The Explorer Versus the Policeman
After reading Douglas Kerr’s article, I tried to put his observations into perspective with my own thoughts about both novels. Kerr identifies a definite line between the law abiding Joll-like character, and the rebellious Kurtz-like character. Yet, he also acknowledges that there can be a role reversal, a fusion of the two that is unavoidable. Kerr seems to classify Marlow on this “law abiding” side of the line, yet I disagree. I believe that Marlow’s obsession and fascination with Kurtz connects him to the explorer side of the line. I do agree with Kerr that there seems to be a definite difference in being native and going native. Perhaps Marlow realizes the wrong doings against the natives, yet cannot go native as Kurtz did.
Similarly, the Magistrate seems to walk the fine line between appreciating the natives and becoming native. He is obviously greatly opposed to the work of Joll, yet he is not fully comfortable with the barbarian girl and can never seem to be satisfied b her no matter how close he gets to her. There is definitely a line between him and the natives, and I believe he wants to eliminate it, but does not truly understand the implications of that. Through his excavation work and the taking in of the girl, I believe the Magistrate is at times somewhat obsessed with becoming native.
I believe there is a parallel in Marlow’s obsession with Kurtz and the Magistrate’s obsession with “fixing” what Empire has done to the barbarians, through caring for the girl, standing up for the prisoners, and his excavations. The idea of going native is dangerous and in stark opposition to what the Magistrate and Marlow are told is right according to Empire and Europe, yet I believe these two characters are similar since they play with the dangerous idea of becoming one with the jungle.
One idea I found particularly fascinating in Kerr’s article was “[n]o profit without knowledge, no knowledge without contact, no contact without transgression” (24). I had never thought about Kurtz and the Magistrate as being necessary, only as pests to the European imperialists and Empire. It is interesting to see the two opposites as being necessary for the other to survive. Without the lawmaker there can be no explorer, and without the explorer, the lawmaker has nothing to control. Kerr again reiterates this idea, “transgression will have to find a new meaning, since you cannot step across a boundary is the boundary is no longer there” (27). Although both stand in contrast to the other, they must both exist for the continuation of the other.
