he jungle, he attributes Kurtz's moral downfall to his disconnect with civilization and reality, blaming the 'dark', 'mysterious' forces of the jungle for Kurtz's actions: ' never, never before, did this land, this river, this jungle, the very arch of this blazing sky, appear to me so hopeless and so dark, so impenetrable to human thought, so pitiless to human weakness.' Marlow gradually becomes aware that perhaps Kurtz's actions were quite natural, however, and reflect not a madman's sick abortion of human nature, but rather reflect human nature itself. Take, for example, Marlow's reaction to Kurtz's cannibalistic brutality: 'I seemed at one bound to have been transported into some lightless region of subtle horrors, where pure, uncomplicated savagery was a positive relief, being something that has a right to exist - obviously - in the sunshine.' Savagery itself is not shocking to Marlow, but he is unable to reconcile its uninhibited, unapologetic treatment (manifested here by its existence in the light of day). This implies that Marlow understands savagery as something that exists in society, just not in a tangible, explicit form. Kurtz's government, less removed from its original formulation, is therefore a truer reflection on 'reality' than the trappings of civilization. When the harlequin warns Marlow not to judge Kurtz's brutality because Marlow can't understand the 'conditions' that led Kurtz to impale heads upon stakes outside his house, Marlow reflects: 'I shocked him excessively by laughing. Rebels! What would be the next definition I was to hear? There had been enemies, criminals, workers - and these were rebels.' But the harlequin's justification for Kurtz's actions is not unlike the justification individuals from all walks of life posit to justify the brutality of the sovereigns under which they are socialized. To further the irony, Marlow stops just short of mocking the savages in their militaristic procession: 'Some of th...
