<<

. 40
( 47 .)



>>

±· In Joseph Conrad, Najder argues that writing Under Western Eyes set Conrad
˜˜face to face with a black wall of hopelessness raised by the [political future
of Poland] . . . That feeling of helplessness associated with guilt might be
expected to lead to a severe depression in a person of Conrad™s constitution™™
(p. µ). Najder discounts the various attributions of Conrad™s nervous
breakdown o¬ered by Bernard Meyer in Joseph Conrad: A Psychoanalytic
Biography (Princeton University Press, ±·), particularly Meyer™s attribution
of the breakdown to Conrad™s ˜˜sense of ˜Slavonism™™™ (p. µ). Yet it is likely
that Conrad™s very resistance to pan-Slavism, including his insistence on the
Westernness of Poland, may itself have added to the stresses of writing for
English readers who did not always acknowledge the distinction between
Russia and Poland.
± Interestingly, Razumov is de¬‚ected from this vision of communion with
Haldin by the ˜˜sidelong, brilliant glance of a pretty woman “ with a delicate
head, and covered in the hairy skins of wild beasts down to her feet, like a
frail and beautiful savage™™ (p. ). Instantaneously, another passer-by brings
up the image of ˜˜Prince K -, the man who once had pressed his hand as no
other man had pressed it . . . like a half-unwilling caress,™™ whereupon
Razumov decides to turn in Haldin. Razumov™s submission to the Law of
the Father “ here, in the person of his biological father “ is in¬‚uenced by the
power of possession and of position that he associates with the pretty woman
and her fur coat. For an analysis of Razumov™s character along Lacanian
lines, see Josiane Paccaud, ˜˜The Name-of-the-Father in Conrad™s Under
Western Eyes,™™ Conradiana ±, no.  (Autumn ±).
± Conrad wrote ˜˜The Secret Sharer™™ between ± and ± December, ±°, and
submitted the uncorrected typescript of Under Western Eyes to his literary
agent on January ·, ±±°. See Keith Carabine, ˜˜˜The Secret Sharer™: A
Note on the Dates of Its Composition,™™ Conradiana ±, no.  (Autumn ±·).
° Bonnie Kime Scott makes an argument comparable to mine in ˜˜Intimacies
Engendered in Conrad™s ˜The Secret Sharer™,™™ Case Studies in Contemporary
Criticism: Joseph Conrad™s ˜˜The Secret Sharer˜, ed. Daniel R. Schwarz (New
York: Bedford Books, ±·).
± Joseph Conrad, ˜˜The Secret Sharer™™ (±±), The Portable Conrad, ed. Morton
Dauwen Zabel, (Harmondsworth: Penguin, ±·), pp. µ“.
 Karl, Joseph Conrad, p. ·µ.
 Conrad, ˜˜The Secret Sharer,™™ p. °.
 Conrad outlined the novel in a letter to John Galsworthy on January ,
±°, marking the Russian section of the novel as ˜˜done™™ and the Geneva
section as yet ˜˜to do™™: ˜˜The Student Razumov meeting abroad the mother
and sister of Haldin falls in love with that last, marries her and after a time
confesses to her the part he played in the arrest of Haldin and death of her
 Notes to pages ±µ·“±µ
brother. The psychological developments leading to Razumov™s betrayal of
Haldin, to his confession of the fact to his wife and to the death of these
people (brought about mainly by the resemblance of their child to the late
Haldin) form the real subject of the story™™; quoted in Karl, Joseph Conrad,
p. .
µ Conrad cut several long passages from the typescript, including an episode
in which the narrator criticizes Peter Ivanovitch™s feminism to his face, then
goes on to criticize his niece™s marriage plans. See David Leon Higdon and
Robert F. Sheard, ˜˜Conrad™s ˜Unkindest Cut™: The Canceled Scenes in
Under Western Eyes,™™ Conradiana ±, no.  (Autumn ±·). Conrad made these
revisions in the spring of ±±°, much later than his change in plans for
Razumov™s and Natalia™s marriage.
 Regarding the functions of the nineteenth-century conventional epilogue,
see Marianna Torgovnick, Closure in the Novel (Princeton University Press,
±±), p. ±±.
· In ˜˜Ford Madox Hue¬er and Under Western Eyes,™™ Conradiana ±µ, no. 
(Autumn ±), Thomas Moser links the scene in which Peter Ivanovitch
abuses Tekla over some badly prepared eggs to Conrad™s modelling of the
˜˜great man™™ on Ford Madox Ford (pp. ±·±“). But Moser misses the more
direct antecedent of this scene in Ford™s anecdote about William Morris:
˜˜William Morris came out onto the landing in the house of the ˜Firm™ in
Red Lion Square and roared downstairs: ˜Mary, those six eggs were bad.
I™ve eaten them, but don™t let it occur again™™™; Your Mirror to My Times, ed.
Michael Killigrew (New York: Holt, Rineheart, and Winston, ±·±), p. .
Ford™s emphasis on the aggressiveness of the Pre-Raphaelites in this piece “
˜˜[a]bout the inner circle of those who fathered and sponsored the Aesthetic
movement there was absolutely nothing of the languishing. They were to a
man rather burly, passionate creatures, extraordinarily enthusiastic, extra-
ordinarily romantic and most impressively quarrelsome™™ (p. ) “ also strik-
ingly recalls Conrad™s characterization of Peter Ivanovitch.
 Cited in Higdon and Sheard, ˜˜Conrad™s ˜Unkindest Cut™,™™ p. ±·.
 Daniel R. Schwarz, for example, argues that the narrator ˜˜a¬rm[s] per-
sonal values™™ in the way that he ˜˜involves himself in Nathalie™s a¬airs, and
befriends her with a sensitivity and responsiveness that her Russian ac-
quaintances lack™™ (pp. ±µ“), concluding that ˜˜[h]is civilised conscience
emerges as the viable ethical alternative to anarchy and fanaticism™™ (p. ±±);
Conrad, ˜˜Almayer™s Folly™™ to Under Western Eyes (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, ±°). For Schwarz, the narrator exempli¬es a di¬erent kind of man
and a di¬erent kind of relation between men and women, a ¬gure who
translates the novel™s plots of political and gendered victimization into
something else, something better. Suresh Raval, The Art of Failure, Conrad™s
Fiction (Boston, Allen & Unwin, ±), assesses the narrator as an inad-
equate observer of Russian life who is motivated partly by sexual interest in
Natalia, thereby qualifying Schwarz™s approbation. Raval minimizes, how-
ever, the impact of those ˜˜certain moments [which] suggest that [the
Notes to pages ±µ“± 
narrator™s] interest in Nathalie Haldin derives from his impotent and
jealous romantic love for her™™ by arguing that ˜˜these moments are not
serious™™ (p. ±). See also Victor Luftig, Seeing Together: Friendship Between the
Sexes in English Writing from Mill to Woolf (Stanford University Press, ±),
p. ±·, for a positive appraisal of this bachelor narrator™s capacity for
cross-gender friendship.
° On reevaluating narcissism, see Michael Warner, ˜˜Homo-Narcissism: or,
Heterosexuality,™™ Engendering Men, ed. Boone and Cadden, and Hewitt,
Political Inversions, pp. °“·.
± On tableaux vivants, see Halttunen, Con¬dence Men and Painted Women, pp. ±·µ“
°.
 Such a scene marks the denouement of Thomas Southerne™s The Wives
´
Excuse; or Cuckolds Make Themselves (±±), whose stage directions call for an
˜˜Anti-Chamber.™™ The second example of a discovery scene is from Shake-
speare™s The Winter™s Tale (±±±); this play™s climactic spectacle featuring
Hermione as a statue who comes to life informs my analysis of Natalia™s
metaphorical transformation into a statue.
 My reading of spectatorship is indebted to the debate about gender and
power that galvanized feminist ¬lm theory in the ±°s and °s. This debate
was spurred by Laura Mulvey, ˜˜Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema™™
(±·µ) and, later, ˜˜Afterthoughts on ˜Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema™
inspired by Duel in the Sun™™ (±±), both reprinted in Feminism and Film Theory,
ed. Constance Penley (New York: Routledge, ±). The contributions to
this debate are too numerous to list here, but two essays particularly
relevant to the issues of sexual di¬erence and the mechanisms of pleasure in
narrative cinema for men as subjects and objects of the gaze are David
Rodowick, ˜˜The Di¬culty of Di¬erence,™™ Wide Angle: A Film Quarterly of
Theory, Criticism, and Practice µ (±); and Steve Neale, ˜˜Masculinity as
Spectacle,™™ Screening the Male: Exploring Masculinities in Hollywood Cinema, ed.
Steven Cohan and Ina Rae Hark (New York: Routledge, ±).
 Critics in the ˜˜unreliable narrator™™ tradition have seized upon this moment
as exemplifying this narrator™s failure of imagination or perception; see, for
example, Robert Secor, ˜˜The Function of the Narrator in Under Western
Eyes,™™ Conradiana , no. ± (±·°“±); and Tony Tanner, ˜˜Nightmare and
Complacency: Razumov and the Western Eye,™™ Critical Quarterly , no. 
(Autumn ±).
µ Marjorie Garber, Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety (±; New
York: Harper, ±), p. ±.
 Garber, Vested Interests, p. .
· Juliet Mitchell, Psychoanalysis and Feminism; Freud, Reich, Laing and Women (New
York: Vintage-Random House, ±·µ) glosses Freud on fetishism: ˜˜The
instance of fetishism indicates (as does incidentally, that of the Medusa™s
head) the other dimension of the castration complex: fear of the mother, or
rather of the mother™s genitals “ that ¬rst proof that castration can occur . . .
There is always this oscillation between disavowal and acknowledgment;
µ° Notes to pages ±·“±·°
the ego has split itself as a means of defence™™ (p. µ). Marjorie Garber, Vested
Interests, elaborates on this classical formulation: ˜˜We might notice where
according to Robert Stoller ˜reassurance™ comes for transvestites in the
possession of a penis and its capacity for erection, for Riviere™s fetishist the
`
possession of the penis is itself grounds for anxiety™™; Garber nevertheless
o¬ers a comparable account of the narrative ˜˜dynamics of fetishism™™: ˜˜the
deferral of detection, the deferral of the denouement, is part of the story™™
´
(p. °).
 Hal Foster, ˜˜The Art of Fetishism: Notes on Dutch Still Life,™™ Fetishism as
Cultural Discourse, ed. Emily Apter and William Pietz (Ithaca: Cornell Uni-
versity Press, ±), p. .
 Garber, Vested Interests, glosses Lacan™s precept: ˜˜In other words, because
human sexuality is constructed through repression, the signi¬er of desire
cannot be represented directly, only under a veil™™ (p. ).
° According to both the gospels of Matthew and Mark, the death of John is
seen as the desire of the mother, Herodias, not the daughter, Salome; see
Garber, Vested Interests, p. °. See also Charles Bernheimer, ˜˜Fetishism and
Decadence: Salome™s Severed Heads,™™ Fetishism as Cultural Discourse, ed.
Apter and Pietz. Natalia as Salome would neatly explain the narrator™s
emphasis on his ˜˜thinking about Natalia Haldin™s life in terms of her
mother™s character™™ (pp. °°“±) and his account of Natalia ˜˜justif[ying] her
action by the mental state of her mother™™ (p. ).
± I am indebted to Foster, ˜˜The Art of Fetishism,™™ for the insight that ˜˜It is
this preexistent loss in the subject that demands fetishistic perfection in the
object (a recognition that puts a very di¬erent spin on ˜art appreciation™)™™
(p. ).
 My account of the variations on the Medusa myth is based on Edith
Hamilton, Mythology (±°; Boston: Little, Brown, ±) and Eleanor Wil-
ner, ˜˜The Medusa Connection,™™ Triquarterly  (Fall ±).
 The Medusa™s head refutes the notion of androgyny, or of androgyny as a
harmonious balance of masculine and feminine elements, since a gendered
battle for preeminence is built into the narratives that it represents.
 Sigmund Freud, ˜˜Medusa™s Head,™™ The Standard Edition of the Complete
Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, ed. James Strachey,  vols. (London:
Hogarth Press, ±µ“±·), XVIII, pp. ·“.
µ Marina Warner, Monuments and Maidens: The Allegory of the Female Form (New
York: Atheneum, ±µ), pp. ±°“±, traces the use of this ¬gure. See also
Neil Hertz, ˜˜Medusa™s Head: Male Hysteria under Political Pressure,™™ and
Catherine Gallagher, Joel Fineman, Neil Hertz, ˜˜More About ˜Medusa™s
Head™,™™ both in Representations  (Fall ±).
 Helene Cixous, ˜˜The Laugh of the Medusa,™™ trans. Keith and Paula
´`
Cohen, Signs ±, no.  (Summer, ±·).
· Freud makes no mention of Perseus in his ˜˜Medusa™s Head™™ essay, focusing
instead on the virgin goddess Athena and the male spectator that she
petri¬es with horror with the head of Medusa pinned to her breastplate. In
Notes to pages ±·±“±· µ±
Freud™s account, the petri¬ed spectator is normatively male and human,
and the petrifying object of spectatorship, she who controls the gaze, is
normatively female and godly, and also doubled in her identity as Medusa/
Athena.
 In ˜˜Brides of Opportunity: Figurations of Women and Colonial Territory
in Lord Jim,™™ Qui Parle , no.  (Fall ±), Natalie Melas notes the portrayal
of Jewel as an ˜˜unforgiving Medusa,™™ whose stony-faced aspect Marlow
mimics when he ˜˜looks hard™™ at Stein, the pun on whose name Melas also
notes. Conrad also uses Medusa imagery in Chance (±±) to describe the
horri¬ed response of Flora de Barral to her rejection by the governess who
is her surrogate mother.


µ    ®          ¬  ®  ¬  ¦      ¬  
± ˜˜Why My Uncle Was a Bachelor,™™ Harper™s New Monthly Magazine , no. ·
(April ±µ).
 On uncles as threshold ¬gures who mark by transgressing the bounds of
bourgeois familial domesticity, see Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, ˜˜Tales of the
Avunculate: Queer Tutelage in The Importance of Being Earnest,™™ Tendencies
(Durham: Duke University Press, ±), and Eileen Cleere, ˜˜˜The Shape of
Uncles™: Capitalism, A¬ection, and the Cultural Construction of the Victor-
ian Family,™™ PhD thesis, Rice University (±). On the comparable discur-
sive function of bachelor cousins, see Michael Lucey, ˜˜Balzac™s Queer
Cousins and Their Friends,™™ Novel Gazing, ed. Sedgwick.
 Edward K. Graham, ˜˜The Necessary Melancholy of Bachelors,™™ Putnam™s
Monthly Magazine , no.  (September ±°), µ. Further page references
will be cited in the body of the chapter.
 David H. Lynn, The Hero™s Tale: Narrators in the Early Modern Novel (New York:
St. Martin™s Press, ±) considers these three ¬rst-person-narrated mod-
ernist novels, together with Heart of Darkness and The Sun Also Rises, in the
more conventional context of the collapse of traditional values in the early
twentieth century.
µ Joseph Conrad, Chance (±±; New York: Penguin Books, ±·), p. ±µ.
Further page references will be given in the body of the text with ˜˜C.™™
 See LC±, p. ±µ±.
· The uncontrolled ˜˜sharp comical yapping™™ of the dog resonates with
Marlow™s own narrative voice, a connection suggested earlier in the text:
˜˜while waiting for [Mrs. Fyne™s] answer I became mentally aware of three
trained dogs dancing on their hind legs. I don™t know why. Perhaps because
of the pervading solemnity . . . In these words Mrs. Fyne answered me. The
aggressive tone was too much for my endurance. In an instant I found
myself out of the dance and down on all-fours so to speak, with liberty to
bark and bite™™ (C µ).
 The following is a mere sampling of popular ¬ctions featuring the ˜˜bach-
elor and the baby™™ plot: Judith Canute, Eros and Anteros; or The Bachelor™s
µ Notes to pages ±±“±
Ward (New York: Rudd and Carleton, ±µ·); Coyne Fletcher, The Bachelor™s
Baby (New York: Clark and Zugalla, ±±); Sarah Beaumont Kennedy, ˜˜A
Bachelor™s Ward™™ Everybody™s Magazine , no.  (March ±°); Masson, ˜˜The
Bachelor™s Christmas Baby™™ (see chapter one, n. ··); Margaret Cameron,
˜˜The Bachelor and the Baby™™ Harper™s Monthly Magazine ±±, no. ±
(February ±°·); Lillian Leveridge, ˜˜The Bachelor and the Baby,™™ The
Canadian Magazine , no.  (February ±±°); Louise Bascom, The Bachelor
Club™s Baby (Franklin: Eldridge Entertainment House, ±±); and Henry
James™s ¬rst novel, Watch and Ward (Boston: Houghton, Osgood, and Co.,
±·).
 Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness (±), The Norton Critical Edition of Heart of
Darkness (New York: Norton, ±), p. ±.
±° Chance actually has three Charlies, if we include the ˜˜Charley™™ who is the
supposed nephew and actual lover of Flora™s governess, and who courts
Flora until she loses her fortune. In ˜˜Chance and the Secret Life: Conrad,
Thackeray, Stevenson,™™ Conrad and Gender, ed. Roberts, Robert Hampson
also comments on Chance™s ˜˜patterns of re¬‚ection and repetition: the two
men called Powell; the three men called Charles; three women described as
governesses, the two elopements; and so on™™ (p. ±).
±± On intersecting perceptions of pedagogy, pederasty, and pedophilia, see
Hewitt, Political Inversions, pp. “ and pp. ±±“·°.
± Anne McClintock, Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial
Contest (New York: Routledge, ±µ), pp. “µ.
± Admittedly, Jewel brings a female presence into the Patusan plot, although
her boyishness and her portrayal as an aspect of Jim himself complicate her
status as a female character. In ˜˜˜Ghosts of the Gothic™: Spectral Women
and Colonized Spaces in Lord Jim,™™ Conrad and Gender, ed. Roberts, Padmini
Mongia argues that Jim is himself ¬gured as a Gothic heroine, symbolically
reborn in the maternal space of Patusan. Jim™s emergence from the muddy
bank in Patusan could equally well be interpreted as a male anal rebirth, a
re-genesis of man from mud comparable to the emergence of the adven-
turers from the subterranean tunnel in Haggard™s King Solomon™s Mines. On
the topic of women in Lord Jim, see also Melas, ˜˜Brides of Opportunity.™™
± McClintock, Imperial Leather, p. ±.
±µ Marianna Torgovnick, Gone Primitive: Savage Intellects, Modern Lives (University
of Chicago Press, ±°), p. ±µ.
± McClintock, Imperial Leather, p. .
±· In Modernism and the Fate of Individuality, Levenson analyzes the concept of the
˜˜beyond within™™ in Heart of Darkness; see pp. µ“±. He clari¬es the import-
ance of this concept for modernist and colonialist narrative, but does not

<<

. 40
( 47 .)



>>