The terms of “good” and “evil” have been defined in different ways by a good number of sources. According to the Oxford Dictionary “good” means “having the required qualities, of a high standard; possessing or displaying moral virtue” and “evil” means “profoundly immoral and wicked.” What might at first seem like a clear opposition between the two concepts becomes extra complex after a thorough study. The dichotomy between good and evil has been heavily discussed by critics, whether a clear divide between the two concepts can truly be established or whether the answer is going beyond it has been the focus of attention in plenty of different fields of study. In literature, the categorisation of characters in these terms has been extremely common…show more content… When Laura ask her whether she has ever been in love, she responds with “"I have been in love with no one, and never shall," she whispered, "unless it should be with you."” (V) She is awfully direct when it comes to express how she feels, and she does not hesitate to let Laura know, making sure she is completely aware of what her feelings are. At one point in the novel she even suggests how she would be pleased if Laura chose to share immortality with her. “"But to die as lovers may--to die together, so that they may live together.” (IV) This instance resembles a marriage proposal, where Carmilla’s love for Laura, and her desire to be with her forever can be seen once again. She also talks about love in an uncommonly non-idealised way, pointing out that its nature is not pure or inherently good, “you will think me cruel, very selfish, but love is always selfish; the more ardent the more selfish.” In doing this she is also directly challenging the convention of there being a split between good and evil and showing in her speech how they can be intertwined in further ways than it is commonly thought. Thus, it is proved how Carmilla’s complex character challenges the simplistic dichotomy between good and evil in more ways than one – her behaviour, speech,…show more content… Jekyll from Mr. Hyde, when, in reality, they are the same person. Jekyll-Hyde should be thought of as just one character who displays an exaggerated level of dualism. “In the novel, Stevenson creates a hero in Dr. Jekyll, who aware of the evil in his own being, and sick of the duplicity in his life, succeeds by way of his experiments on himself in freeing the pure evil part of his being as Mr. Hyde, so that each can indulge in a life unfettered by the demands of the other.” (A study in dualism) What Jekyll tries, and ultimately fails to do, is to harden the divide between good and evil, completely separating the two spheres, and asserting the dichotomy. However, it can be seen how his plan fails, and how Hyde starts influencing what Jekyll feels. “My two natures had memory in common, but all other faculties were most unequally shared between them. Jekyll (who was composite) now with the most sensitive apprehensions, now with a greedy gusto, projected and shared in the pleasures and adventures of Hyde; but Hyde was indifferent to Jekyll, or but remembered him as the mountain bandit remembers the cavern in which he conceals himself from pursuit. Jekyll had more than a father’s interest; Hyde had more than a son’s indifference.” (Henry Jekyll’s full statement of the case) Thus, the dichotomy between good and evil is challenged because of the impossibility to