Lord Jim Interpretation

8/13/2019 Lord Jim Interpretation

1/22


2/22

By foregrounding a dualistic model of silence as both the realm of inaccessible, internal conceptions of the self and meaning and also the

uncertain medium for both conrmation and negation of these con-structs, I am seeking to call into question current critical paradigms con-cerning the ambivalent or paradoxical nature of silence in Conradswriting. In his recent work on Conradian language and narrative,Michael Greaney attests to Conrads ambivalent conception of silenceand Lord Jim s brilliant transvaluation of ideas of moral and narrativefailure, in which embarrassing jumps, breaks, silences, gaps, andinconsistencies are transformed into the very language of modernist c-

tion (5, 97). Similarly, Richard Pedot argues that Conrads paradoxicaltreatment of silence can be traced in Lord Jim s dramatization of theenigma of rhetoric, its modernist awareness of the radical instabilityof (literary) language, an awareness of the nothing it is writing about(185, 194).2 For each of these critics, the tensions underpinning Conradstreatment of silence are ascribed to the contradictions and inconsisten-cies of ambivalence and paradox, the waverings of a writer on theuncertain cusps between Victorian realism and modernist experimenta-tion. But Conradian silence, in which doubt and the exigency of inter-pretation go hand in hand, can, I would like to suggest, be more pro-ductively imagined through the lens of Schlegelian romantic irony.Anne Mellor denes romantic irony as a philosophical conception orartistic program in which the universe is perceived as chaos, anever- ending becoming, and in which the ironist strives to afrmand celebrate the process of life by creating new images and ideas inspite of an awareness of the inevitable limitations of his own nite con-sciousness and of all man- made structures or myths (45).

Silence, in Lord Jim , occupies this chaotic, uncertain, yet afrmativespace, and, furthermore, through the placement of crucial gaps in thenarrative, Conrads novel insists on the readers involvement in thisromantic- ironic exploration of silence. Readers are called on to ll thenovels various layers of absence or structural silence: the central lack of details surrounding Jims crucial jump from the Patna ; the gaps thatmark transitions between different narrative voices (the third- personomniscient narrator, Marlow as storyteller, Jim as confessor, Marlow as

letter-writer); the largely absent presence of Marlows auditors andaddressees; and the ellipses and paralipses that punctuate Jims spoken

C O N R A D I A N A40


3/22

mering, to trace a line which will make language ow between [ . . . ]dualisms, between self and other, between author and reader ( Dia-

logues 34).The opening four chapters of omniscient narration in Lord Jimimme-

diately establish the novels concern with the borders between privateand public identity and textuality. Here Jims heroic conviction that heis a man destined to shine in the midst of dangers is revealed andtraced to his imaginative entrancement with the sea- life of light litera-ture, a fascination that, paradoxically, isolates him from others andchallenges the heroic merging of private and public identity he feels

destined to act out ( Lord 6). In the opening chapter, Jim is able toforget himself, to silence the babel of two hundred voices onboarda training ship, through his imaginary acts of heroism, in which he isalways an example of devotion to duty and as uninching as a hero ina book (Lord 6). When he is awakened from this vision to an actualopportunity for public heroism, his imaginative vision of the storm as abrutal tumult of earth and sky, that seemed directed at him leaveshim paralyzed: He stood still. It seemed to him he was whirledaround ( Lord 7). While Jim remains assured that when all meninched [ . . . ] he alone would know how to deal with the spuriousmenace of wind and seas, we soon learn that he rises to the position of chief mate without [him] ever having been tested by those events of the sea that show in the light of day the inner worth of a man, the edgeof his temper, and the ber of his stuff ( Lord 9, 10). It is in this contextthat readers are called to respond to his cry of pain concerning thechance missed in the Patna incident when Jim jumps from the sup-posedly sinking ship ( Lord 83). Jims jumpa visible, narratable actunlike the earlier instance of frozen passivitysignals the irruption of an image of himself, at odds with his sense of heroic destiny, into thereadable domain of the public. But the jumpwhich remains unnar-rated and obscure for at least one hundred pagesalso foregrounds theunstable position of the reader in Conrads text. The opening images of Jim privately engulfed in light literature encourages readers to bothreexively identify with Jim as a fellow reader and to assume anassured interpretive position, a sense of broad perspective in which

only the omniscient narrator and reader participate in the protagonistsheroic imaginative life hidden from public view ( Lord 6). In the wake of

H A N N A H Under a cloud 41


4/22

tives: Jim operates as the monologic author, denying Marlow an activeinterpretive role in his narration of the Patna incident; in contrast,

Marlow, like Conrad, seeks an active dialogue with his audience,inviting his listeners and later one privileged reader to ll in the gaps(Lord 338).

Crucially, Jims passage, in these opening chapters, from isolatedreader to interpretable text, is marked by a clash between concepts of silence as a source of certain afrmation and as a center of uncertainspeculation. The descriptions of Jims devotion to the success of hisimaginary achievements climax on the eve of the collision: They were

the best parts of life, its secret truth, its hidden reality ( Lord 20). Thishidden reality detaches him imaginatively and, he assumes, morallyfrom the increasingly agitated skipper and rst- mate: The quality of these men did not matter; he rubbed shoulders with them, but they didnot touch him; he shared the air they breathed, but he was different(Lord 2425). Conrad symbolically links Jims condence in the legiti-macy of his imaginary heroics with the security he perceives in the silentsea. On the night of the Patna s collision, Jim is penetrated by the greatcertitude of unbounded safety and peace that could be read in the silentaspect of nature, and in the serenity of the night, his soul becomesdrunk with the divine philter of an unbounded condence in itself ( Lord17, 20, emphasis added). The security of the sea is disturbed by the jolt of the Patna s collision as the silent aspect of nature becomes a source of vague danger: They could not understand; and suddenly the calm sea,the sky without a cloud, appeared formidably insecure in their immobility, as if poised on the brow of yawning destruction ( Lord 26). Theunbounded silence of the sea, now poised and insecure, heraldsthe uncertainties that are to be raised with relation to Jims silent privateself by the Patna incident. Much like Kirylo Sidorovitch Razumovs pro-gression in Under Western Eyes , Jims self-conception moves from a silentunbounded sense of potential achievement to a constricted awarenessof his public interpretability, of the (mis)readability of his silent self ( Lord20). But the novels sudden shift from an omniscient to a limited perspec-tive also raises the possibility of an unbounded version of Jim silenced beyond the narratives borders ( Lord 20). As the novel moves into a rst-

person oral narrative addressed to a singular audience, representative of the many times, in distant parts of the world, Marlow showed himself



5/22

Jims uncertain positioning between language and silence becomesthe focus of the courtroom in chapter 4, the chapter in which Marlow

enters the novel as an observer at the Patna inquiry. Jim attempts to tellhonestly the truth of this experience in response to questions [that]were aiming at facts ( Lord 28). These questions, however, also come tohim poignant and silent like the terrible questioning of ones con-science (Lord 28). Thus, Jims answers respond to two audiences: onethat aims at attaining supposedly objective truths about the incidentand one that internally interrogates his subjective experience. In court,he is anxious for his audience to understand that the incident was

composed of both facts, which were visible, tangible, open to thesenses, occupying their place in space and time, and something else besides, something invisible, a directing spirit of perdition that dweltwithin, like a malevolent soul in a detestable body ( Lord 3031). But thelegal realm of facts is also the realm of language, where words mustilluminate inexpressibility and silence ( Lord 28). Thus, Jims answersappear very loud, as if they are the only sound audible in the world(Lord 28). While he is initially revolted by the prospect of translating theincident into language, he come[s] round to the view that an accuratetranslation is possible: only a meticulous precision of statement would bring out the true horror behind the appalling face of things. [ . . . ] Hewanted to go on talking for truths sake, perhaps for his own sake also(Lord 3031). In court, however, Jims efforts are frustrated by leadingquestions in which he is checked brutally and forced to answer byyes or no ( Lord 31). Marlow, in contrast, appears to offer a sense of extralinguistic identication, as Jim nds in his eyes not the fascinatedstare of the others but an act of intelligent volition that seems toaccess his silent, incoherent, and endless converse with himself ( Lord3233). Recalling the intersubjective exchange of the epigraph, Jimsconviction that speech was of no use to him any longer is conrmed by the impression that Marlow seemed to be aware of his hopeless dif-culty and, in turn, this conrmation leads Jim to turn away res-olutely ( Lord 33). By making this extralinguistic conrmation of lin-guistic redundancy, this silent afrming of silence, the foundingmoment for Jim and Marlow, Conrad ironically undercuts subsequent

efforts to convert such understanding into a verbal dialogue. In arevealing simile, the narrator likens this rst glance to a nal parting,



6/22

Marlows silent gaze also pregures his eventual unwillingness toreturn Jims romantic self- construction as he looks at [him] as though

he could see somebody or something past [his] shoulder ( Lord 33).In chapter 6, Jim confronts Marlow for having called him a cur, a

misinterpretation caused by his overhearing an isolated word, cut off from the context of the speaker, the addressee, and the intention ( Lord46). In the Malabar interview, Jims return to this initial confusion,acknowledging how he made a confounded ass of [himself] butemphasizing that such an admission does not mean [he] admit[s] for amoment the cap tted, further demonstrates his insistent denial of a

dialogic context for his speech ( Lord 81). Correspondingly, in the inter-view itself, the fact that Marlow is not in a merciful mood does notdeter Jim in his lengthy, monologic account: on two occasions Marlowlaunches ironic arrows in Jims direction, sarcastically questioningtruths in the narrative, and on both occasions the perdious shaft[s]land unnoticed ( Lord 84). Similarly, Jim seeks to dictate the nature of hisaudiences responses, frequently insisting on Marlows belief: Dontyou believe me? he cried. I swear! [ . . . ] Confound it! You got me hereto talk, and [ . . . ] You must! [ . . . ] You said you would believe!;Youve got to believe that too; You doubt me? [ . . . ] How do youknow how I felt? [ . . . ] What right have you to doubt? ( Lord 13031;132; 135). Jims neglect of actual audience response and his underlyingconstruction of an ideal third- person listener (what Mikhail Bakhtin, inhis late writing, refers to as a superaddressee 4) give his narrative thecharacteristics of a confessional monologue rather than the dialoguerequired for his social self- construction. With regards to his elusive jump from the Patna , Jims monologic, as opposed to Marlows dialogic,stance leaves the interviewer and interviewee facing across opposedgulfs of silence.5

While Jim can recall in detail the incidents preceding and followinghis jump from the Patna, he narrates the jump itself as an action of pecu-liar passivity, leaving the crucial moment and its signicance in relationto his private self shrouded in incommunicable silence. Just as the third- person narration moves from description of the collision to that of thelegal postmortem, Jims narrative moves from description of the pres-

sure placed on him to jump to a recognition of the fact that he had jumped as if it were the action of another person: I had jumped [ . . . ] It



7/22


8/22

bership is beyond the point as the novel opens the us up to theinscription of Conrads readership in the text (27; 57; 65; 124; 1112; Lord

87). While this nal point is important, Batchelors and Mosers argu-ments still beg the question about the grounds of the readers identica-tion with Marlow. Marlows us initially appears to encompass thosewhose very existence is based upon honest faith, and upon the instinctof courage but Jims involvement in the Patna incident destabilizesMarlows interpretive condence in this grouping as he nds himself seeking, for Jim, some convincing shadow of an excuse ( Lord 43, 50).The phrase one of us registers, then, Marlows movement between

identication with and detachment from Jim; at the same time, thephrase draws together a membership based more on silent, instinctiverecognitions than any qualication of its prerequisites (honest faith,courage) ( Lord 43). Marlow, as we shall see, shores up the uncertain-ties that plague this grouping and enlists the interpretive alignment of his audience by making silent uncertainty a dening feature of Jimscareer, and by imbuing that silent uncertainty with his own sense of instinctive identication and moral, critical detachment.

In his account of Jims confessions, Marlow acknowledges unutteredtruths and claims it is his ability to ll these gaps that qualies him as asuitable audience: I would have been little tted for the reception of hiscondences had I not been able at times to understand the pauses between the words ( Lord 105). Accordingly, he tests his audiences par-ticipation in the exclusive group of us by repeatedly appealing forsimilar readings of silent gaps in his own narrative: I dont pretend toexplain the reasons of my desireI dont think I could; if youhavent got a sort of notion by this time, then I must have been veryobscure in my narrative, or you too sleepy to seize upon the sense of mywords; I suppose you will understand that by that time I could notthink of washing my hands of him ( Lord 152, 152, 200). Underpinningthis narrative of Marlows silent attachment to Jim and the idealreaders silent recognition of that relation is Marlows notion of a bondof uncertainty that draws him into Jims story: it seemed to me that theless I understood the more I was bound to him in the name of that doubtwhich is the inseparable part of our knowledge ( Lord 221). While rec-

ognizing the doubts underlying his own narrative, Marlow suggeststhese only replicate the subjects lack of self- awareness: He was notif



9/22

uineness of Jims vow not to shirk his role in the Patna incident: theidea obtrudes itself that he made so much of his disgrace while it is the

guilt alone that matters ( Lord 154, 177). Thus, despite keeping specula-tive uncertainty in play, claiming he could never make up his mindabout whether [Jims] line of conduct amounted to shirking his ghostor facing him out, Marlow implies Jims responses are more cowardlythan heroic when he cautiously introduces an abbreviated title for thisline of conduct: This was the worst incident of all in hishis retreat(Lord 197, 200). The dialogues with the French Lieutenant and Steinform crucial test cases in Marlows quest for an audience that will

understand the pauses between the words in his narrative ( Lord 105).Marlows encounter with the French Lieutenant is initially a sourceof active and afrmative intercourse. Julian Ferarro notes how the com-parison of the Lieutenant to a snuffy quiet village priest and thedescription of his devout and priest- like concentration parallel theFrenchman with Marlow as confessor in the Malabar interview (89).Whereas Jim, however, assumes Marlow will adopt a passive, receptiverole in the formation of his narrative, Marlow recognizes that, in spite of his apparent passivity, the Lieutenant is highly active in the receptionand formation of their dialogue: he, in his occult way, managed tomake his immobility appear profoundly responsive, and as full of valu-able thoughts as an egg is of meat ( Lord 145). Marlow informs theFrenchman of what had interested [him] most in this affair ( Lord 144).In return, the Lieutenants response, sest enfui avec les autres [edwith the others], is a concrete revelation of Marlows suspicions con-cerning Jims ight: He had made out the point at once: he did gethold of the only thing I cared about ( Lord 145). The Lieutenant sees Jims case as symptomatic of fears in the hearts of all humans: One isalways afraid. One may talk, but [ . . . t]he fear, the fearlook youit isalways there ( Lord 146). This generalization appears to denitivelyconrm both Marlows sense of personal involvement in Jims case andhis belief in the youths latent cowardice: I felt as if I was taking profes-sional opinion on the case. His imperturbable and mature calmness wasthat of an expert in possession of the facts, and to whom ones perplexi-ties are mere childs- play (Lord 14546). Ultimately, however, individ-

ualized silence destabilizes Marlows and the Lieutenants movestoward a communal interpretation of Jim.



10/22

of others and not from the latent heroism of which Jim is convinced(Lord 148). He then goes on, however, to note that the case when the

honor is gone is beyond his own experience and, consequently, beyond his capacity for interpretation: I can offer no opinion becausemonsieurI know nothing of it ( Lord 148). Marlowdescribes this interpretive stumbling block as the extinction of theircommon language: The blight of futility that lies in wait for mensspeeches had fallen upon our conversation, and made it a thing of empty sounds ( Lord 148). The dialogue, thus, concludes by acknowl-edging the subjectied silences that divide participants in any conversa-

tion concerning personal experience.While Stein, like the French Lieutenant, appears to offer a denitiveprofessional opinion resembling a medical consultation, his diag-nosis also offers Marlow a silence suggesting a potential space for con-rming and sharing his convictions about Jim ( Lord 212). Stein accountsfor Jims romantic dilemma and offers what seems a contradictorysolution of submitting to a destructive element for salvation:

A man that is born falls into a dream like a man who falls into the sea. If he tries to climb out into the air as inexperienced people Endeavour todo, he drowns nicht wahr? [is it not so?] [ . . . ] No! I tell you! The way isto the destructive element submit yourself, and with the exertions of your hands and feet in the water make the deep, deep sea keep you up. 6

(Lord 212, 214)

Stein, through this oceanic metaphor, advocates a mediatory stance rec-ognizing the strained coexistence of ones private and public identity.He suggests that all men fall into a dream of private self- realization at birth (Lord 214). Inexperienced people, or romantics like Jim,drown by trying to climb out into the air, thereby seeking to realizetheir dream in the alien environment of the social world, seeking theimpossible revelation of ones private self in the realm of the other ( Lord214). Since mere mortals cannot walk on water, the impossible task of pulling oneself out of the necessarily isolated realm of ones internalconception results in exhaustion and eventual drowning in that lonely

element. While Steins advice uses the ocean and the air to represent thesplit between private and public identity, what few critics have recog-



11/22

214). Thus, the sea is both the source of ones life and a potentiallydestructive element ( Lord 214). In the spirit of romantic irony, one

must recognize the destructive or ctional nature of the dream whileat the same time using it to keep ones head aoat, so that the air of thesocial world can still keep one alive ( Lord 214).

Steins initially condent reading of Jim is fostered in the unformedshadows of words and is destabilized by a shift from silence into nal-izing language, from darkness into light: his twitching lips uttered noword, and the austere exaltation of a certitude seen in the dusk van-ished from his face [ . . . ]. The light had destroyed the assurance which

had inspired him in the distant shadows (Lord

214). He regretfullyadmits that his wish to communicate his intensely personal response to Jims story is inspired by his familiarity with the silence of solitude:There were things, he said mournfully, that perhaps could never betold, only he had lived so much alone that sometimes he forgot ( Lord214). While this slide into subjective silence recalls the empty soundsthat closed Marlows interview with the French Lieutenant, the dia-logue with Stein also points toward a more afrmative instance of com-munal silence ( Lord 148). In answer to Marlows questioning of hisromantic diagnosis of Jim, Stein appeals to connections between Jimsprivate self- conception and their separate appraisals of him: What is itthat by inward pain makes him know himself? What is it that for youand me makes himexist? ( Lord 216). Here Marlow locates a silentconrmation of Jims imperishable reality ( Lord 216). While Jimsidentity is silenced by the clashing claims of life and death in a mate-rial world, Steins recognition of Jims romantic core, of his delusivedesire to make himself known to himself and others, brings home hisexistence for Marlow with an irresistible force! ( Lord 216). This conr-mation of Steins whispered conviction is, like the bond betweenMarlow and Jim, founded in silent uncertaintyits truth oats elu-sive, obscure, half- submerged, in the silent still waters of mystery(Lord 215, 216). This conrmation takes place as they are passing bydistant mirrors in lofty silent rooms amongst eeting gleams of lightand the sudden revelations of human gures stealing with ickeringames within unfathomable and pellucid depths ( Lord 216). By exten-

sion, Marlow, as romantic- ironic narrator, hopes he and his readers willalso gain sudden revelations of the depths of Jims character while



12/22


13/22

two tones ( Lord 283, 284). In a private meeting with Jewel, however,Marlow realizes a communicative gulf that separates the pair. Jewel

mistrusts Jims silences concerning his life in the West: she recognizes[t]here is something he can never forget and she beseeches Marlow toinform her: What is it? What is it? ( Lord 314, 315). It is this call for asimple nalized answer for what Marlow believes is an unnalizabletrait that convinces Marlow of the pairs tragic destiny: They hadmastered their fates. They were tragic ( Lord 316).

In Marlows eyes, Jims hopes for social realization of his completeheroic self is frustrated by the alienation he retains in his memory of the

Patna incident. Earlier in the novel, at the conclusion of Jims narrativeconcerning his heroic exploits in the East, Marlow is faced with thenotion that he seemed to have come very near at last to masteringhis fate (Lord 274). Initially, this phrase reads as shorthand for the aimof social self-realization: a mastering of ones inner identity in the socialrealm of fate. Jims admission that he is nearly satised nally con-rms the issue for Marlow: Nothing mattered, since I had made up mymind that Jim, for whom alone I cared, had at last mastered his fate(Lord 324). However, this comment is, in fact, double- edged: Jims stateis at once a target for envy and a catastrophe ( Lord 325). Marlowenvies the freedom and sense of fulllment Jim nds in his delusionalsense of social self-realization. But he also recognizes that such delusiononly masks an impending catastrophe as the foundation of such self- belief will inevitably shatter in a world in which others are ultimatelyincomprehensible, wavering and misty ( Lord 180). It is the constantstate of near satisfaction, the realization that, in spite of the isolation of Patusan, Jim can never completely satisfy his desire to overcome theapparent cowardice of his actions on the Patna, which Marlow recog-nizes when he claims his realization that Jim has tragically masteredhis fate (Lord 324). The foreshortened references to the delusionalnature of Jims greatness, once again, tests the audiences interpretivealignment with the narrator through the creation of an esoteric lan-guage ( Lord 225).

Jims isolated career in Patusan, however, also poses further chal-lenges to Marlows interpretive project. In seeking to explain Jims iso-

lation from the West to Jewel, Marlow ambiguously states he is notgood enough ( Lord 318). He then learns that this is exactly what Jim



14/22

logic context (Lord 46). Consequently, Jim continues to occupy uncer-tain space between a confession of guilt and a divulgence of social dis-

grace: For my part, I cannot say what I believedindeed I dont knowto this day and never shall probably. But what did the poor devil believe himself? (Lord 320). As Marlow notes, language is incapable of revealing the silent truths that may or may not underpin their words:Both of us had said the very same thing. Did we both speak the truthor one of us didor neither? ( Lord 320). Here, in altered form, the cho-ruslike return of the phrase one of us signals not a moment of simpleidentication but an instance in which the borders between truth and

lie, self and other, become blurred ( Lord 320).The silences undermining social identity- construction are most pro-nounced in Marlows epistolary account of Jims nal days. This con-cluding section of the novel offers Conrads clearest metatextual com-mentary on the parallels between author- reader and self- otherintersubjective exchanges. In the Malabar interview, Jim seeks to enlistan ideal audience for his social self by denying Marlow his interpretivefreedom. In his oral narrative, Marlow also seeks to enlist an ideal audi-ence but does so by engaging in active dialogue with his listeners. Theshift from Marlows oral narrative to his correspondence with the priv-ileged mana shift echoed in the nal sections of other Conradnovels, notably Nostromo and Victoryinvolves a narrowing of audi-ence that at rst seems to reemphasize the narrators quest for an eliteinterpretive community: the privileged man is the only person tohave showed an interest in him that survived the telling of his story(Lord 338).7 But the entry of the privileged man as intended readeralso foregrounds the potentially disruptive presence of resistantreaders outside the bounds of Marlows interpretive community. Thewritten narrative of this section tells the story of Browns disruptiveentry into Patusan as a reminder of Jims repressed, silent past, his lack of authority over his public self. On a parallel level, the arrival of theprivileged man as reader evinces Conrads awareness of his lack of control over the receptivity of his readers in spite of the texts inherentinterpretive codes and strategies.

Critics have tended to overlook Conrads moderately ironic repre-

sentation of the privileged man as a precarious, limited reader of afragmented text, a representation crucial to accounting for the silences



15/22

logue as founded on misinterpretation. Marlow recalls how his readerwould not admit [Jim] had mastered his fate and then reveals how

the privileged man had misinterpreted his own tragic formulationof that phrase when he prophesied as an alternative fate, the disasterof weariness and of disgust with acquired honor, with the self- appointed task, with the love sprung from pity and youth ( Lord 338).Marlow then outlines his readers racial prejudice, his belief in the needfor a rm conviction in the truth of ideas racially our own, butstresses that such contentions are beside the point of his tale: [t]hepoint, however, is that of all mankind Jim had no dealings but with

himself, and the question is whether at the last he had not confessed to afaith mightier than the laws of order and progress ( Lord 339). But evenwhen Marlow goes so far as to predict the privileged man[s] emptyconclusions on his letterI afrm nothing. Perhaps you may pro-nounceafter youve readthis prediction contains within it anacknowledgment of the resistance to outright afrmation that hisromantic- ironic narrative attempts to maintain ( Lord 339). In each of these instances, Conrad stresses both the unsuitability of Marlowsaudience and the potential for agreement, albeit unwittingly, in spite of these impediments. Richard Ambrosini argues that the privilegedmans disparagement of Jims achievements allows Conrad to attack the possible hostility to the news of the defeat of Marlows illusions hecan expect from the larger audience ( Lord 181). What I am suggestinghere is that this rearguard action can be read as part of the novels widerconcern with a romantic- ironic perspective that seeks to modulateopposing opinions in the silent uncertainty of its narrative venture.

The letter to the privileged man outlines the multiple roles thatsilence will nally play in the external construction of Jim as an existingperson and as a ctional character ( Lord 339). The letter makes referenceto three varied instances of silence in writing. First, Marlow refers to theattached fragments of Jims nal attempts at self- expression both of which subside into aposiopesis. In spite of this textual gap, Marlow con-dently concludes that Jim had seen a broad gulf that neither eye norvoice could span [ . . . ]. He was overwhelmed by the inexplicable; hewas overwhelmed by his own personality ( Lord 341). By lling in the

textual gap with an interpretation of linguistic extinction, Marlowrecalls the nature of the rst silent contact of the pair and again alerts



16/22

readers of Conrads narrative immediately revoke this claim as wit-nesses to Marlows last words and to the story containing the privi-

leged man as an ironically presented character ( Lord 337, 339). Thereintroduction of the omniscient narrator in this chapter and the subse-quent silence of this narrative frame at the conclusion of Marlowswriting become a structural replication of such aposiopesis. Conradsreaders must conclude the novel with their own framing judgment of Jim if Marlows narrative is to move from fragmentation to closure. Yet because Marlows interpretation of the written fragments depicts Jim being overwhelmed by his own personality, this silent communica-

tion also invokes the void upon which the romantic- ironic narratorfounds his interpretation ( Lord 341).The second example of silence in writing comes in the reference to

the letter from Jims father, a letter which Jim never answered butwhich, Marlow notes, may have been the source of the sonsunrecorded converse with all these placid, colorless forms of menand women peopling that quiet corner of the world ( Lord 342). HereMarlow suggests a silent conversation with an absent home, an ongoingfamilial side to Jims existence that remains largely outside the boundsof the narrative. This silent aspect is further shrouded in uncertainty byMarlows increased detachment from his subject and the readers con-sequent removal from the exact dialogic context of the letter. Unlike thedialogues with the Lieutenant and Stein, Marlow is no longer in theposition of eyewitness and his sources are no longer sympathetic to Jims cause. Consequently, Marlow doubts the clarity of any pictureconstructed in this nal narrative: It is impossible to see him clearlyespecially as it is through the eyes of others that we take our last look athim (Lord 339). Conrads general readership is also alerted, throughthis example, to the parallel possibility of more private interchanges between Marlow and the privileged man outside the text. Batchelorargues that the dramatic atness of the nal section of the novel is aconsequence of Marlow simplifying his narrative for the originally seri-alized novels readership through Blackwoods, for the understandingof the privileged man who has the conventional white imperialist atti-tudes of the day (Introduction xxi). The letters allusion to unnar-

rated relations between Jim and his father, between Marlow and theprivileged man, alerts the reader to the silent uncertainty sur-



17/22


18/22

afrm Jims lack of self-knowledge while acknowledging the abyss of unnalizable silence on which that judgment is constructed. Conrad

symbolically indicates the impenetrable nature of Jims nal momentsas he dies with his hand over his lips, leaving a gap that both invitesinterpretation and denies complete knowledge of the subject ( Lord 416).In death Jim attains the comfort of a silence that cannot deny his hopesof a convergence of his private and public identities. While Marlowacknowledges his subject is ultimately inscrutable at heart, he forgesthrough these appeals, through the ironic references to Jims satisfac-tion and greatness, a condemnation of Jim for his inability to recog-

nize similar uncertainty in his own project of social self- construction(Lord 416, 225).Marlow recalls how at their nal meeting Jim had wanted him to

convey a message to the West but had nally decided to send nothing(Lord 340). Silence also pervades Jims nal actions in Patusan, denying both Marlows and Jims desire for concrete, denitive constructions of his social identity. Marlow highlights the interpretive nature of Jimsstory and the potential for dispersed individual responses: there shall be no message, unless such as each of us can interpret for himself fromthe language of facts, that are so often more enigmatic than the craftiestarrangement of words ( Lord 340). Thus, Jims hopes for a social self- realization capable of overcoming the persistent fact of his involve-ment in the Patna episode are undermined by the representation of hisnal days in the language of facts ( Lord 340). Similarly, the impene-trable silence of Jims death undercuts Marlows investigation of Jimsmoral self-awareness. Through Marlows approach to Jim, Conrademphasizes how external constructions of identity involve the ctionalnalization, or lling in, of silences at the source of personal identity.Through Marlows encouragement of active dialogue with other char-acters and with his audience, Conrad shows how social constructions of identity in which others become the subject of unied classication arealso forged in uncertain silence. Jim passes away under a cloud, andas Marlow notes [t]here is much truth after all in the common expres-sion under a cloud: it is a brief phrase that, like Marlows romantic- ironic stance, alludes to both doubt and guilt ( Lord 416, 339). Jims

public life consigns him to uncertain silence (blurred by crowds of men as by clouds of dust), but it is a silence in which Marlow seeks the



19/22

and other, between author and reader: if the text concludes under acloud of reticent doubt, there is, Marlow suggests, much truth after

all to be found in a common expression of the subjects silence ( Lord416, 339).

NOTES

1. Conrads model of private and public identity- formation resemblesMikhail Bakhtins early writings on the relationship between the subjects un-nalizable I- for-myself and the nalized versions of an I- for-others (Art 1-35). ForBakhtin, as for Conrad, ethical social existence depends upon an uncertain

seeking out of ones dispersed I- for-others in an impossible yet fruitful effort to pindown a complete sense of oneself ( Art 1-35). See also Emerson and Morson (180).

2. Greaney and Pedot both owe something to Martin Rays seminal discus-sion of Conrad and silence: Ray argues that Conrads highly ambiguous atti-tude towards silence can be traced to the legacy of two traditionsone, stem-ming from Stphane Mallarm and Arthur Rimbaud, and nding in silence thepromise of cathartic release from languages inadequacy; the other, descendingfrom Blaise Pascal, treating silence as a kind of cosmic terror bringing only theannihilation of the writers achievment (49, 46).

3. Pertinent, here, is Ian Watts discusssion of gaps in Conrads impres-sionistic use of thematic apposition, the juxtaposition of apparently digressiveepisodes with important episodes in Jims life encouraging the readers symbolic deciphering (280, 270).

4. Speech126.5. In her Bakhtinian account of Lord Jim,Gail Fincham draws attention to the

nameless and voiceless status of Marlows audience, claiming this anonymityleads to the narratives self- enclosure and narcissism: [e]laborately framed asa dialogue, it is in effect monologue (61, 66, 66). According to Fincham, Conradconstructs a double- voiced discourse in which the voice of the author can beheard ironically contextualizing the universal claims of Marlows masculinistdiscourse (74). In labeling Marlows narrative as monologic, Fincham neg-lects the important contrast between Jims confessional insistence on the belief of his audience and Marlows active, dialogic uncertainty concerning the responseof his audience. Jim asserts mastery over the interpretation of the silences heplaces at the jumps motivational source by conning his audience to the silenceof conrmation. In contrast, Marlow acknowledges the uncertainty of internalsilence, not only for Jim but also for himself, and seeks to locate stable interpre-tation, a shared recognition of meaning as becoming, through active dialecticwith his audience.

6. This brief, enigmatic passage has become possibly the most contentious inthe Conradian oeuvre ( Lord 214). In Conrad in the Nineteenth Century, Watt pro-vides a useful though somewhat oversimplied account of critical responses to



20/22

itual desolation; the thirties rejected this interpretation, claiming the passagechampioned individuality; Morton Dauwen Zabels discussion of redemption in

the forties introduced a note of unsupported optimism; this was echoed byRobert Penn Warren in the fties who read the passage as establishing an onto-logical dualism between the natural and the human, or evil and good; andnally in the sixties a concentration on literal difculties led to a denition of the passage as opaque or illogical, a conclusion Watt himself supports in hisfocus on the epigraphs revisions (326, 326, 327, 328, 329). More recent criticsremain divided among those who believe Conrad supports Stein (such as StevenBarza), those who claim Stein is the target of the novels irony (such as RoyalRoussel), and those who believe that Conrad does not allow the reader to decideeither way (such as J. Hillis Miller).

7. Critical responses to the place of the privileged man in Conrads narra-tive have tended to follow this path. Linda M. Shires claims the real reader isdirected towards disciplined romanticism by hold[ing] in tension a totallyxed interpretation of Jim by Stein and the lack of an interpretation by theanonymous man (28). Along similar lines, Amar Acheraou reads Marlowspresentation of textual fragments to the privileged man as a tacit invitationto the reader to provide a free interpretation of Jims mystery (181). Marlowsletter clear[s] the way for an active privileged reader: it symbolises thefailure of the Word and myth, the death of the author and emergence of thereader (Acheraou 182).

8. Critics have frequently noted the ambiguity of the conclusion to Lord Jim. Jakob Lothe emphasizes the cumulative doubt underlying the novelsgradual revelation of the impossibility of understanding [Jims] motives andactions (171). Robert Hampson states that [i]n his death, either Jim has foundthe opportunity for complete self- realization or he has made a romantic gesturethat forever saves him from confronting himself (135). Such critical uncertaintystems from the unstable oscillations of the nal paragraphs, oscillations indica-tive of Marlows romantic irony. While Batchelor notes how Marlow continuesto offer rm indications of how we should judge, undercutting the illusionthat the evidence is being presented for our judgment, he does not recognizethe tragic nature of that direction, concluding that the novel is in favor of the judgment that both the inner and outer honor have been retrieved ( Lord 153,158).

WORKS CITED

Acheraou, Amar. Narrator- Narratee Dynamics in Lord Jim. In Gallix 17182.Ambrosini, Richard. Conrads Fiction as Critical Discourse . Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press, 1991.

Bakhtin, Mikhail. Art and AnswerabilityEarly Philosophical Essays . Trans. VadimLiapunov. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990.

S h G d O h L E T V W M G Ed C l



21/22

Batchelor, John. Introduction. Lord Jim. By Joseph Conrad. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1996. viixxi.

.Lord Jim. London: Unwin Hyman, 1988.Berthoud, Jacques. Joseph Conrad: The Major Phase. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1978.

Conrad, Joseph. Lord Jim. London: Gresham, 1925.Deleuze, Gilles, and Claire Parnet. Dialogues. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Bar-

bara Habberjam. London: Athlone, 1987.Emerson, Caryl, and Gary Saul Morson. Mikhail Bakhtin: The Creation of a

Prosaics. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990.Ferarro, Julian. Jim, Marlow, and the Reader: Persuasion as Theme in Lord Jim.

Conradian20.1 (1995): 118.

Fincham, Gail. The Dialogism of Lord Jim. Conradian22.1 (1997): 5874.Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in this Class?The Authority of Interpretive Communi-ties. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980.

Gallix, Francois, ed. Lord Jim/ Joseph Conrad. Paris: Ellipses, 2003.Greaney, Michael. Conrad, Language, and Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press, 2002.Hampson, Robert. Joseph Conrad: Betrayal and Identity. Houndsmills: Macmillan,

1992. Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act.

London: Methuen, 1981.

Lothe, Jakob. Conrads Narrative Method. Oxford: Clarendon, 1989.Mellor, Anne. English Romantic Irony. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

1980.Miller, J. Hillis. Fiction and Repetition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1982.Moser, Thomas. Joseph ConradAchievement and Decline. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 1957.Pedot, Richard. With sealed lips: The Enigma of Rhetoric in Lord Jim.

Lpoque Conradienne(2004): 18595.Raval, Suresh . The Art of Failure: Conrads Fiction. Boston: Allen, 1986.Ray, Martin. Language and Silence in the Novels of Joseph Conrad. Critical

Essays on Joseph Conrad. Ed. Ted Billy. Boston: G. K. Hall, 1987. 4657.Roussel, Royal. The Metaphysics of Darkness: A Study in the Unity and Development

of Conrads Fiction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971.Shires, Linda M. The Privileged Reader and Narrative Methodology in Lord

Jim. Conradiana17.1 (1985): 1930.Stape, John H. Lord Jim: The Problem of Patusan. In Gallix 4356.Watt, Ian. Conrad in the Nineteenth Century. London: Chatto, 1980.Zabel, Morton Dauwen. Craft and Character: Texts, Methods and Vocation in

Modern Fiction. London: Gollancz, 1957.



22/22

Documents

Lord Jim Interpretation