The incident at the window is demonstrative of this. The blood of the Victorian gentleman is frozen by what he beholds. I think so much can be taken from it because the number of interpretations that have been made of it are huge. It is told in my favourite style of narration: epistolary. There are a number of narrators, including Jekyll himself. Consequently, the interpretive value is increased significantly.
In addition to this, Hyde can be seen as the personification of having the so called exact physical characteristics of a criminal in the Victorian age, and the homosexual undertones are also very implicit in the text. There is just so much going on in here. The literary value of this is, of course, incredibly high. But, it is also incredibly entertaining to read.
This is, certainly, the best novella I've read to date. I had to buy a Folio Society edition of it, I just had to.
Plus there are really nice framing devices on display here, a check-mark always in my book, like the letters within letters narrative, a nifty exercise, which is mighty cool. Here, my favorite sentence from the Robert Louis Stevenson classic: "Jekyll had more than a father's interest; Hyde had more than a son's indifference.
And then there is the fact that the main protagonists become manifested once they are uttered into existence by the status quo, the pre turn of the century Londonfolk. Rumor creates their reputations before the two, er one, ever make the center stage.
I must mention that I feel as though the actual occurrence, the solved crime, what's underneath all the whispy artifices of this rudimentary detective-noir novel, is a homosexual relationship gone to extremes, to a level that's too Maybe that's a stretch. But This is not worthy of the canon!!!! Bottom Line.
Cos the whole Dual-Nature and Commingling-of-Good-and-Evil thing is overdone, stamped into the reader like some mantra that could be interpreted in many different ways and becomes, quite frankly, overly exhausted. This ain't as kitschy, or pre-kitschy-- nowhere near-- as I'd foolishly predicted. View all 5 comments. The work is also known as The Strange Case of Dr. Hyde, Dr. The novella's impact is such that it has become a part of the language, with the very phrase "Jekyll and Hyde" coming to mean a person who is vastly different in moral character from one situation to the next.
View 2 comments. What I learned reading Dr. By Jeff 1 Some things are better left unsaid.
Who knows how Hyde indulged himself? Running an orphan sweat shop?
Who the hell hangs out with lawyers? An episode of Scooby Doo, sure. Stage musical, no! Note to self: make Evil me smarter and even more cunning. Hyde, Costello, playing Tubby, is transformed into a big mouse. In Dr. Thank you! View all 34 comments. December Jekyll and Hyde is commonly evoked to describe someone with a split personality. Stevenson's novel is about a dual physical and spiritual nature struggling for control of one person.
In this struggle, Dr. Jekyll doesn't just assume a different personality, he actually becomes Mr. Keller pinpoints a key point in the story, noting that it's December Jekyll and Hyde is commonly evoked to describe someone with a split personality.
Keller pinpoints a key point in the story, noting that it's in a moment of vainglory that Dr. Jekyll involuntary transforms into Mr. This transformation occurs as Dr. Jekyll sits "on a bench in Regents Park, thinking about all the good he has been doing, and how much better man he was, despite Edward Hyde, than the great majority of people. View all 11 comments. Nov 15, J. After the overblown Frankenstein and the undercooked Dracula , it's pleasant to find that the language and pacing of the third great pillar of horror is so forceful and deliberate especially since I was disappointed by Stevenson's other big work, Treasure Island.
But then, this is a short story, and it's somewhat easier to carry off the shock, horror, and mystery over fewer pages instead of drawing it out like Shelley and Stoker into a grander moralizing tale.
But Stevenson still manages to get in quite a bit o After the overblown Frankenstein and the undercooked Dracula , it's pleasant to find that the language and pacing of the third great pillar of horror is so forceful and deliberate especially since I was disappointed by Stevenson's other big work, Treasure Island.
But Stevenson still manages to get in quite a bit of complexity, even in the short space. As I was reading it, I found myself wishing I didn't already know the story--that it hadn't been automatically transmitted to me by society--because I wondered how much better it would be to go in not knowing the answer to the grand, central mystery, but instead being able to watch it unfold before me.
Much has been said about the 'dual nature of man', the good versus the evil sides, but what fascinated me about the book was that despite being drawn in such lines, it did not strike me as a tale of one side of man versus another. Indeed, it is the virtuous side who seeks out a way to become destructive, showing that his virtuosity is a mere sham. Likewise, neither Jekyll nor Hyde seem to have any real motivation to be either 'good' or 'evil', it is more that they are victims of some disorder which compels them to be as they are--that causal Victorian psychology which, in the end, robs anyone involved of premeditation for what they do.
Dracula kills to survive, Frankenstein does so because he is the product of the ultimate broken home and Hyde does it as a self-destructive compulsion despite the fact that he loves life above all else, yet is unable to protect himself well enough to retain it. This is not the evil of Milton's Satan, or of Moriarty, who know precisely what they do and do it because of the way they see the world before them, but that of the phrenologist, who measures a man's head with calipers and declares him evil based upon the values so garnered, independent of any understanding, motivation, or reason.
And yet this is not an unbelievable evil--indeed, Stevenson uses it as an analysis of addiction and other self-destructive behaviors, where the pure chemical rush of the thing becomes its own cause, despite the fact that the addict will tell you he wishes nothing more than to be rid of it, to be normal again, never to have tasted the stuff in the first place.
It is a place a man might fall into through ignorance and carelessness, never realizing how hard it could be, in the end, to escape. And that's something we can all relate to, far more than the sociopathy of Moriarty, which requires that you have complete understanding but just a completely different set of emotional reactions to the world around you. It is much easier for most people to say that there is some part inside them that they do not like, that makes them uncomfortable, some thoughts and desires which rise unbidden from their brain, and which they must fight off.
And it is the fact that they are strong enough to need to be fought off that unsettles us and gives us pause, for we do not like to think that such incomprehensible forces might always be there, working, just beneath the surface, and which might come out not due to some dark desire or motivation, but due to simple, thoughtless error. It seems like I've been familiar with the "good" Dr. Jekyll and the "evil" Mr. Hyde all my life, but the thing that most struck me, once I finally got around to actually reading this classic, is--other than their outward appearance--how alike these two aspects of the same man actually are.
Jekyll has always been aware of the duality in his character: he admits to some apparently fairly serious youthful indiscretions, and even when he consciously puts his vices behind him for a time, he alway It seems like I've been familiar with the "good" Dr. Jekyll has always been aware of the duality in his character: he admits to some apparently fairly serious youthful indiscretions, and even when he consciously puts his vices behind him for a time, he always feels the yearning to give into them again.
When he creates the potion that transforms him into Hyde, he's not leaving only his virtues with Jekyll and putting all his evil aspects into Hyde The movement was thus wholly toward the worse. So Henry Jekyll still has all of his original hidden vices, and Hyde seems to me to be just a way for him to let the evil side of himself loose without Jekyll thinks fear of repercussions. But Hyde isn't purely evil either--there seems to be more of Jekyll's character in Hyde than the good doctor is willing to admit, or Hyde wouldn't always have been so anxious to turn himself back into Jekyll, like when he writes the frantic letter to his friend for help.
I think our doctor is a bit of an unreliable narrator.
It's interesting to think about the symbolism of the names here: the "good" doctor carries the name "Je French for "I" kill," and the evil Hyde is the part of Jekyll himself that he was always trying to hide. Most of the other characters also seem to have their hidden vices.
Certainly this was a major issue in Victorian times, when people in society wanted to appear very proper, but there was some major hidden sleaziness and vice. I'm not sure, in the end, what the book is trying to say is the cure for this problem. Repression doesn't appear to work very well, but at the same time, Jekyll's woes and eventual death come from his caving in to his evil desires, hidden or not.
Maybe there are no easy answers. Actor Richard Mansfield portrayed Jekyll and Hyde in a theater production in the 's so well that he was suspected of being Jack the Ripper! A big thanks to Anne for hosting our party! Sorry if we trashed your house!