The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - Ch 10

[Silver]

This is a discussion I had the first time I read the book, and I thought it would be interesting to get your thoughts upon it.

Most people going into the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are already familiar with it even if they never have read the book before. It has been redone in so many different ways including in cartoons.

Do you think that already knowing what the big "surprise" is going into the story takes something away from the experience of reading the book?

If you good go into the book completely blind do you think it would have more of an impact?

Or do you think you gain something more reading it while already knowing the outcome?

[Deborah, Moderator]

I found it hard to read with new eyes, yet it didn't take away the enjoyment. It's a classic battle of good vs evil, or is it? Hyde seems to be a Neanderthal. So is it good vs evil or uncivilized man vs civilized man?

A friend read a German case study, readily available at the time of Stevenson's writing this story. It was a pillar of the community, who by night trolled the streets for homosexual sex. Is it possible Stevenson used this as the springboard to this story?

Another thing I noticed - a lack of female characters. I believe there was one, the servant girl, minor one. Why is that?

[Silver]

Deborah wrote: "I found it hard to read with new eyes, yet it didn't take away the enjoyment. It's a classic battle of good vs evil, or is it? Hyde seems to be a Neanderthal. So is it good vs evil or uncivilized m..."

I think civilized man vs uncivilized man is a good way to look at it.

I wonder on the question of Good vs Evil, while Hyde is meant to be the sort of personification of evil enjoying the vices that Jekyll was ashamed to partake in Jekyll does also make the point of saying that he remained unchanged. That is to say with the creation of Hyde, Jekyll did not lose all of his negative attributes. He was not made pure good when Hyde was made as pure evil.

I think the reason why there are no women within the book is because considering the way women were perceived during this period of time Stevenson simply saw them as being unnecessary to the story.

[Amy]

I thought it was interesting that Jekyll didn't feel guilt about Hyde (except for the murder) when Hyde was acting out Jekyll's fantasies.

[Lori, Moderator]

I was also wondering what it would be like to read the book, not knowing the end. I think, as you said, everyone today already knows it. It would have been a nice mystery to read it without knowing the end. then again, knowing the end makes one eager to know how Dr. Jekyll "made" Mr. Hyde (kind of like watching the Star Wars prequels to see how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader).

This book reminds me of two others: The Picture of Dorian Gray and Steppenwolf. Both books were published later. I wonder if Oscar Wilde and Herman Hesse had been influenced by Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? But then I suppose the battle between our high and low natures would be a common theme. The desire to do something "bad" and not be accountable (at least publicly) for it.

[Lori, Moderator]

By the way, in my high school English class, while we were discussing this story I wrote a parody of it called "Dr. Jerkyll and Mr. Cyanide. :-) I don't remember the details of it (it was a good 20 years ago), but Mr. Cyanide used to take drugs, and the next day Dr. Jerkyll would rat out his last night's drug companions to the police. :-) I don't remember whether there was any actual cyanide involved. (And no, I wasn't a druggie in high school or any other time in my life)

[Silver]

Lori wrote: "I was also wondering what it would be like to read the book, not knowing the end. I think, as you said, everyone today already knows it. It would have been a nice mystery to read it without knowing..."

Reading this I also thought of Dorian Gray especially with the connection between physical ugliness and our vices.

And the idea of splitting oneself into dual personalties/identities in order to enjoy ones vices without feeling the gulit or consequences.

[Frances, Moderator]

I became quite interested in what vices Mr Hyde would have been indulging that Jekyll felt he couldn't indulge in his own person. I considered gambling, but he would only need to do it in a different identity if he was planning not to pay his debts or to cheat, in which case Mr Hyde would soon be punished in his own form. Drug-taking in the opium dens? Presumably that would have equally addicted/incapacitated Jekyll. Attending common/low class entertainments/bars/theatres? Probably not. Which brings us to sexual indiscretions. Given the ubiquity of prostitution/brothels in Victorian England and that Jekyll was unmarried, would he really have felt constrained from indulging in straight sexual encounters with adult women? So to my mind that leaves Homosexuality (which we know was practiced but could also be severely punished) as the only "vice" I can think of which his friends might have accepted but which he would need to hide from the law. Otherwise I am assuming he was indulging in violence, sexual assault or pedophilia, which to me completely abolishes my initial sympathy and understanding for Dr Jekyll, when it initially was portrayed as a scientific experiment gone wrong. For apart from Dr Carew, were there other victims to Mr Hyde among the vulnerable in society? How could he so casually discuss finding a means to indulge his vices, without thinking of the victims of that indulgence?

I'd love to hear other opinions on this-do you think Stevenson intended us to consider Dr Jekyll a sympathetic character, or is he a villain?

[Frances, Moderator]

Do you think that this was a morality tale of sorts-that in indulging our vices we risk having them take over our lives and losing control of our ability to stop? This would certainly apply to addictions of all sorts, but perhaps also to other behaviours-anger, pride, sloth, gluttony, lust and the other 2 that I can't remember.

[Silver]

Frances wrote: "I'd love to hear other opinions on this-do you think Stevenson intended us to consider Dr Jekyll a sympathetic character, or is he a villain? ."

That is an interesting question. I tend to lean towards the intention was for him to be sympathetic.

Interesting thoughts about what the nature of Jekyll's vices might have been. I tended to presume that it was just the usual vices of drinking, gambling, sexual indiscretions similar to Dorian Gray. My impression was that Mr. Hyde was not so much purely to conceal Dr. Jekyll's identity to allow him to indulge in such vices but to remove from Jekyll any guilt or shame he might feel for the indulgence. He could feel like he was not responsible for them but still experience them at the same time.

Also it seemed like his original intention in created Mr. Hyde, he himself would be made more good/angelic. But it turned out that only the pure evil came out while Jekyll was not freed from his flaws or his vices.

Though the prospect of his vice being homosexuality is interesting to consider.

[Deborah, Moderator]

Frances wrote: "I became quite interested in what vices Mr Hyde would have been indulging that Jekyll felt he couldn't indulge in his own person. I considered gambling, but he would only need to do it in a differe..."

I posted this in a later thread, but will post it here. There was a very famous case in Germany of a pillar of the community trolling for homosexual relations at night. It had been written up and published. Perhaps Stevenson read the study and used it as the basis for this story.

[Lori, Moderator]

Frances wrote: "I became quite interested in what vices Mr Hyde would have been indulging that Jekyll felt he couldn't indulge in his own person. I considered gambling, but he would only need to do it in a differe..."

I was wondering the same thing. I was wondering about sexual indiscretions, but people were so repulsed by Hyde that who would he be able to commit these indiscretions with? It was a psychological as well as physical repulsion. It seems to me that even prostitutes would have run from him. He would have had to force people, probably.

Hyde was violent, so could Dr. Jekyll have had some desire to commit violence?

[Deborah, Moderator]

Lori wrote: "Frances wrote: "I became quite interested in what vices Mr Hyde would have been indulging that Jekyll felt he couldn't indulge in his own person. I considered gambling, but he would only need to do..."

I don't that no Jekyll had a desire to be violent. I thInk he, like all of us, had the capability to be violent.

[Everyman]

My first thought on reading this section was Plato's myth of the Ring of Gyges. (Everything eventually comes back to Plato, doesn't it?)

In case your Plato needs refreshing, the Ring of Gyges is a myth in Book 2 of the Republic. Glaucon (Plato's brother) tells the myth of a shepherd, ancestor of king Gyges of Lydia(an actual person) who finds golden ring which makes him invisible. He uses it to enter the place of Lydia, seduce the queen, with her help murder the king and take his place on the throne of Lydia, which is how Gyges came to his power on the throne.

Plato uses the myth to explore the question whether man has some sense that makes him inherently good, or whether man is only good because he fears being caught, either by the community (social pressure) or by the law (legal consequence). If a good person and a bad person both get such a ring, will the good person be able to avoid doing evil? Is morality only a social creation? Or is it external to man?

The drugs Jekyll takes essentially function as the Ring of Gyges. While it doesn't make him physically invisible, it makes the Dr. Jekyll aspect of him invisible, so he can go out and do whatever he wants to without worrying about any consequences to his Jekyll persona.

Plato doesn't get to the answer until Book 10, at 612b, where he says "“Then,” said I, “we have met all the other demands of the argument, and we have not invoked the rewards and reputes of justice as you said Homer and Hesiod1 do, but we have proved that justice in itself is the best thing for the soul itself, and that the soul ought to do justice whether it possess the ring of Gyges or not, or the helmet of Hades to boot.” “Most true,” he said. “Then,” said I, “Glaucon, there can no longer be any objection, can there, to our assigning to justice and virtue generally, in addition, all the various rewards and wages that they bring to the soul from men and gods, both while the man still lives and, after his death?”

So for Plato, morality arises independently of man, and is not a social construct.

But does Stevenson agree?

[Wendel]

To read J&H as suspense must be disappointing (apart from spoilers, the writing seems a bit dubious). But it is an iconic story, a modern myth, well worth pondering.

We (males?) are dualistic creatures, says Stevenson, and we better deal with that. Denial, looking away or wishful thinking won’t do any good. But denial and looking away is precisely what a separation of good and bad implies. One hand does evil, the other is washed in innocence.

So, we better watch our dark side closely to keep it under control. That is true even for a man like Jekyll, whose moral sense is above average, for whom the presence of evil is a real torture (his uprightness is mirrored in Hyde’s small stature). To stun the pain of dualism by letting evil run free can only lead to disaster, especially because being Mr. Hyde is so addictive.

The reason Stevenson gives for this phenomenon is most interesting. It is not just the evil itself that is attractive, but also, and even more so, the single-mindedness in Hyde. This is what makes him feel free and young, an illusion that Jekyll is ultimately unable to resist. The struggle is not just between good and bad, but between doubt and compromise on the one hand and callousness and fanaticism on the other.

That leaves however one intriguing question: what would have happened if Jekyll’s potion would have freed his good side, an outcome that, according to Stevenson, was perfectly possible if Jekyll had attempted his experiment in a better spirit. But would this really have brought a better kind of freedom? Somehow I doubt it.

[Deborah, Moderator]

Wendel wrote: "To read J&H as suspense must be disappointing (apart from spoilers, the writing seems a bit dubious). But it is an iconic story, a modern myth, well worth pondering.

We (males?) are dualistic cre..."

I think we can safely assume all people

[Wendel]

Deborah wrote: "Wendel wrote: "We (males?) ar..."

Agreed, but I'm not sure about Stevenson's position.

[Everyman]

The underlying psychological principle of J&H seems to me to be roughly based on classic Christian theology -- that man has a pure side (Adam) but also an evil side (the fall), and that there are two completely divergent options for man -- Heaven and Hell; to follow God or to follow Satan.

I know, though, that we also have non-Christians in the group, and wonder whether you also see this duality in man, and if so where it arises from. Does the Jekyll-Hyde dichotomy have the same power in a non-Christian world view as it does in the Christian world view which I believe Stevenson was basically reflecting?

And in a way he echoes Milton, doesn't he, in making the evil really sound more exciting, even more appealing, than the good?

[Silver]

Everyman wrote: "The underlying psychological principle of J&H seems to me to be roughly based on classic Christian theology -- that man has a pure side (Adam) but also an evil side (the fall), and that there are t..."

As a non-Christian the idea of duality is actually an important part of my own personal beliefs and philosophy.

Unlike the Christians I do not necessarily see it in terms of pure good vs pure evil. But for me I would see it more was Hyde representing the absolute primal/animalistic side of man without the moderation which most people have.

I think everyone does have a dark side and Mr. Hyde is that personified as its own complete separate personality.

[Wendel]

Everyman wrote: "The underlying psychological principle of J&H seems to me to be roughly based on classic Christian theology -- that man has a pure side (Adam) but also an evil side (the fall), and that there are t..."

The problem of Good and Bad is hardly a Christian invention. And I’m not sure if there is one single Christian answer to it. And if there was one, would it be the idea of the inseparability that we see in Jekyll&Hyde?

[Everyman]

Wendel wrote: "The problem of Good and Bad is hardly a Christian invention. "

Certainly not. But the question in discussion J&H, it seems to me, is whether it is the background from which Stevenson was writing. Not that we have to restrict ourselves to his approach, but I think we should start there and acknowledge his world view before we venture further afield.

[Deborah, Moderator]

Everyman wrote: "Wendel wrote: "The problem of Good and Bad is hardly a Christian invention. "

Certainly not. But the question in discussion J&H, it seems to me, is whether it is the background from which Stevenso..."

Are we sure Stevenson was Chrisrian?

[Silver]

Deborah wrote: Are we sure Stevenson was Chrisrian?
"

Based upon what I have read, it does not appear that he was. At least not in the traditional sense. He was raised and grew up in a very religious household. His father was a very devout Calvinist but Stevenson struggled with his ideas of religion.

I found this interesting quote from Stevenson on the subject.

“I am religious in my own way, but I am hardly brave enough to interpose a theory of my own between life and death. Here both our creeds and our philosophies seem to me to fail.”

[Everyman]

Even if he wasn't a practicing Christian, he was certainly living in a society permeated with Christian ideas, particularly moral ideas of good and evil.

Here's an essay which delves more deeply into RLS's religious views than I cared to go. [g] Though it did include this quotation: G. K. Chesterton noted that “Stevenson was born of a Puritan tradition, in a Presbyterian country where still rolled the echoes…of the theological thunders of [John] Knox.”
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/199...

So whatever his beliefs at the time he wrote J&H, and it seems clear that his beliefs changed over time, I don't think he could have gotten away from the basic Christian view of the perfection of Adam and the yielding to the temptation of Satan.

[Wendel]

Everyman wrote: "Wendel wrote: "The problem of Good and Bad is hardly a Christian invention. " Certainly not. But the question in discussion J&H, it seems to me, is whether it is the background from which Stevenso..."

I see my reaction was a bit abrupt - taking RLS’s agnosticism for granted#. But whatever the author’ private ideas, you are entitled to point to the Christian background of J&H. It would be interesting though if we could make that a bit more specific. Rereading your posts it seems that you were actually reflecting on an opposition between a struggle between good and evil and a Platonic conception of man being essentially good?

What crossed my mind just now is that while in Christianity the good seems to emanate from God, the struggle in J&H is self-contained within every individual. Easily fitting in an agnostic framework without outside operators. On the other hand outside sources of evil - social contradictions - are stressed by secular idealists (Rousseau, Marx!). Suggesting that the spirit in J&H is not only agnostic but also liberal. But then of course, like everyone, I see my own image in the mirror.

Anyway, J&H did not strike me as very Christian. Except that the intensity of Jekyll’s anxiety reminded me of the Calvinist anguish stemming from the tension between individual responsibility and his (or her) lack of means to influence eternal fate.

# Here I also had a link to http://faithalone.org/journal/1999i/J... - which is indeed a bit long winded, but I enjoyed the vision of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea whilst smoking cigars just like RLS's granddad.

[Everyman]

Wendel wrote: " Rereading your posts it seems that you were actually reflecting on an opposition between a struggle between good and evil and a Platonic conception of man being essentially good?"

Certainly the question of good and evil goes well back in time, but I don't see J&H as positing that man is essentially good. Do you? It seems to me that Stevenson is suggesting that Jekyll was overpowered by his evil side, that man was inherently evil, and that the good must fight for preeminence. Was your reading different?

What crossed my mind just now is that while in Christianity the good seems to emanate from God, the struggle in J&H is self-contained within every individual.

Yes, the good emanates from God, but the struggle for a Christian was internalized in Adam and Eve. They struggled as individuals in self-contained struggle basically on behalf of all mankind, and the good lost.

Anyway, J&H did not strike me as very Christian.

I agree that there was no apparent or overt Christian message. That's why I was intending to suggest that the Christian aspect arose more out of the societal environment strongly based on centuries of a Christan state church in which Stevenson wrote.

[Wendel]

Everyman wrote: "Wendel wrote: "..."

... I don't see J&H as positing that man is essentially good. Do you? ...
No, just my interpretation of your reference to Plato.

... the Christian aspect arose more out of the societal environment...
Agree.

Overall, I wonder if RLS is not overrated today. Probably as a reaction against a period in which he was not valued at all. Following in its turn an initial phase of immense popularity - RLS's position in the canon seems a bit unsteady.

[Everyman]

Wendel wrote: "Overall, I wonder if RLS is not overrated today. "

I don't think he's overrated because I don't think people rate him all that highly. He isn't put on the plane with Austen, Dickens, Hardy, Trollope, and the other majors, but I think is more on a second tier. Which I think is where he belongs. He's a good story teller -- not only J&H but Kidnapped, Treasure Island, and The Wrong Box, an underrated book IMO.

He's also a quite enjoyable travel writer. I have much enjoyed first reading and then later dipping into his Travels with a Donkey and An Inland Voyage. And I was raised on his A Child's Garden of Verses.

He wrote a lot more than most people realize.

I agree that he's not a part of the top level of the canon. But I think he's a very serviceable storyteller, poet, and travel writer, well worth reading. Actually, I think J&H is one of his weaker books, though it's much more notorious because of the subject matter and the way it has entered into the mainstream as the concept of a Jekyll and Hyde. I found the story as a story weaker than I had expected, frankly.

[Wendel]

Everyman wrote: "I found the story as a story weaker than I had expected, frankly. "

Rather third than second tier, imho. It's great that there's more respect for good storytelling today, but I suspect childhood memories play their part in RLS's continuing fame in the Anglo-Saxon world.

It may be different for me because I did not grow up with Long John Silver. Though that must be a matter of chance - because Mowgli and Uncas, no less Anglo-Saxon, do figure among my childhood friends.

Your recommendation will help to keep RLS's other books on my tbr list. As easy reading they must be at least as satisfying as most contemporary suspense. I will add a RLS biography - his life seems interesting.