The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Other Tales of Terror
Gothic Project
>
The Gothic Project - Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - discussion
date
newest »
newest »
This is my second read of this short novel, and I enjoyed it more the second time than the first. I think having Mr. Utterson as the narrator throughout was used by Stevenson as a method of giving credence to the story; Utterson is a fairly passionless person, a good friend of Jekyll, and has some knowledge of Hyde that does not include the awful truth. The off-on friendship between Jekyll and Dr. Lanyon is probably a result of Jekyll's aberrant beliefs from one who claims to be a man of science. Lanyon also serves as a believable eyewitness to the change of Hyde into Jekyll. If Utterson had to rely only on Jekyll's confession, he might have rejected it as a figment of imagination or the evil work of Hyde. The atmosphere of the novel was truly gothic in its creep factor. The horrible old house where Hyde lived, Jekyll's laboratory, fog, deserted streets, a killer on the loose, the horror that Hyde evokes in everyone but that no one can explain - really excellent writing. As a person living in the 21st century, I know that this type of transformation cannot occur, but as a reader giving myself over to the story, well, that's a different matter!
Mod
Lori, that was also my understanding of the text.
Lori, that was my take too, which was interesting. No black and white here; just black and grey with no white; and the grey is dark grey.It wasn't like his entirely bad alter-ego Hyde was engaged in debauchery like excess drinking, drugging, carousing and whoring No, he was instead engaged in activities inflicting actual physical harm and fatal injury on others. That Jekyll had such violent inclinations was interesting and revealing to me.
I picture Jekyll sitting there with a tiny angel on one shoulder and a tiny devil on the other and choosing to only create the devil, as the angel was less intriguing to him. This indicates that Jekyll tended toward that direction - a direction fatal to others, which makes me feel better about Jekyll having to die. Someday he might have chosen to act these tendencies out even without taking a potion.
My review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I don't always read the introductions to books (too many spoilers!), but I did read Robert Mighall's introduction to the Penguin Edition of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Other Tales of Terror after I finished the story. It made me realize that I had failed to set aside prior knowledge while reading the story. By not starting with the assumption that Jekyll and Hyde were different people, I didn't slow down to speculate on what Jekyll's friends and neighbors were speculating about the mysterious relationship between the two men. Early on, Jekyll assures Utterson that "it isn't what you fancy; it is not so bad as that." Come to speak of that, several characters seem to find occasion to be out strolling in disreputable parts of town late at night...Another thing I made assumptions about was Hyde's appearance. In the story, I recall his being described as short and young, but whenever he is described as "deformed," it always comes with disclaimers that the person making the description can't put his finger on any particular way a physical deformation is manifested. It seems more that Hyde gives off (very) "bad vibes," perhaps more like a disreputable-seeming young call boy that Jekyll's friends don't like to imagine his associating with, or "stealing like a thief to Harry's bedside."
Much scarier and highly gothic yet without a castle in sight. And apart from the poor young girl trampled by Hyde at the beginning of the novel, there were no damsels in distress. Nevertheless, as others have said, this was a truly creepy story. One thing that stuck in my mind was Hyde’s oversized, ill-fitting clothes hanging off him all the time, something that doesn’t really come across in any of the adaptations I have seen.I was reminded of one of the Sherlock Holmes stories involving a serum which gave the scientist the strength and agility of an ape.
Even though the serum idea was hard to believe, there is so much in medical science going on today to alter human physiology, such a possibility might eventually materialise.
This was an allegory about evil getting the better of good and how destructive that evil can become. I much preferred this story to the last.
Mod
I read the intro up until the point he suggests one put aside their preconceived notions about the story and that the intro contained a lot of spoilers. I meant to go back and finish reading the intro but forgot.
Mod
Good catch. I knew that but don't think I internalized it until you made this statement.
This little novella was a pretty intense read for me, enjoyable but intense and thought-provoking.
1) The description of Mr. Utterson takes the entire first page and half of the second to complete. Why do you suppose Stevenson spends so much time characterizing Utterson? Does this description give insight into his relationship with Dr. Jekyll?
2) Utterson serves as the narrator throughout the entire novel. The narrative approach is quite dry and factual (some might say scientific). What does this style contribute to the story, if anything? What does Utterson’s perspective provide the story? Does his role in the story help build intrigue as the tale goes on? Why would Stevenson choose to tell the story from Utterson’s perspective, rather than Jekyll’s?
3) Stevenson relies on cityscapes to inform the mood of his story. Did you think these descriptions were effective?
4) What are the similarities and differences between Dr. Jekyll and Dr. Lanyon? More specifically, how are their views of science similar/different? What, if anything, does the source of their disagreement tell us about each man?
5) What are the essential differences between Henry Jekyll and Edward Hyde? Is Jekyll purely "good" and Hyde purely "evil"? Do they share any traits? Does some/any of Jekyll remain within Hyde? Does some/any of Hyde remain with Jekyll? Does Jekyll seem to need or want to be Hyde?
6) After his first transformation, Jekyll initially describes his actions while “in the semblance of Edward Hyde” with “I” as his pronoun of choice, but later in the novel shifts to using “he” and “Hyde” after the first time he transforms into Hyde unwillingly. Jekyll states, “[h]e, I say—I cannot say, I. That child of Hell had nothing human, nothing lived in him but fear and hatred.” Do you think Jekyll is accurate in doing so, or is he simply too horrified at what he has become to accept it? Or is there another explanation?
7) Throughout the novel, there is a notable lack of female characters. When they do appear in the story, they are victims or servants rather than more prominent roles. Is this a reflection of life in Victorian England?