The story concerns the adventures of Allan Quatermain, who serves as the narrator of the novel, as he journeys with his companions, Captain Good, Sir Henry and the Zulu native Umbopa to find Sir Henry’s brother who became lost searching for the legendry King Solomon’s Mines. It was the first ‘Lost World’ novel and spawned a genre that continues to produce examples today such as Indiana Jones and The Mummy. It is entertaining, full of excitement and laugh-out-loud funny to boot.
It’s not an accident that I should some day have come to read this novel – even though its popularity has waned considerably – and perhaps only tenuously holds its place as a classic. Nor is it an accident that my last name should match the last name of Rider Haggard’s – he is my great uncle (throw in a few more greats for good measure). I was introduced to it by my grandfather, but being a somewhat disinterested teenager, I never read it while he was alive – much to my great regret. Nevertheless my grandfather, through great encouragement of the book itself, inducted me into its values. As he was my introduction to this book you will perhaps forgive me a short digression as I introduce it to you through his eyes.
My grandfather himself was born perhaps a generation too late. He saw first hand the second world war that destroyed the British empire – and the post-colonial society that replaced it. He lived in Rhodesia (now known as Zimbabwe) before Mugabe came to power – and left before the last remnants of British society were swept away (with no illusions about what that would mean in the long run). For my Grandfather, King Solomon’s Mines was a window back into an old world that he had been consistently denied. By the time I was old enough to begin understanding such issues – the colonial ideal was dead. But he still believed in it. The idea was that more fortunate peoples owed it to the less fortunate to share in their success. For him, the motivating principle of colonialism was not greed, but ‘noblesse oblige’ – great power implies great responsibility. King Solomon’s Mines represented that best of British spirit to a popular culture that believed it through and through. How astonishingly stark a comparison it makes to all the related literature that followed Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.
I think it’s appropriate that the image of greed is fore grounded by Haggard throughout the novel. The diamond mine itself is the title. But there is a cautionary dimension. As the novel relates, all those that seek the diamonds out of greed end up either failing miserably or perishing in some misadventure. Our protagonists are seeking the lost brother of Sir Henry. When they make it to the mine itself, it is only after they have performed noble deeds across the land of the Kukuanas (a fictional lost tribe of Zulu like warriors that live beyond an impassable desert). When they offer to go to war for their friend Umbopa, he offers them the treasures of Solomon as a reward for their help – but only Quatermain acknowledges that he would include this as his motive as he’s a “practical man???. Once the war is done, Haggard begins to create a sense of deep foreboding about the treasure. Gagool, the old witch that leads them to the treasure, makes repeated mention of the white man’s lust for white stones and juxtaposes that with the grizzly end that she predicts for them – as though it is their greed that will be their undoing. Indeed, after being trapped by Gagool in the cave of riches, they hardly care to take more than a handful – their near death experience causing them to regret their lust for limitless wealth.
The civilising colonial spirit gets a strong run. There is hardly a thought of going native in any kind of a Kurtz like fashion. The closest any of them come to it is the character of Good who develops a romantic relationship with a beautiful Kukuana girl. But this entanglement is explicitly frowned upon by Quartermain who echoes the girl’s own words to the effect that “the sun cannot mate with the darkness???. Even when she dies Quartermain sees that as preferable than Good actually taking up a relationship with her – such is the revulsion to the idea of going native in any sense. Similarly, the white travellers try their hand at civilising the Kukuana tribe. The evil king regularly murders members of his own army for no reason than having been singled out by a witch. Quatermain and his companions exact a promise from Umbopa such that in exchange for their help in overthrowing the king, he must promise to end the barbaric practice and never condemn a man without a fair trial.
But for a noble, civilizing spirit, it has its darker side. The patronizing superiority of the Victorian attitude is thrust in our faces at every opportunity. The white men assume the mantle of gods among the Kukuana people, using their guns and an extremely convenient eclipse of the sun to prove it. The issue of English superiority over the African is made evident even when the narrator is approving, for example:
Then we all laughed and took it for a good omen. He was a cheerful savage was Umbopa, in a dignified sort of a way, when he had not got one of his fits of brooding, and had a wonderful knack of keeping one’s spirits up. We all got very fond of him.
And when Umbopa the Zulu presumes to speak as an equal to Sir Henry, Quatermain tells us:
I was angry with the man, for I am not accustomed to be talked to in that way by Kafirs, but somehow he impressed me, and besides I was curious to know what he had to say, so I translated, expressing my opinion at the same time that he was an impudent fellow, and that he swagger was outrageous.
To be engaged in any kind of civilizing enterprise as did Victorian England, there simply must be this kind of feeling of superiority. It’s embedded in the logic. The result is a racism far worse than any ascribed to Conrad by the likes of Chinua Achebe.
There are other oddities about this book which are somewhat off-putting. A whole chapter is given over to an elephant hunt. It is totally irrelevant to the larger plot and contributes nothing. We cringe nowadays at such senseless slaughter since we know that this attitude has led to the endangerment of the elephant as a species. What’s astonishing about this chapter is the enjoyment and gaiety of description. In contrast with the chapter that describes the random murders of the Kukuana tribesmen, one might think Haggard was being ironic. But he’s not. Their butchery is fine, but that of the “Kafirs??? is not.
One might feel we haven’t come very far since those days. The neo-conservatives talk about their civilizing mission in Iraq – their quest to spread their superior ideals. And maybe there’s a significant percentage of us who buy into that story. But imagine this novel, re-written for today, set in Iraq, with a group of Americans looking for lost Arab treasure. On their way, they set about showing those ‘savage’ Arabs the right way to live – teaching them about democracy and the like. Do you think such a novel would be as popular as Haggard’s was?
I think it very unlikely.
8 Comments
A good article, giving a fair, historical analysis, spoiled by a rather uneccessary bit of equivocation at the end.
Comparing the hunting of elephants to murder of fellow human beings is morally bankrupt.
I’m not sure whether the final chapter is meant to criticize the rationale behind the invasion of Iraq, or the progressive multi-cult ideology that holds the notion of Iraqis being able to self govern to be worthy of ridicule.
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your reply.
With respect to the elephants I guess it comes down to one’s view about animal rights. I think there has been a shift in sentiments at least to the extent where people in general would not want to see them hunted, particularly if it means their extinction.
I think my main point here was to point out how there is absolutely no conscious self-irony at all in the presentation of the different forms of butchery (butchery of people as opposed to the butchery of elephants). In the hands of someone like Conrad, however, such a comparison almost certainly would have come in for ironic treatment. Ivory, after all, is the object of greed in ‘Heart of Darkness’. Ivory in Haggard is just the spoils of a bit of sport – it’s the diamonds that serve as the cautionary tale.
I was actually wrong about the last part. There is a modern rendition of the Haggard story set in Iraq after all. It is a movie called ‘Three Kings’. A group of soldiers go hunting for some Kuwaiti golf and end up helping refugees. All through the movie there is an undercurrent of ‘why aren’t we helping these people throw off the shackles of Saddam’s rule?’. Hence it is naively imperialist as well.
The current situation in iraq is the reality now confronting those with such a naive view of imperialist objectives. If you believe the nobless oblige reasons for the invasion (spreading democracy and so forth) and support those reasons, then there is really only one conclusion I’d like such people to draw from my essay… that such a sentiment is unlikely to result in a fun, humorous tale of adventure.
First thing first, the ideology inherent in this novel is not representative of an entire generation; that is a naive conception. If you make it analogous to Harry Potter…I don’t see people believing in Voldemort or magic? Do you? Secondly, if you pay sufficeint attention to Achebe’s comments in the various articles written, then you will see there are no insinuations that Conrad is himself racist, but Achebe is rather critical of the institution of colonisation itself. Finally, you condemn elephant hunting… no doubt you are representative of that new breed of neo liberal democrats who feel the need to universalise everything, repress vices, and institutionalise people into a utopian society; to its own detriment. You may not be aware, but in South Africa, several years after elephant hunting was banned, their numbers had swelled to such gross proportions that they were eating everything in site – resulting in the deaths of thousands of other indiginous birds, retpiles etc. The solution? SLaughter of ten thousand elephants, mothers and children. Whole Families. All because men, white or black, were refused permission to hunt them. A similar situation has arisen in a number of countries – in this case foxes in GB > Problem? Hundreds of sheep dying as fox numbers increase. Good situation? I think not. Have a heart, think of the collective good, and stop getting bogged down in details. Ciao Haggard.
Hi John,
I appreciate the comment.
To your first point – of course any generalisation about a time and an epoch remains just that… a generalisation. There will be people who fit the bill, and many who don’t. Yet I still believe that it is possible to characterise, in some general form, the features of an age. If this were not possible, then general discussion itself would be impossible.
Now while it is certainly debatable whether I’m correct in supposing that Haggard’s novel is representative of the Victorian age and its attitudes – but your argument against this conclusion is a little sub par I’m afraid. Of course, not many people came away believing in magic after reading Harry potter – but then, I’m not claiming anyone came away from reading Haggard believing in Kukuana Land. But did the readers approve of the civilizing mission that the white men take upon themselves? Did they have any problems calling native Africans “Kafirs’? There was probably a much greater concurrency in this respect. So you need to distinguish between certain literal elements of the fantasy and the attitudes and values expressed by means of the fantasy..
When I say that it was the Harry Potter of it’s day – I mean only that it was extremely popular. I don’t mean to imply that Harry Potter is also similarly representative of our times. That would be a much more difficult case to build – unless we were arguing the case that our age consists of people who like formulaic fantasy plots.
As for Achebe – I’m pretty sure you’re wrong on this one – but I’ll find the quote for you and post it here later to make sure (I have been wrong before). As I recall, he argued that Heart of Darkness was indeed a racist text and he even expressed dismay that it was taught almost universally in various courses on post-colonial literature.
It’s a bit much to infer ‘neo liberalism’ from my comment about the elephants don’t you think? Let’s leave my politics off the table for the moment (whatever it’s label – although I’m pretty sure Neo-liberal is not it).
I’m all for population control of just about any species – given that it’s done humanely and properly motivated, i.e. the species is itself being protected, or some legitimate human interest is being served. (This sense of legitimate does not extend to the greed that motivates the trade in ivory.) Now that’s not what is occurring in the book. The elephant are slaughtered with elephant guns. It would have been slow painful deaths for the lot of them. Their tusks would have likely been hacked off while they were still dying – as the practice is common to modern day ivory dealers.
I do appreciate the comment – but I hope you don’t mind me taking issue with some of your reasoning.
Hi, I believe what was at issue was your suggestion that the ideals of the book were shared by an entire generation. I simply thought that it was a rash suggestion. Also your notion that “general” discussion would not be possible were it not for “generalisations” seems somewhat nebulous. A quick look at the likes of Foucault or Lyotard reveal problems with such thought.
Finally, the fact that the elephants had slow, painful deaths is essentially irrelevant. Pain is a product of evolution, of nature. Certain instances in nature no doubt see much worse than that suffered by elephants. I am not trying to defend such action, but rather offer a shift in perspective to what you offer….anywho, some funny stuff alright.
Oh, I don’t think it is necessarily greed that is the principle motivator (certainly not promulgator) behind the trade in ivory. ..although if we were to generalise…
Just thought I’d throw that out there, see what happens you know. Have a nice day.
Oh as regards your politics; it is not in my slightest interest what your politics may or may not be. I was simply taking issue with what I see as the ever increasing power of the “nanny” State, breeding generations of people who become so enamoured with their restrictions, and health and safety regulations, that life seems to slowly ebb away, like a falling tide. I am not trying to be dramatic, just pragmatic in some abstract manner. Maybe you see what I mean, or perhaps you are already on their side!! Ha. Just kidding.
I’d be interested to read the discussion by Foucault or the like. The process of making generalisations is not something I’ve studied in depth – except perhaps Hume on inductive generalisations (but that’s not the same thing really). But I must admit I don’t really understand how any discussion can get going without some ability to generalise. No doubt there are technical discussions about what a legitimate form of generalisation would be. Perhaps mine wasn’t one of them.
No doubt I could benefit from further study on the issue – but I’ll be very surprised that further study doesn’t confirm my view that Victorian england (in a general sense) was all for imperialism – and that the opinions of the populace from then to now has undergone a dramatic shift.
I do see your point about the Nanny state… I’m just saying leave the poor elephants alone okay!!!
I loved this book as a child (circa 1955) and found it almost as compelling on rereading it recently. There are many really beautiful passages (usually introduced by an apology from Quartermain for his lack of literary talent). However, I think that the novel is a good deal more subtle about racial attitudes than you suggest. It is Quartermain, not Haggard, who is the narrator and several times his attitude is directly undermined by events and by our discovery of character. Good never gets over the death of Fulata, finding all other women wanting compared to her, and the behaviour of the Kukuana warriors and people is consistently intelligent. For example, they see quite clearly the aim of the witch-hunt is to terrorise them and grab land and women, but they are powerless to do anything about it without a focus for the political succession. Many give up their lives in this struggle when the opportunity arises to overthrow the tyrant. Sir Henry actually fights as a native warrior and Quartermain remarks how his stature and behaviour show his Viking ancestry has qualities in common with the Kukuana warrior code. By contrast, Quartermain thinks nothing of shooting an opposing warrior in the back!
Re the elephants: Quartermain is an elephant hunter so you might expect him to describe this event at length. It does have fatal consequences for the party. Good is nearly killed and his Zulu bearer nobly gives up his own life to save him. Umbopa’s comment on this gives us more information on his character as well.
Ignosi’s last wisdom as the new King, is to warn the whites to keep out of his land. He specifically mentions the threats posed by the “prayer-men” and the settlers and fortune hunters to the well being and independence of his people. People we have been led to admire. So colonialist attitudes (this novel was written just after the Zulu war) take a bit of a beating there!
2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] Leggere qui un interessante articolo di un pronipote di Haggard [...]
King Solomon’s Mines – External links…
King Solomon’s Mines External links An Analysis of Colonial Themes in King Solomon’s Mines…
Post a Comment