Detail
Title: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde ISBN: 9780451528957Published September 2nd 2003 by Signet Classic (first published January 5th 1886) · Paperback 139 pages
Genre: Classics, Fiction, Horror, Science Fiction, Mystery, Gothic, Fantasy, Literature, Academic, School, 19th Century
Must be read
User Reviews
Jeffrey Keeten
”It came about that Edward Hyde was so much smaller, slighter, and younger than Henry Jekyll. Even as good shone upon the countenance of the one, evil was written broadly and plainly on the face of the other. Evil besides (which I must still believe to be the lethal side of man) had left on that body an imprint of deformity and decay. And yet when I looked upon that ugly idol in the glass, I was conscious of no repugnance rather of a leap of welcome.
This too, was myself.”
Richard Mansfield was mostly known for his dual role depicted in this double exposure. The stage adaptation opened in London in 1887, a year after the publication of the novella. (Picture 1895).
Dr. Henry Jekyll is a brilliant man who in the course of trying to understand the human psyche has turned himself, with tragic results, into a guinea pig for his experiments. He has unleashed a power from within that is turning out to be too formidable to be properly contained. This book was released in 1886 and at first none of the bookshop wanted to carry the book because of the subject matter, but a positive review had people flocking to the stores to read this sinister tale of hubris overcoming reason.
The American first edition is the true first edition because it preceded the London edition by three days
The timing was perfect for releasing such a tale. The Victorian society was struggling with the morality that had been imposed upon them by the previous generation. They were embracing vice. Many men of means living in London now found themselves hearing the siren song of pleasures available on the East End. They could be as naughty as they wanted and safely leave their depravity on that side of town before they return to the respectable bosom of their family and careers. They were struggling with the dual natures of their existences. The thunder of the church and the faces of their sweet families made them feel guilty for their need to drink gin in decrepit pubs, smoke opiates in dens of inequity, consort with underage whores, and run the very real risk of being robbed by cutthroats. This walk on the wild side also allowed them the privilege of feeling completely superior to all those beings providing their means of entertainment.
Jekyll as it turns out is no different. He relishes the adventures of his other persona even as he feels the mounting horror of losing control of this other self he calls Mr. Edward Hyde.
Furthermore, his creation has no loyalty.
”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.”
Spencer Tracy plays Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in 1941.
Unfortunately indifference becomes more personal, more brutal in nature, as Hyde becomes more and more a caged animal who does not want to have to embrace the pretenses of Jekyll’s respectable position.
”The hatred of Hyde for Jekyll was of a different order. His terror of the gallows drove him continually to commit temporary suicide, and return to his subordinate station of a part instead of a person; he loathed the necessity, he loathed the despondency into which Jekyll had fallen, and he resented the dislike which he was himself regarded.”
The tincture that has so far allowed Jekyll to contain Hyde is needing to be doubled and tripled to give Jekyll some modicum of control over his deviant nature. Jekyll contacts every apothecary he knows trying to find more of the solution he needs only to discover that the original batch that he used to make his “grand discovery” with must have been tainted with a foreign substance unknown to any of the suppliers. This foreign substance, unfortunately, is the ingredient that made the emergence and the restraint of Hyde possible.
Dire circumstances indeed.
Men who normally did not read novels were buying this book. I believe they were looking for some insight into their own nature maybe even some sympathy for their own urges. They made a book that quite possibly could have been thought of as an entertaining gothic novel into an international best seller. New generations of readers are still finding this book essential reading. Even those that have never read this book know the plot and certainly know the names of Jekyll and Hyde. It has inspired numerous movies, mini-series, comic books, and plays. It could be argued that it is one of the most influential novels on the creative arts.
It was but a dream.
Robert Louis Stevenson was stymied for a new idea. He was racking his brain hoping for inspiration.
”He had his names for the agents of his dreams, his whimsical alter ego and writing self. Stevenson referred to these agents, it pains me to admit, as ‘the little people’ and the ‘the Brownies.’ His hope was that they would supply him with marketable tales.”
RLS
It came to him in a nightmare that had him screaming loudly enough to wake the whole household.
It was a gift from the depths of his mind, maybe an acknowledgement of his own dark thoughts, his own darkest desires.
He wrote the nightmare down on paper feverishly over ten days. When he read the final draft to his wife, Fanny, her reaction was not what he expected. She was cold to the tale, completely against publishing such a sensationalized piece of writing. They argued, thin skinned to any criticism as most writers are especially when it is a complete repudiation of a piece of writing he was particularly proud of; Stevenson, in a moment of rage, tossed the whole manuscript in the fireplace.
Be still my heart.
There is no arguing with success of this magnitude, but I can’t help but wonder what was in that first draft. If there is a criticism of this novel it would be for the restrained nature in which it is presented. Did Stevenson just let it all go? Did he give us more elaborate details of Hyde’s excursions? Was Jekyll’s glee in Hyde’s adventures more fully explored?
I understand Stevenson was a fiery Scot given to flights of temper that could only be doused with something as dramatic as throwing 60,000 words into the fire, but how about flinging the pages about the room, and storming away followed by the proper slamming of a door to punctuate displeasure. In my mind’s eye I can see his stepson, Lloyd Osborne, carefully gathering the pages, scaring himself reading them in the middle of the night, and keeping them for all posterity between the leaves of a writing journal.
In 1920 John Barrymore played Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Stevenson was obsessed with the concept of good and evil. We all have a side to our personality that we prefer to keep hidden. We all wear masks. For now our inner thoughts are still our own, but don’t be surprised if the NSA has figured out how to tap in and tape those as well. Sometimes wearing the mask becomes arduous. Another entity fights to be allowed to roam free. We want to be impulsive, self-gratifying, slutty, sometimes brutal, but most importantly unfettered by our reputations. I wouldn’t necessarily call that evil, but there are people who do have true viciousness barely contained and we have to hope they continue to restrain it.
The Victorians identified with Jekyll/Hyde and maybe to know that others are also struggling with doing right without doing wrong certainly made them feel less like an aberration when they next felt the itch for the East End. I’m sure this book was the source of many fine conversations as they drank their gin and smelled the musky hair of the doxie on their laps.
The author with his wife and their household in Vailima, Samoa, c. 1892 Photograph of Robert Louis Stevenson and family, Vailima, on the island of Upolu in Samoa. Left to right: Mary Carter, maid to Stevenson's mother, Lloyd Osbourne, Stevenson's stepson, Margaret Balfour, Stevenson's mother, Isobel Strong, Stevenson's stepdaughter, Robert Louis Stevenson, Austin Strong, the Strong's son, Stevenson's wife Fanny Stevenson, and Joseph Dwight Strong, Isobel's husband.
The word that most of his friends and acquaintances used to describe Stevenson (RLS as I often think of him) was captivating. He was sorely missed when he made the decision to move to Samoa taking himself a long way from supportive friends and his fans. He was searching for a healthy environment that would restore his always ailing health. Unfortunately the new climate was found too late, he died at the age of 44 from a brain aneurysm leaving his last novel, the Weir of Hermiston, unfinished. Many believe that he was on the verge of writing his greatest novel.
Oddly enough, F. Scott Fitzgerald a very different writer from RLS, but also a favorite of mine died at 44 as well. Critics also believe that The Last Tycoon would have been his best novel if he’d had time to finish it. It does make me wonder about the wonderful stories that were left forever trapped in the now long silent pens of RLS and FSF, but they both left lasting monuments to literature. Even those that don’t appreciate their writing the way I do still have to admit that their impact was undeniable.
If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit http://www.jeffreykeeten.com
I also have a Facebook blogger page at:https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten
Anne
[For the love of all that's good and holy, please don't "correct" me in the comments. Hello? Joking!
It's obvious that Mr. Stevenson's real inspiration
Ariel
OH BOY, OH BOY, PEOPLE I HAVE A NEW FAVOURITE!
This edition came with two stories, "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" and "The Bottle Imp," and they were both awesome let's talk about them. I'm so excited I can't contain myself.
Jekyll:
- So. Well. Crafted. From beginning to end the story was engaging and the themes where quite straightforward, but I really love that in writing (see: George Orwell is my favourite author). I like it when authors aren't bogging their messages down in unneeded subtleties.
- Some of these sentences, I swear to god! One of my favourite ones: “I slept after the prostration of the day, with a stringent and profound slumber which not even the nightmares that wrung me could avail to break.” The context doesn't even matter. It's solid gold.
- My only distress with this story comes not from anything Stevenson did, but from the fact that it's so famous (*spoiler alert*): I wish I didn't know Jekyll and Hyde are the same person! Gosh darn it. The story is solid enough that it doesn't matter if you know or not, (which is important: if one spoiler can ruin your story you don't have a very good story), but it would have been so wickedly fun not to know. Stevenson did such a good job of hiding it!
- The ideas of evil vs good in humans were great. And the idea that Jekyll didn't hate Hyde.. GOSH DARNIT THIS WAS GREAT.
- That ending though. That ending. THAT ENDING, JESUS.
Bottle:
- I had no idea what the heck this was, which made it so much fun. What a story! Stevenson has an awesome imagination. To avoid spoilers I'll keep this brief.
- This story was so stressful. Oh man I felt legitimate anxiety. My heart, it was not happy. WHICH IS GREAT. It's amazing when a piece of writing can make you feel real dread.
- Why was it set in Hawaii? When talking to a friend (who is Scottish. and so is Stevenson. so I trust her on this subject) she explained to me that Stevenson was known for being a world traveller, so maybe he just wanted to explore something new. It was interesting, I'd like to look more into the significance of the Hawaii setting.. definitely something to do with being an island?
- I wanted this to end more sadly. Gosh it was so set up for a sad ending, and I was dreading dreading dreading that it would end badly but sometimes these things can't end well! I think, ultimately, the ending didn't feel too bad. It could have been done worse, I think the "saviour" situation that happened had legitimate merit, but still. I think this would have been better if it had ended horribly.
Go read this, seriously people.
Elle (ellexamines)
55 pages later and I’m still convinced that Robert Louis Stevenson named his characters this way exclusively so he could fit in the line “if he shall be Mr. Hyde, I shall be Mr. Seek!” and honestly? that’s iconic.
Quiet minds cannot be perplexed or frightened but go on in fortune or misfortune at their own private pace, like a clock during a thunderstorm.
There’s a reason this novella has stood the test of time - it is creepy and interesting as hell. I think there’s something very terrifying to me about the idea of losing humanity and sanity, at first due to your own choices but later because of forces you cannot control. Robert Louis Stevenson allegedly wrote this while on drugs, and you can definitely feel that experience in the book.
This is such a short book and I don’t know quite what else to say, but guys... I love Victorian horror. it's so fucking weird and wild and all about Transgressing Social Norms and Being Subversive and this is the kind of shit I am HERE for!! sometime I’ll write my term paper about how Victorian horror was a way for queer people, women, and mentally ill people to express their frustrations at Victorian society in a way that appealed to mass audiences, because I find that dynamic fascinating.
dangerous ideas: book 2
Blog | Goodreads | Twitter | Instagram | Youtube
Ahmad Sharabiani
The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Robert Louis Stevenson
Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is a gothic novella by the Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson first published in 1886. The work is also known as The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, or simply Jekyll & Hyde.
It is about a London lawyer named Gabriel John Utterson who investigates strange occurrences between his old friend, Dr Henry Jekyll, and the evil Edward Hyde.
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.
عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «دکتر جکیل و مستر هاید»؛ «قضیه عجیب دکتر جکیل و مستر هاید»؛ «ماجرای عجیب دکتر جکیل و آقای هاید»؛ «دکتر جکیل و آقای هاید»؛ «ماجرای عجیب شگفت انگیز»؛ «مورد عجیب دکتر جکیل و آقای هاید»؛ نویسنده: رابرت لوییس استیونسون؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش روز پنجم ماه آوریل سال 2012میلادی
عنوان: دکتر جکیل و مستر هاید (متن کوتاه شده)؛ نویسنده: رابرت لوییس استیونسون؛ مترجم: جعفر مدرس صادقی؛ تهران، نشر مرکز، 1373، در 111
ص؛ موضوع داستانهای نویسندگان اسکاتلند - سده 19م
عنوان: ماجرای عجیب دکتر جکیل و آقای هاید؛ نویسنده: رابرت لوییس استیونسون؛ مترجم: علی فاطمیان؛ تهران، ارشاد، چشم انداز، 1376، در240ص؛ شابک 9644220579؛
و مترجمین دیگر خانمها و آقایان: «جعفر مدرس صادقی»؛ «شایسته ابراهیمی»؛ «جلال بهجتی»؛ «فرحناز عطاریان»؛ «میترا کوچاری»؛ «رامین هدایتی»؛ «محسن سلیمانی»؛ «مرجان رضایی»؛ «علی فاطمیان»؛ «شیوا رفیعی»؛ «فهیمه عابدینی»؛ «حسین علیخانپور شاه آبادی»؛ و ...؛
کتاب «دکتر جکیل و آقای هاید»، عنوان یک داستان است، که نویسنده ی «اسکاتلندی»، «رابرت لوییس استیونسون»، در سال 1886میلادی، در «لندن» آن را منتشر کردند؛ در این رمان «دکتر جکیل»، که به مبحث دوگانگی شخصیت باورمند است، دارویی برای جدا کردن جنبه های خوب و بد انسانی خویش، میسازد؛ از جنبه های بد، فردی به نام «آقای هاید»، پدید میآید، که دست به اعمال جنایتبار، و حتی قتل میزند؛ این رمان کشمکش درونی بد و خوب هر انسان را، به تصویر میکشد؛ سبک نوشتاری رمان بسیار جذاب و غنی است، و به عنوان مرجعی مهم، در مبحث دوگانگی شخصیت، از آن یاد میشود؛ سرگذشت «دکتر جکیل و آقای هاید»، منبع الهام قطعات تئاتر، فیلمهای سینمایی، و چندین آهنگ، بوده است
دکتر جکیل به عنوان شخصیت اصلی داستان متوجه میشود، که روزها انسانی خیرخواه است، و میخواهد به دیگران یاری برساند، اما شبها میل بسیاری به بیبند و باری و هرزگی دارد، و به انسانی با افکار منفی بدل میشود، او با کشمکشهای درونی بین خیر و شر، زیر فشار است، برای همین در انتهای خانهاش، آزمایشگاهی میسازد، و تلاش میکند تا معجونی را تولید کند، که بتواند وجوه مثبت و منفی شخصیتش را جدا سازد، سرانجام او محلولی را اختراع میکند تا بخشهای مثبت و منفی افکارش را، جدا نماید، او به دو شخصیت کاملا جداگانه بدل میشود، «دکتر جکیل» و «آقای هاید» شخصیتهای دوگانه ی او هستند، «آقای هاید» شخصیتی است کاملا منفی، که میل به شرارت دارد، و «دکتر جکیل» را کاملا به دردسر میاندازد، کنترل «آقای هاید» برای «دکتر جکیل» دشوار میشود، و پس از مدتی، دیگر «آقای هاید»، قابل کنترل نیست؛ فاجعه ای در انتظار «دکتر جکیل» به دلیل رفتارهای «آقای هاید» در پیش خواهد بود...؛
نقل از متن: (آقای وکیل «آترسون»، مردی بود با چهرهای مردانه، چهرهای که هیچوقت به لبخند باز نمیشد، آدمی سرد، کمحرف، خجالتی و در ضمن لاغر و قد بلند، با قیافه ای خشک و گرفته بود؛ با وجود این آدمی دوست داشتنی بود
موقع ملاقات با دوستانش، چشمهایشان از مهربانی زیاد، برق میزد و با اینکه مهربانیاش را هیچوقت ابراز نمیکرد، اما حالتهای چهرهی ساکت و رفتارش در زندگی، این احساسش را به خوبی نشان میداد، «آترسون» به خودش سخت میگرفت، تئاتر را دوست داشت، اما بیست سالی میشد که پا به سالن تئاتر نگذاشته بود، با دیگران بردبار بود؛ گاهی نیز به مردمی غبطه میخورد که فشار روحی پس از ارتکاب جرم را به راحتی تحمل میکردند، با این حال حتی در اوج بدبختی افراد هم دوست داشت به جای سرزنش کردن، به آنها کمک کند، با لحن جالبی میگفت: «من دنبالهروی قابیل هستم، میگذارم برادرم به هر راه خطایی که دلش میخواهد برود.» و به خاطر داشتن چنین شخصیتی، بیشتر وقتها آخرین آدم قابل اعتماد و با نفوذ افراد سقوط کرده و بدبخت بود، شاید برای همین هم هر وقت مردم به دفتر کارش میآمدند، رفتارش کوچکترین تغییری نمیکرد
دوستی آقای «آترسون» هم با دیگران براساس طبع بلند و مهربانش بود و به خاطر فروتنی زیادش، همیشه آماده بود تا دیگران را در هر فرصتی به حلقه ی دوستانش وارد کند
راه و روش زندگی آقای وکیل اینجوری بود؛ دوستانش هم یا از خویشاوندانش بودند، یا از آشناهای قدیمیاش؛ دلبستگیاش به آدمها هم ربطی به قابلیت و توانایی افراد نداشت، بلکه مثل پیچک بود و مدتها طول میکشید تا رشد کند؛ مسلما رابطه ی آقای «آترسون» و آقای «ریچارد انفیلد» هم از همین نوع بود، مرد سرشناسی که از خویشاوندان دور او به حساب میآمد
اما برای خیلیها معما این بود که این دو، چه چیزی را در هم دیگر میبینند یا چه وجه اشتراکی با هم دارند، کسانیکه روزهای یکشنبه، موقع گردش به آن دو برخورده بودند، تعریف میکردند که آنها هیچ صحبتی با هم نمیکنند، انگار نه تنها از حضور هم خسته شدهاند، بلکه از دیدن دوستی دیگر استقبال هم میکنند، با وجود این هردویشان به این گردشها خیلی اهمیت میدادند و هر هفته از این فرصت، مثل جواهری قیمتی استفاده میکردند؛ آنها نه تنها از لذتها و تفریحهای دیگرشان میزدند، بلکه در برابر گرفتاریهای کاریشان هم مقاومت میکردند تا از این گردشها لذت ببرند)؛ پایان
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 26/07/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 21/06/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
Stephen
KUDOS, KUDOS and more KUDOS to you, Mr. Stevenson!! First, for bringing me more happy than a Slip N Slide on a scorching summer day by providing Warner Bros with the inspiration for one of my favorite cartoons, Hyde and Go Tweet:
...I mean who didn't love giant, cat-eating Tweety Hyde.
Second, and more seriously, when I tardily returned to your classic gothic novella as an adult, you once again red-lined my joy meter with the strength and eloquence of your story craft. You story is the gift that keeps on giving.
In both structure and content, this narrative is a work of art. From a technical perspective, it can be admired for its superb mingling of different literary devices. More importantly (for me at least), the story itself is a powerful depiction of some very important ideas about humanity and what we sometimes hide behind the veneer of civilization.
Structurally, the novella crams, stuffs and presses a complete, fully-fleshed story in its scant 88 pages by using a brilliant combo of point of view changes, dialogue, flashback and epistolary components. In lesser hands, the amount of information and story contained in this tale would have required a lot more paper. In addition to being a model of conciseness, the change in style, in my opinion, added to the enjoyment of the story by allowing the reader to be more “present” during the narrative.
Content-wise, Stevenson really knocks the cover off the ball. Despite being written in 1886, this tale still stands as the quintessential fictional examination of the duality of man’s nature and the very human struggle between the civilized and primal aspects of our beings. The constrained, repressive society of the Victorian Period in which the story takes place provides the perfect back drop for the model of outward English propriety, Dr. Henry Jekyll, to battle (metaphorically and literally) the darker, baser but still very human desires personified in the person of Edward Hyde. What a perfect allegory between the face people wear in public and the one they take out only in private.
Hence it came about that I concealed my pleasures; and that when I reached years of reflection, and began to look round me, and take stock of my progress and position in the world, I stood already committed to a profound duplicity of life.
Stevenson’s prose is engaging and I found myself pulled into the narrative from the beginning. I particularly enjoyed when Stevenson wrote of his characters’ reactions to being in the presence of Mr. Hyde and the palpable, pervasive, but non-pinpointable, sense of evil and dread that radiated from him. For example:
‘There is something wrong with his appearance; something displeasing, something downright detestable…’I was also impressed with Henry Jekyll’s description of his growing realization that man not homogenous inside his own skin but a conglomerate of competing personalities and aspects.
…’[Hyde’s features] were the expression, and bore the stamp, of lower elements in my soul.’
‘The last I think; for, O poor old Harry Jekyll, if ever I read Satan's signature upon a face, it is on that of your new friend.’
With every day, and from both sides of my intelligence, the moral and the intellectual, I thus drew steadily nearer to the truth, by whose partial discovery I have been doomed to such a dreadful shipwreck: that man is not truly one, but truly two… I hazard the guess that man will be ultimately known for a mere polity of multifarious, incongruous and independent denizens
Overall, this is one of those classics that lives up to its name and rightfully belongs among the highlights of gothic fiction. I am very, very pleased that I decided to revisit this story as I found that I loved as an adult what I could only “try to appreciate” as a child.
4.0 stars. HIGHEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION!!!
Peter Topside
So I will admit that I purchased the kindle version that had modernized wording. It just updated the older language, making it a bit easier for me to follow. But the writing style still felt like it was in same same vein (Pun intended) as Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Now this is a short read, but felt much longer, in a good way. I enjoyed the slow burn and hinting about Dr Jekyll’s alter ego, before divulging everything in the last chapter, from the doctor’s point of view. Putting yourself in Utterson’s shoes, and to a lesser degree Lanyon, really also made the terror he was dealing with seem so much more real and scary. Hyde was described perfectly throughout and his rampaging was done very tactfully. There was mention of violence, but nothing strongly detailed, which also fared well here. This book is a considered a horror classic for a damn good reason.
Sean Barrs
Robert Louis Stevenson was a man who knew how to play his audience. Utterson, the primary point of view character for this novel, is a classic Victorian gentleman; he is honest, noble and trustworthy; he is the last reputable acquaintance of down going men like Henry Jekyll. So, by having a character who evokes the classic feelings of Victorian realism narrate the abnormal encounterings, it gives it credibility; it gives it believability; thus, the story is scarier because if a man such as Utterson is seeing this strange case, then it must be real.
Indeed, this gothic novella was considered very scary at the time. I think this was emphasised because Stevenson pushed the boundaries of the gothic genre. One of the tenants of the style rests upon the inclusion of a doppelgänger. Instead of using this classic idea Stevenson transgressed it with having his doppelgängers relationship reside in the same character. Jekyll/Hyde is the same person, and at the same time one and another’s counterpart. I think this is a masterful technique because the relationship between the two is more psychologically complex and fear inducing, than, for example, the relationship between Frankenstein and his Monster. It breaks the boundaries of the normal role and establishes a doppelgänger relationship that is stronger than any others.
This all happened because one day a Victoria chemist decided to see if he could separate the two states of human nature. The result was a successful disaster. Utterson has to try and piece together the scraps of the strange situation. He is perplexed at the idea of the paranormal because logic dictates that this shouldn’t be happening, therefore, it isn’t real, but only it is so, again, it becomes more scary. The incident at the window is demonstrative of this. Utterson witnesses Jekyll’s transgressive shift into Hyde and a shift between the doppelgangers. The blood of the Victorian gentleman is frozen by what he beholds.
"I learned to recognise the thorough and primitive duality of man; I saw that, of the two natures that contended in the field of my consciousness, even if I could rightly be said to be either, it was only because I was radically both."
I love the gothic genre and I love this novella. 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. I’ve spoken a lot about Utterson, but there is also the strong possibility of Jekyll being an unreliable narrator as he has deluded himself almost completely. One could also compare the work to Stevenson’s own life and his self-imposed exile as he wrote this gothic master piece. 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. I’ve written essays about this novella for university; thus, I could praise this book all day and night. 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.
Jeff
What I learned reading Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?
By Jeff
1) Some things are better left unsaid. Really? Who knows how Hyde indulged himself? Hookers? Pirating? Running an orphan sweat shop? Booze? Opium? Ripping the “Do Not Remove under Penalty of Law” labels from mattresses?
2) Never have a nosy lawyer as a best friend. Who the hell hangs out with lawyers?
3) My evil Hyde would not be a top hat wearing, monkey-like Juggernaut. Sorry, he would be more Dean Martin-esque, a la “The Nutty Professor.
4) How in need Victorian England was for body waxing and/or Nair.
5) As long as my evil twin was a different size - stretchy spandex material for those embarrassing and untimely changes.
6) This has no business being a musical. An episode of Scooby Doo, sure. (I would have “worked” my way through the entire brothel, if it wasn’t for you meddling kids!) Stage musical, no!
7) Possible Hyde potion flavors: Salted Caramel, Lime Mint, White Chocolate Almond, Tangerine Mango
8) Evil housekeeper-good, evil hideout attached to regular pad-just stupid. Note to self: make Evil me smarter and even more cunning.
9) Some adaptations over the years: In Abbot and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Costello, playing Tubby, is transformed into a big mouse. Huh? In Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde, the movie poster warned: “The sexual transformation of a man into a woman will actually take place before your very eyes!” “Acting! Brilliant! Thank you!”
10) At around one hundred pages, this book (novella?) was the perfect length. Any longer and Stevenson’s leaden prose style would have transformed me into grumpy, whiney, sleepy reader.
Fabian
The appearances/superficiality motif appears as early on as the first sentence in this tense, tight, but ultimately convoluted smear of a novella. Count on countenance for good & sturdy bones in a story of detection...
& yet...
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." [85] Super dooper neat!)
Yet...
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.
However...
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... literary? Maybe that's a stretch. Also, I LOVE that JEKYLL sounds like jackal, as in Devil. Cute.
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. If you want something macabre AND brilliant, go to the French serial-classic "The Phantom of the Opera"!
J.G. Keely
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 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.
Bionic Jean
Do you know what a "Jekyll and Hyde" character is? Of course you do. It is one of the descriptions, originally in a piece of literature, which has now become accepted in our vernacular. And there are many renditions of the story, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and countless references to it in all aspects of life. Quite an achievement for a slim Victorian volume written by the Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson, and published in 1886.
"Man is not truly one, but truly two."
So asserts Dr. Jekyll. But we are slightly handicapped nowadays by knowing the crux of the plot beforehand. Before this tale there seems to have been nothing similar, although there had been earlier tales in literature about doppelgängers. Robert Louis Stevenson had always been interested in the duality of human nature, and shown admiration for morally ambiguous heroes - or anti-heroes. But the spark which produced this novel was ignited by a dream he had had. His wife Fanny reported,
"In the small hours of one morning ... I was awakened by cries of horror from Louis. Thinking he had a nightmare, I awakened him. He said angrily, 'Why did you wake me? I was dreaming a fine bogey tale.' I had awakened him at the first transformation scene."
The writing of the story itself is a gripping tale. Stevenson wrote the original draft with feverish excitement, taking less than three days. He then collapsed with a haemorrhage, and his wife edited the manuscript, as was her habit. The story is that it was she who suggested to her husband that he should have written it as an allegory, rather than a story.
On being left alone with his manuscript, Stevenson promptly burnt it to ashes, thus forcing himself to start again from scratch, and rewrite it in the form of an allegory. It is unclear whether this is true, or myth, since there can be no evidence of a burnt manuscript. However later biographers of Robert Louis Stevenson have claimed that he was probably on drugs such as cocaine when writing it. He was certainly ill and confined to bed at the time.
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was an immediate success, and remains Stevenson's most popular work. It is only recently however that his work has been thought to deserve critical attention. The author himself took his writing lightly, shrugging his popularity off with a dismissive,
"Fiction is to grown men what play is to the child,"
and continuing to write his swashbuckling stories of romance and adventure; what he called "historical tushery."
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was thus an unusual tale for him to write. Perhaps its popularity at the time was partly due to its high moral tone. Not only was it adapted for the stage, but was also said to be widely quoted in religious sermons.
"With every day, and from both sides of my intelligence, the moral and the intellectual, I thus drew steadily nearer to the truth, by whose partial discovery I have been doomed to such a dreadful shipwreck: that man is not truly one, but truly two."
"All human beings, as we meet them, are commingled out of good and evil: and Edward Hyde, alone, in the ranks of mankind, was pure evil."
One can see how ministers of the church would be tempted to use the story as a convenient illustration for descriptions of temptation, sin and depravity.
From a modern point of view the style is dated, and almost archaic. There is a lot of preamble and dissembling. Of course this must have added to the mystery. Yet since there is little mystery at all to a modern reader, it is difficult to judge.
The novel starts with a London lawyer named Gabriel John Utterson who is intrigued to be told stories of his old friend, Dr. Henry Jekyll, and also about some evil crimes committed by a man called Edward Hyde. He himself witnesses Hyde going into Jekyll's house, describing Hyde as a "troglodyte", or ugly animalistic creature. As the story moves on, we learn that not only is Hyde primitive, but also immoral, taking a delight in his crimes. He is not an animal, amoral and innocent, but a person Utterson sees as evil and depraved, full of rage and revelling in his vices. (view spoiler) The puzzle remains what could possibly be the link between the two very different men.
Yet is the morality of civilised people merely a veneer after all? The story is set very firmly in its time, when the ideas of what was decent and upright behaviour was set, not fluid. Yet even so, appearances and facades were often just an illusory surface, hiding a more sordid truth. A respectable man would sometimes prefer to look the other way and remain ignorant,
"I feel very strongly about putting questions; it partakes too much of the style of the day of judgement. You start a question, and it's like starting a stone. You sit quietly on the top of a hill; and away the stone goes, starting others; and presently some bland old bird (the last you would have thought of) is knocked on the head in his own back garden, and the family have to change their name. No, sir, I make it a rule of mine: the more it looks like Queer Street, the less I ask."
When Utterson suspects that (view spoiler) To a Victorian gentleman, his reputation would have been paramount. The unwritten rule of the time, known to all respectable people, stated that one never betrayed a friend, whatever their secret. This may seem hypocrisy to modern eyes, or it may seem loyalty.
As the story moves on the relationship between the two is compounded, but it is not until the final chapters, which consist of two letters to be opened in the event of a death, that the horrific story unfolds. This is a popular device of the time, but it lacks immediacy, and the story seems to finish unexpectedly, at the end of one letter, without any sort of conclusion. The descriptions however are very powerful,
"As I looked there came, I thought a change - he seemed to swell - his face became suddenly black and the features seemed to melt and alter..."
"The most racking pangs succeeded: a grinding in the bones, deadly nausea, and a horror of the spirit that cannot be exceeded at the hour of birth or death. Then these agonies began swiftly to subside, and I came to myself as if out of a great sickness. There was something strange in my sensations, something indescribably sweet. I felt younger, lighter, happier in body; within I was conscious of a heady recklessness, a current of disordered sensual images running like a millrace in my fancy, a solution of the bonds of obligation, an unknown but innocent freedom of the soul. I knew myself, at the first breath of this new life, to be more wicked, tenfold more wicked, sold a slave to my original evil and the thought, in that moment, braced and delighted me like wine."
"This was the shocking thing; that the slime of the pit seemed to utter cries and voices; that the amorphous dust gesticulated and sinned; that what was dead, and had no shape, should usurp the offices of life. And this again, that that insurgent horror was knit to him closer than a wife, closer than an eye; lay caged in his flesh, where he heard it mutter and felt it struggle to be born; and at every hour of weakness, and in the confidence of slumber, prevailed against him, and deposed him out of life."
It is an interesting depiction by Stevenson, that Dr. Jekyll could rarely bring himself to use the personal pronoun when talking about Hyde's most despicable crimes. Indeed, the character makes the same observation himself, yet at first he had talked in the first person throughout.
To a modern reader then, this is a story about a split personality, or what is technically called "dissociative identity disorder". But Stevenson also invites us to view it as a moral tale, an allegory, questioning the abstract notions of good and evil. Do we all have a "dark side"? Do we truly have both a tendency to evil and an inclination towards virtue within our natures? If so, how do we decide which is uppermost? Can we consciously control them at all? And which, if either, might continue after death?
The author poses the question, leaving it to the reader to decide, although there are hints that he views us all as having a dual nature,
“The bargain might appear unequal; but there was still another consideration in the scales; for while Jekyll would suffer smartingly in the fires of abstinence, Hyde would be not even conscious of all that he had lost.”
It is always interesting to read the original of a much-loved tale. This has flaws of construction, but is well worth a look even so.
EDIT: (a few months later)
I've been aware that this is probably worth a little more than my default rating, if only because of its phenomenal influence on popular culture, and writing about this theme, since. So I'm altering my rating to a 4 stars, as it falls somewhere between the two, I think.
Brett C
This was the first adult story I read when I was younger. I remember being captivated by the idea of a dual life and man's sinister shadowy side. Now many years later this story still had me enthralled. I enjoyed this story because it contains the elements of mystery, suspense, and psychological thriller. The writing is eloquent and almost lyrical that can only come from another time, yet is readable.
The descriptive imagery along the backdrop of a foggy, dark, and Jack the Ripperesque London set the stage perfectly. The duality of good vs. evil, conscious vs. unconscious, and steadfast rigidness vs. uncompromising pleasure were themes I interpreted.
This remains one of my favorite books after all these years. This is not the last time I read it. I highly recommend this to anyone who enjoys classic literature and a good story. Thanks!
Ginger
4 STARS!
Due to going to Edinburgh and the Scottish Highlands in a couple of months, I wanted to read a few books set in this area or at least by a Scottish author.
Enter...
Robert Louis Stevenson with his well-loved classic, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde!
I love reading good classics and I enjoyed this one! Mr. Utterson is investigating the presence of a person called Edward Hyde who is in contact with his good friend, the doctor Henry Jekyll.
Hyde is evil, abhorrent and Mr. Utterson can't understand why his friend Jekyll has relations with this person.
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a twisted tale and a great one to read. There's something so strange of a person (view spoiler)
SIDENOTE:
The great thing about internet sleuthing is finding out that this book might have been based off a real person. William Brodie, a well-respected man in Scotland who was a cabinet maker. He was also on the city council because of his influence and wealth.
BUT...
He was also a skilled locksmith and had duplicate copies of house keys made of his clients' homes.
Yeah, that's not going to end well. He robbed them blind! Brodie used his double life to indulge in his own vices from gambling, mistresses and even cock fighting.
I can't wait to go to the pub, Deacon Brodies Tavern in Edinburgh and have a drink to this two faced mastermind.
Kudos to Robert Louis Stevenson for creating a unforgettable classic!