Conrad's Heart of Darkness and Coetzee's Waiting for the Barbarians have two similar characters. Although these characters are portrayed in different lights, the two of them share a significant amount of resemblance. One of them is a man of the company, an agent gone rogue who quests for ivory like no one else ever has. He becomes obsessed with his cause that he loses touch with reality and his European roots, preferring a life in the heart of Africa. The other is a man of the Empire, but not a man for the Empire. He plays the role of Magistrate in a far-off town on the frontier of the Empire, but as the story progresses we being to see that he does not believe in the Empire he has served for almost thirty years. He becomes obsessed with finding an answer to his question, as well as a meaning and purpose for his life. Both men are complex characters who are difficult to fully understand and comprehend.
Even though Conrad’s Mr. Kurtz and Coetzee’s Magistrate are in similar situations as men with a position of power in a remote part of the world, they evoked strikingly dissimilar emotions in me. I see Mr. Kurtz as a greedy man who will do anything for the betterment of his ivory output. However, there are brief moments where Kurtz is sympathetically viewed as a good man who was twisted by the “heart of darkness” that is the wilderness in Africa. On the other hand I see the Magistrate as a caring man who thinks about more than just himself. The Magistrate is a compassionate character who takes pity on the prisoners, respects history, and puts what is morally righteous over his own personal gain. In my mind the two characters are in similar situations, but have strikingly different personalities.
Kerr explains the similarities and difference between the two characters in his article and explores how they “went wrong.” But upon finishing both books I believe the biggest difference is the way in which the characters are portrayed to the reader. The Magistrate is the narrator of Waiting for the Barbarians, so naturally the reader connects to, empathizes with, relates to, and understands him. Conversely, Kurtz is seen through the eyes of the, as Kerr puts it, “prosaic, pedestrian reporter” of Marlow. The way Marlow portrays Kurtz there is emotion felt by the reader, in my case one of tragedy; but it is not nearly as strong as the extreme emotions I felt for the Magistrate. Kurtz and the Magistrate are two characters that share many common themes, but are portrayed and interpreted by very different means.
