kurtz. This aspect of the book was very well developed and I enjoyed seeing how the event played out.

I didn't read the Secret Sharer. After the first book, I needed a break from Conrad's style.

I read The Secret Sharer twice and then, finally, got to Heart of Darkness. I am sure literary critics everywhere are turning over in their graves when I say that I did not like either story. I kept thinking over and over that I wasn't sure what lesson Joseph Conrad was trying to impart. The lesson I received was that human kind can be evil, racist, and violent. But, I already knew that. I also was struck, and this may just be me, by the similarities between Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now. Two stories that were set in jungles with a winding river journey and at the end of the journey, a deranged man viewed as a "god" by the natives. I don't know, maybe it is me that is crazy for seeing the similarities but either way that river journey wasn't worth the time I put into it. Oh, I will say I was struck by one quote, "It was the stillness of an implacable force brooding over an inscrutable intention." That line is poetry.

"…No, it is impossible; it is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one's existence, — that which makes its truth, its meaning — its subtle and penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live, as we dream— alone…”

I went into the book knowing it’s a “tough” read. Regardless, I was really hoping for a book that explored the darkness of humanity and the descent into madness, however I feel like I really missed something major in this book. I got nothing out of it. He spends most of the story talking about the journey to see Kurtz and how mythical this man is, and when he gets to see him, the interactions seem rare and distant to the point where I have no clue what their interactions were or why he was dying. Then after Kurtz dies, the narrator writes speaks about Kurtz both as if he’s not worth the time of day and like he’s left a permanent impression that will be on his mind every day. When did this happen??

I’ve rarely felt so neutral about a book before. It’s a shame because his actual descriptions of the jungle and varied vocabulary could work so well.

I'm a little torn on this one. Clearly,Conrad is a capable writer. Not entirely compelling, but skilled in the art of penned language.

The book was a lot of waiting for something to happen. (I know most see it as a social commentary, which it is not, so please do not think I missed the point of any authorial intention.) The only person I wanted to know about was Kurtz and damn it if I got nothing but a maniac on his death bed.

Conrad's language is beautiful and thankfully lacks the tactless erudition of his peers, but I wanted to know more about Kurtz; see things from his point of view. He was both the hero and the villain, but I never got to enjoy the whole point of the thing. In the end it was unbelievable that Marlow could admire Kurtz to the extent that he did, because he didn't even know the guy, his knowledge of him was entirely second hand. Who admires a guy whom they nothing about and who is a tyrannical monster no less? Boo.

One last thing. All writers, esteemed or not, should use the standard dialogue format. Yeah, yeah I get it-the flow of consciousness and unbroken thought and action-but it's lame. No one is distracted by each quote having its own line. Conrad does himself a disservice by placing his quotes in the body of the thinker's narrative. Please don't tell me there's any real need for it.

Anywho, there it is.

Not exactly a quick read for such a short novel, it being relatively heavy on description, metaphor, and vocabulary, but it was certainly a fascinating read that did well portraying feeling and imagery. Was also enjoyable comparing it to the Apocalypse Now film adaptation.

Just read Heart of Darkness, will come back to The Secret Sharer some other time.