I love redemption arcs, I loved flawed Romantic heroes; what I don't love are racism, colonialism, and sexism. In this novel, the cascading waves of the latter absolutely overwhelm any chance of enjoying the former. Jim, a seaman with a corrupt captain, participated in an incident in which much of the crew left a ship full of religious pilgrims for dead -- only whoops, they didn't actually die. Marlow -- the same observer/sometime narrator of Heart of Darkness -- attends Jim's trial and, while officially condemning his actions, becomes obsessed with helping him, because he's "one of us," one of "our kind." "Us" and "our" here have the incredibly narrow definition of "white, straight, upper or upper middle class, male, English"; and Marlow's actions have the feel of people pleading for a white male athlete who's committed a rape or other violent crime to be given a second chance because he has "such a promising future." Ew.

I know people defend Heart of Darkness by stating that Conrad was actually skewering and intentionally exposing the dark side of colonialism, but I didn't really see that here -- he seems sincere in his disdain for colonized people, all people of color, and women especially; he seems sincere in his belief in Jim's "civilizing" rule over them, once our titular fuckboy fails up into being given a command on a remote isle; he seems sincere in some very regressive and destructive views of masculine duty and worth. 

I don't in any way believe in throwing out the great white whales of traditional literary studies -- I usually think, instead, that the canon should be expanded upon to highlight the diversity that did exist and wasn't previously given the same spotlight. This one, though? This can maybe go.