The essay has been criticised for being "a political statement rather than a literary criticism". Conrad has frequently been defended on the basis of the historical context in which he lived, or on the grounds that his writing is nonetheless "beautiful". The first comprehensive rebuttal of Achebe's critique was published in 1983 by British critic Cedric Watts. His essay "A Bloody Racist: About Achebe's View of Conrad" defends
Heart of Darkness as an anti-imperialist novel, suggesting that "part of its greatness lies in the power of its criticisms of racial prejudice." Palestinian–American theorist
Edward Said agreed in his book
Culture and Imperialism that Conrad criticised imperialism, but added: "As a creature of his time, Conrad could not grant the natives their freedom, despite his severe critique of the imperialism that enslaved them". Building on Watts and Said, Nidesh Lawtoo argued that "underneath the first layer of straightforward opposition [...] we find an underlying mimetic continuity between Conrad's colonial image of Africa [in
Heart of Darkness] and Achebe's postcolonial representation" in
Things Fall Apart. When questioned about his view as to the "artistic merit" of Conrad's work, Achebe responded: I never said at any point that you should stop attaching artistic merit to
Heart of Darkness; if you want to you can. There are all kinds of sophisticated readings of
Heart of Darkness, and there are some people who will not be persuaded there is anything wrong with it. But all that I'm really demanding, I'm not simply putting it, I'm demanding that my reading stand beside these other readings ... Although he's writing good sentences, he's also writing about a people, and their life. And he says about these people that they are rudimentary souls ... The Africans are the rudimentaries, and then on top are the good whites. Now I don't accept that, as a basis for ... As a basis for anything. == References ==