So far, it is clear to see the themes and stylistic choices that Conrad has employed in his attempt to depict the idealistic perception of colonialism and the greed masked with civility that is prevalent in hollow society. The seamless, interwoven nature of Marlow’s dialogue, internal thinking and vivid imagery contribute to the sentiment of existence that Conrad was trying to emphasise upon. The way I see it, we are witnessing the very thought process and creation of perspectives that we usually cannot see in a man’s mind, but Conrad has achieved a sense of fluency in the way that he has incorporated these three elements together to represent the true idea of human nature. However, this leads one to question Marlow himself as a narrator; is he unreliable in that he is biased, or confused himself? Racism and colonialism are two ideas that can exist separately, and it is clear to see that Marlow perceives himself as enlightened about the true nature of colonialism for its materialistic spoils. However, it is clear to see the blatant racism on the part of Marlow, especially in his use of vivid imagery to describe the scenes at the railway construction site and the Grove of Death; the black slaves have been dehumanised to the point of representing no more than the disease they have fallen victim to.

His inherent bias can also prove to open up our understanding to what Conrad is attempting to talk about and communicate. He is, after all, the only one on the ship who is completely willing to go the other way, and truly believes he understands the truths about colonialism, being ready to go against what man would consider his most fervent desire at the time. Marlow in a sense is still exploring himself; although he is inherently biased and corrupt by the social contextual ideals of the time, there is a sense of morality and truth to him that seems to be absent from most of the other characters. It represents the conflict of cynicism and romanticism, in that Marlow has opened his eyes to the real world and seen colonialism for what it is, whereas those around him tend to use the tinted glasses of civility and honour through which to see the situation. Perhaps Marlow represents Conrad himself, and the experiences he had in being the only one who was aware enough to see what he saw in the Congo for what it really was.

Finally, there seems to be a lack of moral certainty to this story. It is quite ambiguous, in that it is a story that ends where it begins (as per what I have heard from those who have read the book and completed it). This leads me to question whether there was anything learned at all, or whether anything has changed. Have we merely come back in a full circle, the characters having spent all this time trying to persuade someone if not themselves, only for them to have given up and accept the very ideals they seemingly fought against? Marlow might have changed before, especially after his experiences in Africa, but there is a suggestion for a lack of learning anything at all.