In Heart of Darkness, what does it mean about Kurtz that "he had something to say," why is it a victory, and how does it contrast with Marlow?Heart...

In Part III of Heart of Darkness,
Marlowe compares his "extremity," or experience of coming to the brink of death, to
Kurtz's "extremity." Marlowe confesses that in his extremity, if it had proceeded as far
as Kurtz's had (to death), he probably would have found that, unlike Kurtz, he would
have had nothing to say: in the all-important last "pronouncement" of a lifetime,
Marlowe thought he would be without remark. He indirectly (and therefore ambiguously)
explains the meaning of this by discussing the meaning of Kurtz's last words: "The
horror!"

Marlowe explains that in the last moments, with
his eyes wide open, Kurtz took in the aspect of the "whole universe" and, in that
moment, had the courage to pronounce a judgement upon what he perceived. His judgement
was that it was "horror!" In this analysis, made by Marlowe, the horrors of the ideas
and activities of the colonial trading stations become equated with the ideas and
activities of the "whole universe," the whole of civilized humankind's ideas and
activities, and Kurtz judges them with his last breath to all be "horror," ironically
including himself in his pronouncement. The ambiguity arises because it may be that
Marlowe is dramatizing, if he has been found to have any tendencies toward being an
unreliable character and narrator, and that Kurtz didn't mean the whole world but only
the part of the world represented by the colonial trading station and the ideas and
activities forming its foundation, ideas and activities such as Kurtz himself
demonstrated.

In either case, Marlowe states without
ambiguity that the wonder is that Kurtz was able to perceive and to judge: his judgement
was unequivocal condemnation: "The horror!" It is this that Marlowe suggests he would
have been unable to do had his extremity taken him to the final step over "the edge."
Marlowe would not have been able to judge: He would have had nothing to say about the
value and truth of what he perceived. Kurtz could--did. Marlowe
couldn't--wouldn't--wouldn't have any judgement to pass like Kurtz's "The horror!" More
ambiguity enters because Marlowe doesn't indicate whether his silence would stem from a
lack of moral vision and values, a lack of courage, a lack or understanding, or an
unwillingness to pass judgement lest judgement be passed on him likewise. He doesn't
leave a clue as to his revelation of cause behind his expected
silence.

Compared to Marlowe,
Kurtz's ability to make a moral judgement was a
victory of goodness over evil, of light over darkness. On
the other hand, Marlowe's expected silence in his last
breath would be a defeat of moral judgement or vision or
courage or willingness or purity; a defeat of light by darkness.