Heart of Darkness

     I think one of the major factors that contributes to Heart of Darkness being a psychological novel is the way that Conrad so distinctively describes every aspect of what is being seen or told in Marlow's story. Marlow clearly saw and went through some very unpleasant situations while he was working and residing in the Congo, and Conrad does not skimp on the details whatsoever. In looking at the way that he describes the natives that he sees in the "grove of death," we can feel a real sense of uneasiness and sympathy for the individuals who have crawled there to die. Conrad does not just say that the black figures were very skinny and bony. Instead he says that the bones and joints in the figures looked similar to "knots in a rope." Also the way that he describes the eyes of the figure who is closest to him makes the reader feel as if they were actually sitting there watching this man die. You can literally see "...kind of blind, white flicker in the depths of the orbs, which died out slowly." Because Conrad uses such descriptive and distinct language, it causes the reader to form very vivid mental images, which in turns starts to produce many other thoughts and feelings inside of us. For example, it makes you start to wonder what you would do in a situation like the one that is described in the novel. Would you try and help all of the figures who are slowly starving to death in the shade or would you simply just leave them be and let them slowly die in peace? Would you try and rebel against the authorities in charge who are ultimately murdering the natives or would you eventually form the same mindset that these mysterious black figures are in fact the criminals and enemies on this unknown piece of land? This is exactly what is meant by the term "psychological novel." When you read Heart of Darkness, it is impossible to not feel completely consumed and immersed in the text and begin to think such profound thoughts about yourself.
     Marlow was clearly different from the other white men that he encountered in the Congo. He did observe what was going on in this isolated world, and yet he also seems to know that it is wrong. He doesn't seem to agree with the colonization of these people and their homeland. He clearly felt uncomfortable with the things that he saw while he was there. He seems especially tormented and haunted by it all--if he weren't I don't think he would be telling this story in such a vivid account, especially when he is not even sure if the others are still awake listening to him. He is telling the story for more therapeutic reasons rather than just to pass the time. The way that Marlow portrays the colonizers makes them seem completely unjust and arrogant. Especially with the way he describes their clothing and the things found in their personal huts. The accountant complains because he has to listen to the groans of a sick man, while out in the darkness of the wilderness, multitudes of natives huddle together in the shade to die quietly and peacefully. Conrad and Marlow both are portraying the colonization of this area in a very negative manner, and I don't blame them in the least.

Villain or Hero?

     The most current villain that I can think of would The Capitol in the recent book series The Hunger Games. That probably makes no sense to most people, but The Capitol is basically the new, dictator type of government in America about 50 years from now. It is run mainly by President Snow, but there are also many little minions and soldiers that he sends out from The Capitol to do his dirty work. I think the immense mystery factor is what makes The Capitol so frightening and ominous. The people living in the Twelve Districts are forced to watch video messages from The Capitol and are only told exactly what The Capitol wants them to know. Often times, workers from The Capitol will arrive on hover crafts, abduct a certain citizen, and then disappear with them never to be seen again. Many people are killed for the smallest crimes, so everyone is constantly scared to death to step out of line. The Capitol also holds The Hunger Games every year, where two children from each District must be given up to compete to the death. While most of the Districts greatly oppose and loathe this practice, The Capitol views it as a way of maintaining order and preventing another uprising like they had so many years ago.
     The Capitol is comparable to Shakespeare's Iago in that it has not very clear motives for the things that it does. Losing children in the annual Hunger Games completely disrupts the lives of the District for the entire year, until they have to turn around and do it all over again. Iago is very similar in that he is constantly disrupting the lives of all the people around him; and right when they're about to get over it or let it go, Iago chides them and gets them worked up all over again. While The Capitol claims that they continue the Hunger Games to maintain order, that is very questionable because they have many other ways of maintaining order throughout the Districts. Similarly, Iago claims that he is only stirring up trouble because of his love for Othello, but we all know that there are many other ways of showing your love towards another person.
     The thing that makes both of these villains so interesting is that you never really know what to expect from them. While it is extremely suspenseful and frightening for the people involved in the story, it's a bit exciting for the reader to wonder what in the world this person is going to come up with next. I think it is safe to say that Iago is truly evil. He was simply jealous and seeking revenge for not being named lieutenant by Othello. He is evil in the sense that there was absolutely no justifiable reason for the things that he did to multiple people's lives. I do think that Iago is brave, but only in the sense that it took a lot of nerve to try and mess with that many people's lives--especially people who have so much power over him, like Othello. I do think Othello is slightly to blame for a small part of the chaos, simply because he was so quick to believe Iago rather than question his wife, Desdemona. But there is no way to look past the completely poisonous thoughts that Iago was feeding Othello. It's no wonder that Othello became completely wrapped up and consumed by the seeds of hatred that Iago was planting in his mind.

Modern or Medieval?

I definitely believe that human beings are much more civilized today than they were in earlier civilizations. Yes, there may still be murders and types of segregation today, but the repercussions for these acts are much different than what they were in previous times. For example, in Electra, Orestes murders his mother and stepfather to avenge his father's death. Back then this was viewed as simply justice; today, Orestes would have been locked away in prison probably for life. This is very similar to the ruling system that was set up in Mesopotamia, commonly known as "an eye for an eye". If some kind of wrong doing or crime was committed, everyone believed that you could simply set it right by doing an equal act in return. In today's society this would be viewed as extremely barbaric and unacceptable. 139 One major thing that would definitely not be tolerated today are the proud and public lynchings of African Americans today. There might be mild instances of racial segregation today, but the violence that was exhibited and displayed during the times that Coming of Age in Mississippi was set in would not be tolerated, and further more praised, today like it was so many years ago.
In saying that our society today is more "modern" than previous societies, I think we are absolutely correct. By simply looking at the different ways that things like punishments and disciplinary actions that are taken today. However, there is definitely evidence to argue that we are still stuck in somewhat medieval ideas. In society as a whole, women's rights and privileges have most definitely advanced and improved, but there are still many instances where women are treated differently and unfairly simply because of the fact that they are a female. While we have seen great strides 300 for women equality, for example the achievements made by Hillary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, and Nancy Pelosi, there are still methods and examples of the male population viewing the females as insufficient. For example, often times women are given more consideration for certain schools or jobs simply because institutions think that females need some kind of extra help to balance things out between the males. Being a very strong, independent, and intelligent female myself, this is extremely insulting to me. Why do people think that women need or should have extra points simply to get us on the same level as men? This is completely parallel with the ideas and thinkings exhibited in Electra. The entire cast didn't believe that Electra was in well enough standings to avenge her father's death; however, Orestes was simply because he was a male. The fact that Electra was written so long ago and we still mildly suffer from the same problems shows how long it takes mankind to truly change and evolve.
In The Epic of Gilgamesh, there are many heroic and mythological stories of violence and death. While these may seem completely irrelevant to society today, they actually somewhat coincide with many happenings occurring today. Gilgamesh faces many battles and struggles, as do all of us every day in our culture. We face battles against starvation, terrorism, cancer, racism, and so on; to me, all of these things listed are just as great, if not even worse, enemies than what Gilgamesh continued to face.
I think there are many arguments to support the statement that we are definitely more modernized than earlier civilizations. The enemies we face, the punishments we receive, and the actions that are tolerated are all completely different to the ways these things were in all of our readings. While we do see small remnants of some of the foundations of these issues, they are definitely not as prominent or accepted as they once were. I think future generations will be extremely proud of the strides that we have made toward complete and utter equality and fairness.

Electra

     I think one of the resonating reasons for the longevity of the play, Electra, is its criticisms and possible questionings about the inequality that has been forever present between males and females. Throughout the play we are constantly told of Electra's overly passionate feelings of seeking revenge for her deceased father, yet she never is allowed to act on them. Everyone else around her just views her as irrational and almost maniacal; but in contrast, the minute that it is mentioned that Orestes should avenge his father, everyone is happy and pleased about it. How is this equal or fair at all? Agamemnon's death would have been avenged and set right either way, what difference did it make whether he was avenged by his daughter or son? I think Sophocles had a very analytical mind and didn't maybe understand fully what he was doing. For instance, in one view it could be said that he was making a mockery of women and female power in general. Playing up Electra's emotions and feelings is one way that Sophocles tried to make her appear inferior or even incompetent. But looking at the situations in today's light, we see her more of an oppressed female who is not being treated equally at all. Her goals and intentions were exactly the same as Orestes, yet she was seen as a fool for even thinking that she could possibly carry out her mission on her own.
     I think this play was very important especially during its own times because it did shed light on a subject that many people had probably never thought about or considered. Why were women's only jobs to be home makers and care takers of babies? Where did this thought of women being inferior ever begin? Yes, men might be physically more able in some certain aspects, but women have much more sinister and thought out plans for their goals. Even today, though many barriers and oppressions have been broken, women are still viewed as being the lesser of the two races. I think this is why we continue to read and study very early works, such as Electra. There was, and probably always will be, a need for women to fight to be considered equally as capable as the men in our lives. The fact that Sophocles, maybe didn't realize it, but did shed light on the fact that women are not treated the same as men, is proof for the fact that Sophocles saw the vast difference of rights shared between the males and females during his time.