This part is clearly showing the gender roles of the 1950's. Hella can only be a true woman if she has a man to take care of. It's not that she does it unconsciously, she is fully aware that this is the quality that makes her a women. Even though she classifies it as a "humiliating necessity" she still welcomes the idea with open arms because there wasn't another option for women of the time.To even further the idea of feminism in the 1950’s Hella claims she will be “obedient and devoted” to David being the most important qualities of a women. To me her whole trip to Paris was because she had this fear of having to be devoted to a "stranger" for the rest of her life. And she ultimately came back because there was something more terrifying about being alone and not fulfilling proper gender roles. Later when she learns that Giovanni has been cheating on her she is more concerned over “forgetting how to be a woman” than anything else.

This is a link to a bunch of advertisements of women's roles in the 50’s: https://www.pinterest.com/yourbrit54/ads-no-more/

I think Conrad titled this book what he did because once you're in the heat of the jungle you are blind to all European customs. If you're good in Britain you won't be like that in Africa. And you will only ever be evil in the wilderness. Once you’ve reached the heart of the darkness there is no turning back. Meaning being a savage is more powerful than holding to your British values because of its supposed evilness. Kurtz was consumed by the darkness and therefore was never able to return to British civilization.

This interaction is funny and intriguing. This was published 30 years before the suffrage movement and already you can see things are starting to change. Sherlock, although very progressive with his reason and detective skills, still sees women as inadequate. While Watson is coming around to the new way of thinking that women can have opinions and thoughts too.

(I’m putting this at the end of Small’s narrative because my annotation deals with the entire thing.) Doyle wrote this piece during the heat of british imperialism and had had much success in taking over indigenous populations. Doyle kind of shows India as mystical and full of treasure and there is this constant idea that the new world means wealth. It was a popular belief among people at the time. But paired with the luxurious treasure is the constant despair and destruction. Maybe Doyle is suggesting Britain’s ability to overthrow anyone shouldn’t be so highly praised for it only seems to cause chaos. By casting Sholto as a British man as well as a thief I think Doyle is showing his contradictory views. Maybe Doyle sees this expansion and power as robbing other nations and over stepping british boundary.

lapettit25