surface effect

I like the idea of high resolution/low resolution as brought up in class, but I do agree with the person (sorry I wasn't sure who!) that there are certain moments where the Africans are brought up in high resolution: the Africans paddling the canoe (who give a link to reality), the sick Africans near the river, the 'noble' cannibals on the boat, and the strange African woman.

(Of course, I have to admit that I'm not sure of the extent of Prof. Lim's analogy, so I'm taking the idea of 'resolution' as referring to one's sensation when reading descriptions)

I guess what that means is that its not enough to describe in high resolution or low resolution, but rather to evoke depth: without that, they are still objects, though perhaps aesthetically crafted ones. The African woman seems a partcularly striking example: a long description, but ultimately she remains opaque.

Perhaps this is why Conrad seems impressionistic: the narrative contains fragments in high resolution, seemingly solid, but merely glossing over an elusive, ambiguous reality. Conrad's narrators often provide very evocative, detailed descriptions, yet are always aware that they are merely 'scratching the surface of reality', so to speak.

This concern with surface and depth also occurs in Lord Jim: during Jim's trial, he considers "that only a meticulous precision of statement would bring out the true horror behind the appaling face of things. This "serried circle of facts" would seem to bring out a "truth", but it effectually only brings out a high-res image. What is suggested as essential is Jim's own testimony, what he thought he saw: not the objective truth, (that Jim absconded), but the subjective reasons for it - a trick of the eyes.