An Analysis of Heart of Darkness

Main Article Content

Ayşegül Beyaz


Heart of Darkness is written by Joseph Conrad who is a Polish mariner. His novel is published in 1899. Conrad’s Heart of Darkness is one of the most influential novel in English Literature that written with an imperialistic point of view. Conrad’s novel supports the idea of imperialism by reflecting the benefits of colonialism, slavery and civilization on Europeans. The idea of ​​imperialism is supported and interpreted in many different ways in the novel by Conrad.The economic factors in colonialism and the significance of the ivory are emphasized by the author.The causes and consequences of colonisation is discussed, likewise; examples of enslavement are available in Conrad’s novel and it is supported by Conrad.The mission of the Europeans that building a civilized country in primitive Africa is the most essential part of the Heart of Darkness because the mission is seen as an important responsibility by the Europeans. Imperlialism is the most remarkable topic of the Heart of Darkness.  This essay examines how Conrad’s Heart of Darkness supports the idea of imperialism in terms of benefits of colonialism, slavery and building a civilization.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Beyaz, A. (2020). An Analysis of Heart of Darkness. Journal of English Language and Literature Club, 2(1), 1-6. Retrieved from


Brown, Tony C. “Cultural Psychosis on the Frontier: The Work of the Darkness in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.” Studies in the Novel, vol. 32, no. 1, 2000, pp. 14–28. Jstor,
Conrad, Joseph.Heart of Darkness.Penguin,1994.
Fabrizio and Reinhard. “Slavery and Imperialism in Heart of Darkness”,www. 21 May 2018.
Gracedrift. “Economics: A Study of Consumption”.27 Nov, 2010, 6 June 2018.
Jeffrey Meyers, Joseph Conrad: A Biography, 1991, p. 166.
Mustafa,Shah Obaidul. “Critical Study about the Colonialism in Heart of Darkness.” Feb.2018, 21 May 2018.
Raskin, Jonah. “Imperialism: Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.” Journal of Contemporary History, vol.2, no.2, 1967, pp.113-131. Jstor