Reflection

I changed a lot in terms of my writing this year. It wasn't because of the format, the class, or anything like that, it was just because my skills improved with practice. I am a little more excited about reading, but that's just part of my natural ebb and flow. i have become a less informal writer and have used an actual structural format much more frequently. I think it's because I've learned to write what the teacher wants to see. Mr Evans was cool with any format and my informality in my essays and had us write timed essays. So, I rewrote what I could without a structure and used my speaking voice to write. With Dr Forman I knew he wanted us to use structure and have good examples and we had mostly take-home essays, so I took my time and used structure and plotted out my points more clearly. Really, though p, I don't think I've changed much. I've gained valuable insight into how college will be for me and how to read well for college and how to write in a manner that teachers like, but I had that propensity within me already. I guess, then, that this class brought out the skills I'll need for college earlier. This is because of my teacher (and not the details of class he taught), who made me write and read as though I was in college.

Possible essay title

Game of moans: a song of passion and isolation

(Reference to game of thrones)

works cited

Camus, Albert. The Stranger. Trans. Matthew Ward. NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1988. e-book.

Conclusion

The Stranger is about the final months of a man only called Mersault who finds himself constantly outcast by society. Mersault starts a relationship with Marie, and they match the relationship paradigm almost perfectly. They feel the traditional emotions toward each other, they plan on getting married, and they display the remorse and morbitity one would expect after a break-up. This, however, separates them from the rest of society because no other love-based relationships around Mersault are "normal." Their relationship also actively pushes Marie and Mersault to the fringes of society: they get into their own little world with each other, they have a strange love dynamic with an unofficial engagement, and they had the arrange at first date ever. No matter what Mersault does, he ends up an outcast, and this is Camus' design. He made Mersault an outcast because that's how he and his readership feel, and in the end he wanted to make us feel happy with life and understand the need for ostracism and something else. I need to fix that last sentence but I don't have enough time

Second body

Mersault and Marie's relationship is peculiar in the way it makes them treat others and appear to the world, thus isolating them. When Mersault is in prison, Marie writes to and visits him. Their encounter when Marie visits him forces the reader to see the ostracism their relationship brings them. "Already pressed up against the grate, she was smiling her best smile for me. I thought she looked very beautiful, but I didn’t know how to tell her... We stopped talking and Marie went on smiling. The fat woman yelled to the man next to me, her husband probably" (81). Marie and Mersault aren't loud like the other couples, rather they are filled with love for each other, and this is their only opportunity to express and embrace that love. However, all of the other prisoners express their love by shouting empty words at each other. Marie and Mersault's traditional love, then, sets them apart from others and forces them into their own little bubble. Their relationship is not entirely normal, though, and some of its aspects even alienate the reader. "That evening Marie came by to see me and asked me if I wanted to marry her. I said it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to. Then she wanted to know if I loved her. I answered the same way I had the last time, that it didn’t mean anything but that I probably didn’t love her" (50). Their marriage is neither confirmed not entirely consensual, they do not love each other equally, and they have trouble verbalizing their feelings for each other. This sets theirs apart from almost all relationships becaus of it's abnormality and alienates the reader because of the strange and unequal love equilibrium. During Mersault's trial his prosecutor uses his relationship with Marie to illustrate his moral downfalls, and thus his guilt. He said "after his mother’s death, this man was out swimming, starting up a dubious liaison, and going to the movies, a comedy, for laughs" (101). The fact of the matter is that all of this hips true: he did do all of these dubious things that indicate a lack of emotion. But that's just the nature of Mersault and Marie's relationship: their love blocks out everything around them, including sorrow. Unfortunately, it does not prevent them from seeming strange to the world and estranging them from it, so continuing the motif that originated with the title: The Stranger. Boom! Second body

Writing essay

I need to change the thesis so that it doupesnt talk about M and Marie's personalities and talks about how their relationship isolates them instead. Here goes an attempt at the first body.

Marie and Mersault match the stereotype of a man and a woman in love, display the traditional relationship emotions toward each other, and spend time together like other couples; however, these very things that make them normal also isolate them because no other love-based relationships in the book are like theirs. Marie expresses her emotions toward Mersault a few times in the book, and they are what you'd expect her to feel given their relationship. In chapter five, Marie "mumbled that [Mersault] was peculiar, that that was probably why she loved [him]" (50-51). Normal relationships work in that exact way: the two partners love each other because of their peculiarities. When their relationship is forced to end, Mersault presents the typical degradation of love that one would expect from a human with a broken heart. "Salamano’s dog was worth just as much as his wife. The little robot woman was just as guilty as the Parisian woman Masson married, or as Marie, who had wanted me to marry her. What did it matter that Raymond was as much my friend as Céleste, who was worth a lot more than him? What did it matter that Marie now offered her lips to a new Meursault?" (128). Mersault and Marie's love meets the norm almost exactly, even in its death. However, that very fact separates them from the rest of the world. Salamo loves his dog, but he beats it and treats it horribly. Masson loves his wife, but he's a drunk and doesn't spend much time with her. Raymond feels strongly for Celeste but he beats her and is a pimp. The old man and maman loved each other but they didn't get married or show their love to the world. So really, by being exactly what one would expect, Marie and Mersault's relationship makes them unique in society, and thus outsiders.

Intro paragraph

I know it's a little late, but I was at heritage so I couldn't do this until now,

My question is: assess the social consequences of Mersault's relationship with Marie (be sure to mention being an outsider in your response).

Albert Camus's The Stranger, written in 1942, depicts the life of Mersault; a man outcast by society because of his indifference and his hatred of socializing. In the book, Mersault begins a relationship with Marie, a former coworker who loves him more and more as their relationship progresses. Their love story is the stereotypical one with a noncommittal man, a woman who is deeper in love than her partner, and a promise of marriage. However, their relationship still makes them strangers in society. Marie and Mersault's unique personalities and their fulfillment of the relationship stereotype make them different from normal people, thus leading to their social ostracism.

Obviously, this intro and thesis is a work in progress and I'm sure I will edit it more. I wrote it in a hurry so I will definitely need to change it.

Narrowing down essay

Why their relationship is normal: the emotions he expresses, their first date. Why what makes them normal also makes them outsiders: the paragraph about love toward the end, the other relationships, the prison visit, the timing of their first date.
How their relationship actively outcasts them: the prosecution about his relationship, the little world they get into when they're near each other, how their engagement was not really consensual or confirmed, the paragraph toward the end about how their relationship is meaningless when they are not cop lose, and how he never says that he loves her, only that he luste for her.
Obviously, I will not include all of these, but I'm helping myself narrow things down. I have already posted a draft of my thesis. I will work on its structure and wording when I 'm writing the first paragraph so it will fit with the paragraph and the essay.

Essay outline

So I've already posted my question and my thesis, so here's my outline.
Intro
Thesis

Paragraph about how Marie and Mersault's love is traditional. Start with something like their traditional male-female emotional, mutually exclusive, and physical relationship makes mersault and Marie the opposite of outsiders. I will end it with a point about how all of the other relationships in the book are "abnormal" so Marie and mersault are actually outcasts.

Then a paragraph about how their relationship alienates them from the rest of the world/makes them appear abnormal. I'll say something like Marie and Mersault's love is strange and unique, which makes them seen as weird by society. I'll include quotes about the prison, the beaches, the courthouse, and anything else I can think of.

Then I will write a conclusion about how a normal thing makes them outcasts and how Camus gives his story a message without loading his language. Boom

Camus 44-80

I didn't know if I had to do this because I was gone but whatever I'm doing it to be safe. So from 44-80 the book was good. The nature of the writing largely remained on course, one question that kept popping up in my mind was whether or not M would break or start showing extremes of emotion. I know he won't, but I still have hope. Okay that's enough blogging for today.

Blog

I just finished reading to page 104. It's a good story. Here's my question for the essay: how does Marie and M's love make him both normal and an outsider? My general thesis will be that because he loves a gupirl in to the traditional way and planned on marrying her, he was like all other men. But, the nature of their relationship is weird and gets attention so it also makes him an outsider,

Camus to page 44

So I read to page 44 (or so) in The Stranger. It was good. So far Meursault has been to his mother's funeral, "saw" a former lover, had dinner with a neighbor and went back to work (I think). I sense something looming on the horizon. Either he will kill himself or he will do something bad and wont know why he did it.
I think he might kill himself because he's dejected, he's been hanging around with bad people, he's been in a haze and he doesn't have a good, reliant friend or relative. Also, from all the books I've read, his writing/speech pattern matches those of characters who have committed suicide.
For those same reasons, he might commit a crime for no apparent reason. He needs to let out his emotions and remain an outsider and repress all of that relationship stuff, so he will harm someone.
But that's just what I think. Maybe he will continue what he's been doing and it will just be how he deals (or doesn't deal) with his emotions. Or maybe there will be some unexpected plot twist that comes way out of the blue. These 44 pages were set-up, we will find out what happens as we move forward.

Comparing the writing styles of Conrad, Kafka, and Camus

Conrad Kafka and Camus represent the high, medium, and low ranges (respectively) of loaded writing. What do I mean by loaded writing? Loaded writhing, for me, is when an author loads his words with themes, metaphors, images, motifs, etc. instead of just narrating a story. These varying concentrations of loaded writing parallel the authors' respective attitudes towards the stories. Marlow cares deeply about the goings on in africa, but he cannot express his distaste for European imperialism outright. So he loads his language and writes sentences like "the word ivory would ring in the air for a while-and in we went into the silence, along empty reaches, round the still bends, between the high wallsof out winding way, reverberating in the hollow claps the ponderous beat of the stern-wheel."
Gregor cares about his situation very much (because he's been turned into a bug). So, he includes both loaded language, obvious motifs and vivid images. A good example of this is when Gregor watches his family through a crack in the door (I did not include a quote because I'm short on time and lazy). Basically, he makes vivid images with emotional details that, when read in to, reveal more about the average German family, industrialized, Europe, and the dehumanization of the worker. Gregor cares, so he loads his language a little bit accompanied by obvious messages.

Camus doesn't load his language at all. He just describes the world as he sees it. Yes, he uses detached phrasing and language to mirror his detachment, but the story truly speaks for itself without the help of specific language. This is what a man does in the wake of his mothers death. The fact that he tells his boss he will take off two days even though he meant the weekend shows the post-loss delirium. His encounter with his coworker shows that he can forget about his moms death readily and cares more about his base urges than his emotions. Really, camus does such a good job crafting his story that he doesn't need to load his language.

genesis and darwin paragrpahs

Note: I did not know whether or not I needed to cite the books, so I assumed not because the handout had no citation. Also, this is fairly rough so be warned.

The bible's declarative and assuring language is designed to make people believe the story, while Darwin's use of grandiosity coupled with defensiveness amazes his supporters and placates religious conservatives.

The bible uses dramatic, definitive phrases to make people believe the creation story. The first line of Genesis demonstrates this quite effectively: "When God began to create heaven and earth—the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—God said, “Let there be light"; and there was light. God saw that the light was good” (B’reishit 1:1-4). The writers of the bible never say this is what could have happened or what they think happened, they say this happened and god is omnipotent. Also, the idea of god bringing light and life to infinite darkness makes him seem all-powerful and makes people believe in and fear him—the main reasons for writing the bible. The part about the creation of man carries the same weight, "and God said, “let us make man in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth” (B’reishit 1:26). The confidence the writer shows by declaring exactly what happened combines with the portion about the dominance of man to make readers of the bible believe what they're reading because people who say things so definitively predominantly speak the truth, and love god because he made them (the humans reading the bible) the dominant species. In these ways (among others), the writers of the bible used declarative and dramatic language to make people believe that the bible is accurate and respect (through fear and love) god.

Darwin uses grand predictions of the impact of his findings to draw in and amaze those who were convinced by the rest of the book and defensive retreats to avoid conflict with people who would be angered by his implied challenge to religion. Of the impact of his findings on the future of humanity he says, “a grand and almost untrodden field of inquiry will be opened, on the causes and laws of variation, on correlation of growth, on the effects of use and disuse, on the direct action of external conditions, and so forth.” Darwin, as he demonstrates in this quote, thought that the very essence of human thought, scholastics, and inquiry would be dramatically altered by his findings. However, only someone who trusts the accuracy of his research and theory (I would like to note here that evolution is just a theory, like gravity or the combustibility of wood) would be enticed by this notion, someone who remains unconvinced would simply shrug it off because he does not say that this will replace religion. In this way, Darwin uses specific language to astonish his supporters and placate strongly religious people. In the last paragraph of his book, Darwin says “To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.” This statement appeases many religious believers by stating that evolution does not eliminate god, rather it gives him more legitimacy. And, it gives people who would have trouble reconciling religious views and Darwin’s text a way to believe in both. Again, Darwin uses careful wording to attract followers and avoid conflict with religious conservative—a skill necessary to make his views less abhorrent to his contemporaries.

Small paragraph about metamorphosis

The title, "metamorphosis," suits the book because Gregor and Grete both to through transformations that are necessary and beneficial. Gregor transforms into a bug, has a hard life, and dies; however, this transformation is natural and beneficial (metaphorically natural). Gregor is so steeped in the colony-like work structure that he actually becomes a worker bug. Even when he is in a new body, terrified, and confused he still seeks forgiveness from up his boss. He tries to say "a person can be incapable of work momentarily, but that's precisely the best time to remember earlier achievements and to consider that later, after the obstacles have been shoved aside, the person will work all thee more eagerly and intensely"(Kafka 16). Even though he has just turned into a bug and is incapable of work, Gregor still feels the need to apologize to and resume working for his boss, like a worker bug. In this way, Gregor shows that he was really a bug all along, and so his transformation made him closer to his true self. Grete's transformation is summarized in the last sentence of the book, "and it was something of a confirmation of their new dreams and good intentions when at the end of their journey their daughter got up first and stretched her young body" (Kafka 53). The dreams and intentions mentioned in the quote refer (partially) to their desire to find Grete a new job, a husband, and put her new body and skills to better use. So basically, Grete transforms into a post-pubescent body and now she is going to use it to find a husband, work for more money, and take advantage of life. If Gregor hadn't transformed, she would have stayed in the home doing nothing and maybe gone to music school. Gregor's and Grete's metamorphoses allowed them to become who they really are and live a better and truer life.

Finished metamorphosis

I finished metamorphosis, it was meh. The sister wanted him gone and the parents were catatonic. Then Gregor just sort of dies at three in the morning from not eating, the apple, and a bunch of other crap. Oh, and wanting to die. Them th family does everything they want to. The dad kicks out the lodgers, they clean, they getclose, the write apologies to their employers, leave and make plans and decide to move and appreciate the great new prospects they have. Then the book ends with the parents appreciating the daughters hot body and nice prospects. This book made me sad. He gave everything for them and they hated him. And the family members suck-they're terrible people. I have to digest this terible, unsatisfying ending

Metamorphosis up to page 45

I read up to page 45 of metamorphosis and it was good. This section was all about Gregors relations with the family. The section ending was seriously awesome (I stopped on page 47). It ended with Gregor being enticed by Gretes violin playing, the lodgers seeing him, them saying they've wouldn't pay and the father closing and locking the door to do I don't know what with them. Gregors reaction to the music was extremely emotional even for a human-he really felt strong love and admiration for his sister.  this whole section was about how Gregor was still wanting to interact like a human, and that's very significant. Also, Gregor is dying from various wounds, specifically the apple lodged in his back. Quite ironic. I'm really enjoying this book. It's a quick read, it's deep, and its subtle. I would like to read it in German, tha would be fun.

Essay writing

I have overcome my challenges in writing, but I have come upon a new one. I used to have great ideas but was never able to express or argue them. Then, last year and this year, I figured out how to argue my point and say what I wanted to say. In the hamlet essay I really honed in my arguing, but wasn't bold enough. In the Austen essay I pulled a lot of different things together and managed to express them well, but wasn't bold enough (and was too informal). And the most recent essay was not bold enough and you didn't like how I expressed one or two of my points. I think what I need to work on is boldness. I can express myself and write good sentences and not be too informal, and tackle the small things that come up, but apparently my problem now is boldness. My means of expression has become less bold, and I need to work on that. My writing has gotten much better, but I still don't know how to fully express what I want to say. When I know exactly what I want to say, I say it well and am bold, but when I don't I get caught up in intricacies and don't outright state a claim. The only thing that can help me is practicing and keeping boldness in mind when writing. Personally, I'm happy with my writing now and don't really feel the need to improve it, but prudence dictates that I should. Yeah, so English is fun.

Metamorphosis up to page 35

This week, I read up to page 37 of the metamorphosis and it was great. This book is weird just like I. On page 26 (I think) we hear of the father's saved money, and that's good. Then Gregor starts to climb on the walls and ceiling and leaves the "white stuff" everywhere. We hear about the escapades of Grete going into Gregory's room and immediately needing to breathe at the window. Gregor puts a sheet over the couch to conceal his frighteing figure from Grete. His sister decides to make Gregors life easier by moving out all of the furniture. At first, Gregor is really excited about this and is very thankful. His sister enlists the help of the mother (who is elated to see her son agin). The mother thinks that it would be better to keep the furniture there so Gregor can have some semblance of humanity. Gregor likes this more and decides to side with his mother.but, the plan to remove the furniture proceeds. Once all of the furniture is gone and his mom and sister are in a different room, Gregor decides to climb on top of the picture of the woman in fur to save it. Once the mom sees this, she gets scared, faints, and Grete helps her. Gregor flees into a different room. He waits and then the dad comes home. They have a cute little walk around circle of centension and then th dad starts throwing fruit at Gregor. I think that's enough for me blog.

Metamorphosis up to page 25

These ten pages made me feel bad then good. First Gregor comes out of his room and tries to make peace but ends up terrifying everybody. Then his father shoos him away with a cane, his feet, and a rolled up newspaper. The he waits around in his room, sleeps, wakes up to find milk and white bread, hates it, loiters for hours, notices the fear and caution and silence of his family members, and then waits around some more (but this tome, under the couch). Then his sister brings him a shmorgus board of garbage and fresher foods, he loves the garbage and treats the fresher food like you would trash mixed in with your food. I'm not ready to interpret this story yet, and here's why. The plot and writing are too good, I'm too invested in the story, if I did analyze it it would be obvious and not fun, and I've never been able to ever through a book without predicting the ending based on my analysis (so why not try it now). I'm enjoying this book. It's weird, but its fun.

Another Socratic circle discussion

I liked it.

The group dynamic: it was the best that it could be. You effectively separated us into a group with our friends and people at or around our intelligence/ performance level. And the discussions flowed nicely: we talked, we analyzed, we thought, all that good stuff. There was one problem though:the activity seemed forced. Our discussions weren't spontaneous explorations of philosophical thought relating to our course content, we were following guidelines. And, we knew we were being braded on our performance. Without the otter two factors, I don't think this discussion would have precipitated, and I think that we would have had a more meaningful conversation. Going back to group dynamic, the forced and pressured nature discouraged some from speaking and made others dominate the weak ones (myself included). There were awkward pauses because we had to move on with the conversation but knew not how. And the conversation wasn't very deep. BUT, all of these are primarily a result of our nature, not the setup of the activity (although that certainly had an influence).  The activity was great and it helped us connect with the text. I just think that WE could have done a better job at overcoming our teenagerness

First metamorphosis blog

I read up to page 15 of the metamorphosis, and it was good. I can already tell there will be a lot about how people and companies are like bugs and colonies and we're all just pawns and have no real free will and aren't allowed to really think, and all of the degrading, bad things about companies and industrialized society. So far, all that's happened is Gregor woke up and saw that he was a bug and was late for work. Then he thought and tried to get out of bed and couldn't. And then his boss came and he still couldn't get out of bed. His sister knew that he had turned into an animal and now she is getting people to help him. There will be a lot of deeper meanings in this book, and that will be helpful for analyzing with a random book of my choosing. Okay, that's my blog

works cited

I think i figured out how to cite the Freud essay thing. Well, i hope i did it right because i already turned it in

Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents. 1930. Trans. Joan Riviere. Philladelphia: Kno Textbooks, 2007.

MLA

I couldn't figure out how to cite the Freud thing because I don't know very much about the document itself. But, here are the rest of the things I am citing.

Murfin, Ross C. Heart of Darkness: A Case Study in Contemporary Criticism. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989. Print.

Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. 1902. Charlottesville: Feedbooks,  2012. E-book.

Martel, Yann. Life of Pi. Orlando: Harcourt, Inc., 2001.

Freud and Conrad conclusion

Freud and Conrad exemplified the phenomenon known as synchronicity: they thought of the same intellectual idea at the same time, but completely separated from each other. They both saw a darkness at the core of all men that manifested itself in the way people treat each other. Freud explained this darkness using psychology. He said that people’s immoral and irrational desires are repressed into the unconscious where they control our behaviors and make us want to harm others, and that we should understand and accept this dark unconscious. Conrad, in literary fashion, says that the darkness is man’s natural tendency towards evil and that we should hide ourselves from it because it is disheartening. However, both Freud and Conrad agreed that all men have a heart of darkness. The reader, then, is left with a choice: choose to believe that men are innately evil or that men are innately good. Or, as Yann Martel put it “Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals?” (Martel, 317).

freud and conrad body paragraph 3

Due to their different perspectives, Freud and Conrad differed in their opinion(s?) as to what humanity should do with the knowledge of their inner darkness: Freud says we should accept it and Conrad says we should lie to ourselves. When talking about Kurtz’s legacy, Marlow says, “it was something to at least have a choice of nightmares” (Conrad, 76). Marlow is referring to his choice between being hated by his crew for believing Kurtz was good or his benefit to the company and living with the knowledge that Kurtz was a horrendous man. By saying this, Conrad (through Marlow) offers a choice: either accept and know the atrocities of colonized Africa, or live a privileged life, hoping that man is naturally good. Freud thinks we should accept the darkness of man. When talking about redistribution of wealth/equality/injustice he says, “nature began the injustice by the highly unequal way in which she endows individuals physically and mentally, for which there is no help” (Freud, 4?). Essentially, Freud is saying that people are naturally unequal, and men will inevitably exploit those inequalities because of their innate unconscious desires. Furthermore, mankind needs to know and accept the darkness as a part of psychology and not avoid it. Conrad has the opposite view. At the end of the book, Marlow lies to Kurtz’s fiancé, saying that his last words were her name, as opposed to “The horror! The horror!” (how do I cite?). Marlow wants the innocent fiancé to live her life thinking that Kurtz was a good man and that he did good things unto others. This is symbolic of what Conrad thinks mankind should do with the knowledge of the darkness: repress (suppress?) it under lies. Truly knowing the darkness in man would suck out people’s hope in humanity (the basis of most literary works). Freud’s and Conrad’s intellectual backgrounds gave them differing views on how men should deal with the darkness in them.

freud and conrad body paragraph 2

Freud and Conrad argue that the “darkness” at the heart of men is evil by nature: Freud says that the unconscious mind is filled with desires to do unspeakable things unto others, and Conrad uses his book to showcase the heinous behaviors that man’s darkness leads him to do.

Freud argues, in Civilization and its Discontents, that man naturally seeks to do harm unto his fellow man because of the id, and civilization is just a futile attempt to stop it. Freud describes the results of unconscious desires as such: “[Men’s] neighbor is to them not only a possible helper or sexual object, but also a temptation to them to gratify their aggressiveness on him, to exploit his capacity for work without recompense, to use him sexually without his consent, to seize his possessions, to humiliate him, to cause him pain, to torture and to kill him” (Freud, 1). For Freud, the unconscious makes men want to kill, rape, torture, and exploit each other to fulfill desires of which they are not consciously aware. This is a true darkness at the heart of man. The similarity between this list of uses of other men is bafflingly similar to Conrad’s descriptions of white men’s treatment of the Africans. For example, Marlow sees six emaciated, despondent, mentally empty African men chained together, walking in single-file up a hill, followed by a content white man carrying a gun (18-20). These men are not working for pay, food, or their families. All of that has been taken away from them. The white men have come and gratified their aggressiveness, exploited, raped, stole from, humiliated, tortured and killed the Africans: the darkness/ unconscious at work. Kurtz, the representation of unrestrained darkness, does equally heinous things to local tribes in trying to get ivory. “’To speak plainly, he raided the country,’ I said. He nodded. ‘Not alone, surely!’… ‘Kurtz got the tribe to follow him’” (Conrad, 68). Kurtz pitted tribes against each other, enslaved them, stole from them, tortured, and killed them, all in pursuit of personal gain. This exemplification of the “darkness” perfectly parallels Freud’s description of unconscious desires and demonstrates that the “unconscious” and the “darkness” driving men are composed of the same evils. In this way, Freud and Conrad’s theories about the malevolent core of all men are the same, just from different perspectives.