And when I say everybody, I mean everybody. Not just most people today don’t understand the original story—though that’s true—but every retelling of the story, from the earliest stage plays to Steven Moffat’s otherwise brilliant miniseries Jekyll, misses a key point of Robert Louis Stevenson’s original story:
There is no Mr. Hyde.
Edward Hyde is not a separate personality living in the same body as Henry Jekyll. “Hyde” is just Jekyll, having transformed his body into something unrecognizable, acting on unspecified urges that would be unseemly for someone of his age and social standing in Victorian London (i.e. some combination of violence and sex. Torture is specifically mentioned).
Jekyll did not create a potion to remove the evil parts of his nature. He made a potion that allowed him express his urges without feeling guilty and without any consequences besmirching his good name. That’s also why he names his alter ego “Hyde,” because Hyde is a disguise, to be worn and discarded like a thick cloak. He might as well have called Edward “Mr. Second Skin,” or “Mr. Mask.”
It’s important that it’s Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde. Jekyll is a respected professor. Hyde is a lower class schlub. Hyde is also much younger than Jekyll. Both of these facts allow Jekyll as Hyde to get away with a lot worse behavior.
Crucially, we never get Hyde’s point of view. Because it does not exist. Even when he looks like Hyde, Jekyll always thinks of himself as Jekyll. In his testament that ends The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Jekyll always talks about his time in Hyde’s body using “I” statements: I looked in the mirror and saw Hyde, the pleasures I sought in my disguise, I awoke to see I had the hand of Hyde. Even when describing the murder of Sir Danvers, the worst thing he ever does as Hyde, Jekyll says “I mauled the unresisting body” and then, “I saw my life to be forfeit.” That is, he both takes responsibility for the murder (and the pleasure it brought him) and has a very Jekyll-like fear of losing the good life he has. He is always Jekyll, no matter what he looks like, or how he’s behaving.
One source of the misinterpretation of the story is that Jekyll himself refers to Hyde as a separate person, an other, one who has desires and cares completely separate from Jekyll’s. Jekyll claims that while he may want to commit the sins of Hyde, Hyde doesn’t care about the friends, respect, wealth, or love that Jekyll needs.
But Jekyll’s an extremely unreliable narrator in this respect, because his own account belies this conclusion. Not just specifically when recounting the times that he was disguised as Hyde and he still refers to himself as Jekyll, but because “Henry Jekyll’s Full Statement of the Case” is written by Jekyll when he’s stuck in the body of Hyde. If there were ever a time for Hyde to exert himself, talk about himself as an autonomous being, it would be then. But he does not. Because he can’t. Because he does not exist.
The fundamental mistake most versions of Jekyll and Hyde make is not understanding that Jekyll wants to do all the things he does as Hyde. He loves being Hyde. He revels in the freedom of being Hyde and it’s only when the consequences catch up to him anyway that his duel personality becomes a problem for him.
This fundamental mistake leads to further misunderstandings. First, Jekyll is not good. He’s not bad, either, so much as Jekyll is a deeply repressed man who has hidden his violent and sexual urges. His biggest sin is that he wants to face no consequences for anything he does.
Second, Hyde is not the accidental result of an unrelated experiment. Hyde is the absolutely intended result of Jekyll’s experiment. Hyde is not Jekyll’s punishment for playing God. Hyde is Jekyll’s reward.
Third, Jekyll is not unaware or out of control when he’s Hyde. He does not wake up with no memory of what happened the night before. He remembers perfectly everything he does as Hyde, because he was in control the whole time.
And finally, Hyde is not a monster. He’s not the grotesque pink giant Hulk of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or the super-fast, super-strong, super- handsome superhuman of Jekyll. He’s a nasty, brutish, and short ape-like man whose great advantage over Jekyll is that he’s young and seemingly lower class, and therefore can get away with a lot of shit.
Obviously, this rant is one hundred years too late to change the popular perception of this classic of horror. To most people, Jekyll and Hyde is the story of two completely separate personalities, one good and one evil, that share a body and are at war with each other, and that’s not going to change.
That said, I think the original is a much more complicated take on the nature of evil, society, shame, and repression than any that have followed it, and I’d love to see a version that really explored the appeal of Hyde to Jekyll. What would you do if you could be someone else for a night, do whatever you wanted to do, commit whatever sins you wanted to commit, without fear of consequences of any kind? Are we good because we want to be good, or are we good because we just don’t want to be punished?
The idea of evil as “that guy, over there, who takes over my body sometimes against my will” is too simple, and dissociative, and irresponsible. It’s the mistake Jekyll himself makes. Hyde is not someone else who commits Jekyll’s sins for him. Hyde does not exist. Jekyll commits all of his sins on his own.
Steven Padnick is a freelance writer and editor. By day. You can find more of his writing and funny pictures at padnick.tumblr.com.
I guess it’s easier to believe that our evil side has a mind of its own
than acknowledge that we could (and would) do a lot of nasty stuff if we
knew we could get away with it. If Hyde is really Jekyll, then all our unrepressed thoughts are our own, not temptation from a devil outside.
Interesting perspective. I would propose that the unassuming forensic blood-spatter expert/psychopath Dexter is a closer parallel to the Jekyll/Hyde amalgam than any other.
Counterpoint: there is no Jekyll. Jekyll is just Hyde, restrained by the conventions & force of society. Hyde is the true self, Jekyll is the face created in fear of the world’s justice & punishment.
Second, Hyde is not the accidental result of an unrelated experiment.
Hyde is the absolutely intended result of Jekyll’s experiment. Hyde is
not Jekyll’s punishment for playing God. Hyde is Jekyll’s reward.
This is completely at odds with the story itself: Jekyll writes
“It was on the moral side, and in my own person, that I learned to recognise the thorough and primitive duality of man; …and I had learned to dwell with pleasure, as a beloved day-dream, on the thought of the separation of these elements. If each, I told myself, could but be housed in separate identities, life would be relieved of all that was unbearable; the unjust delivered from the aspirations might go his way, and remorse of his more upright twin; and the just could walk steadfastly and securely on his upward path, doing the good things in which he found his pleasure, and no longer exposed to disgrace and penitence by the hands of this extraneous evil.”
He definitely doesn’t want to become Hyde – he wants to become Anti-Hyde. Jekyll believes he is made up of two personalities, one good and dominant (unnamed), one evil (Hyde). The combination, the composite as he calls it, is Jekyll. He develops his treatment because he wants to kill Hyde. In fact, all that happens is that he dissociates the two components of Jekyll, and Hyde, being more energetic, takes over the body completely. If things had gone as Jekyll had wanted, he’d have become a saint when he took the treatment.
mordicai@3: Is there an actual difference? Every one of us shows a different self, or mask, depending on who you’re with, where you are, what’s the situation etc. There is no one true version of ourselves. Saying that Jekyll is a repressed Hyde or Hyde is an unrepressed Jekyll IMHO is pretty much the same thing.
The point of the article is that Jekyll or Hyde are not two separate entities, but just two masks of the same person.
I was very suprised when I finally read the original story, having absorbed various adapatations, and found that this interpretation is actually true. It isn’t a story about the duality of human nature, and it certainly isn’t a story about being taken over by someone else for whom you aren’t responsible; it’s a story about hypocrisy.
a1ay @@.-@, I disagree–I think what Jekyll’s saying in that very quote is that he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He doesn’t want to give up the evil behaviour; he just wants to be able to get away with it, on a moral level as well as a legal one. The early descriptions of Jekyll as a sensualist support that, I think.
After all, there’s already a path to being a moral being; don’t do evil things. Jekyll didn’t want to do that, he wanted an easier way out.
Having never read the original, I can’t speak to the accuracy of this post as several other commenters have, but I think this is a fascinating perspective. If this interpretation is accurate, it presents a darker picture of humanity than I expected. After all, if Hyde is a separate monster, that is not indictment of humanity. Even if Hyde were simply the monster that existed within Jekyll that was loosed when Jekyll was stripped away, that would also not be as disturbing. Instead, this interpretation would say that not only is the monster inside us, but we would all act on these monstrous urges if only given the opportunity to get away with it. Creepy.
Maybe I read the story too many times before seeing any adaptations of it, but I’ve never thought they were two people – it says so right in the book! The whole point is that Jekyll can do things as Hyde that, when he did them as Jekyll, were quite problematic. It’s a disguise, albeit a really great one, that allows him to act on all of his baser urges.
I would also say that Hyde is both a punishment and a reward – he got what he wanted, but he was unable to control it. Kind of like a person who becomes an alcoholic. The Hyde persona was like alcohol: he would do it for a bit to get it out of his system, then go back to being the law abiding citizen. The Sir Danvers Carew episode is like an alcoholic who’s been dry for a time going on a binge and getting into a fight.
Wikisource has the original (public domain) text of the story for free,
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Strange_Case_Of_Dr_Jekyll_And_Mr_Hyde
There is also a free Kindle version on Amazon.
Another possibility is that the “misunderstanding” of the original story is intentional. The majority of people don’t actually want to think about the darker aspects of themselves as Them, they want it to be something Other that they can’t control and therefore are not responsible for. That mentality is the cornerstone of the various adaptations of Jekyll & Hyde. When the first adaptation of the story was being considered, I’m quite sure it went something like:
“Hey, love this story! We should do something with it.”
“Yeah, but I think we should make it so this Hyde guy is the evil part of Jekyll and he’s uncontrollable.”
“You’re right, it would probably freak people out as is and people really like the Good/Evil stuff.”
This is just my personal take on why the story was tweaked and if you look at modern movies it seems like a silly stance to take, however, if you consider the time when the story was written and the time of the first “misunderstanding” then you have to apply a completely different set of morals and world views. And that gives you a reasoning that is different from just about anything you would find in these modern times.
This strikes me as thematically the same as H.G. Wells” The Invisible Man.” The serum did not drive the scientist insane, it freed him from the consequences of his actions, and freed from those consequences he acted freely. Both stories would seem to have a very cynical view of humanity and that we behave only because we are afraid of punishment.
The serum did not drive the scientist insane, it freed him from the
consequences of his actions, and freed from those consequences he acted
freely.
A concept not original to HG Wells. The original Invisible Man story was written about 2,500 years earlier, by Plato: the Ring of Gyges.
“Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other;,no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust.”
“this rant is one hundred years”
Why do you call an intelligent, well-written essay a rant? O-o
You have good points, and I agree with most of them.
A similar tale was told on Star Trek in the episode “The Enemy Within” where, in that case, the Captain Kirk is split into two people: one “good” and one “bad”. The recap and analysis can be found on this site’s rewatch of that series:
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2009/04/lemgstar-treklemg-re-watch-aldquothe-enemy-withinardquo
The analysis makes some great points:
While in that story there are two separate people, I believe it is making a similar argument to that in The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: we are both “good” and “evil” and it is our ability (presence of mind, social norms, laws etc.) to control and deal with the various aspects of our personality that determine our actions.
A similar story is told in Star Trek in the episode “Mirror, Mirror”, taking that argument further by exploring what the very same same people would do if the circumstances were different in order to allow “evil” to predominate: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2009/09/star-trek-re-watch-mirror-mirror
In fact, the author’s analysis of that episode expresses my sentiment exactly:
In that episode, the very same people behave in much more violent ways do to the nature of that universe. This episode also invokes The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and asks some interesting philosophical questions about the nature of “good” and “evil”, I believe, similarly to the exploration Nietzsche wrote about. It also poses interesting questions that some people have difficulty facing: that we all have “evil” thoughts and urges and that these are part of human nature as much as love and compassion.
@8. LameName: Do you mean “creepy” as the difficulty one might experience in managing the differences between how humans are, flaws and aggressive/violent tendencies and all, versus how we think we think we ought to be?
To me, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde illustrates human nature, all aspects, and how we conceive “good” and “evil”. These concepts are constantly evolving as we develop different “social contracts” on what we will accept and what we will not and why.
Victorian England must have been far less permissive than 21st century England. While certain things remain unacceptable (e.g. murder, theft, etc.) other things that were considered “evil” then may now be considered “good” now (or at least not “evil”) and vice versa.
@10. StrongDreams: thank you for posting the link!
Hyde is described as not just a shorter man than Jekyll, but physically a smaller one. I think big tall Stevenson was letting his prejudices show.
Just because Plato said this doesn’t make it true. I was horrified when I first read Plato in college after hearing him described as a “great philosopher” and realized that his philosophy was essentially fascist. Maybe Plato couldn’t keep his hands off what was not his own; that doesn’t mean nobody could.
“Hyde is described as not just a shorter man than Jekyll, but physically a smaller one. I think big tall Stevenson was letting his prejudices show.”
The reason, why Jekyll was small, according to Jekyll, is that he represented his “dark side” – yeah, I know, but whatever -, and because Jekyll did not commit that much attrocities in his past, therefore Hyde was a “small part” of him (that is why he was also young). However, in the novel, it is also mentioned, that with each attrocity, Hyde grows more and more – that is how Alan Moore explains that he is a hulking brute in the LoEG, and it is in the comic book as well, twice – once Jekyll notes this in vol 1., and then Hyde mentions it to Nemo during a dinner scene.
So, I never viewed Hyde as an “evil dwarf”, but as a “childlike creature in growing”.
Just because Plato said this doesn’t make it true.
In any case, Plato didn’t say it. He made a character say it in order to provide a challenge, which the rest of the work is then taken up with answering.
I’m surprised there’s been no reference to The Nutty Professor yet, as films that I believe greatly influence modern versions of J&H.
What’s particularly interesting is that the 1963 version by Jerry Lewis mostly takes the “original” approach – that Buddy Love is just a persona enabled by the drug – whereas the Eddie Murphy remake explicitly adopts the “modern” interpretation of Buddy Love being an alternate personality that wants to “take over”.
Having never read the original story, I greatly appreciate this interpretation of it. Humanity itself holds all the ingredients for good and evil, which are ever-evolving concepts. Outside influences – whatever, Satan, magic, at times drugs and alcohol – that get blamed for bad decisions are excuses to somehow seperate ourselves from our own actions and internal desires. I think I will have to put this on my TBR list now.
After reading this article I decided to re-read Jekyll and Hyde. The article is essentially correct but it’s not like J&H is the only case this has happened – modern cultures doesn’t get any of the classic characters right, and it’s mostly early Hollywood to blame. The Frankenstein monster could speak. Frankenstein did not have a hunchbacked assistant. Tarzan was not only eloquent, he was a veritable genius, learning the english language from a dictionary without even having the concept of written language explained to him. Dracula could walk in the sunlight (allbeit with reduced powers), and so on.
Michael_GR: totally agree. I also wish to add, that in most mythologies and folklores, werewolves were active during new, and not full moon (there are a couple examples for the other version as well, if I remember correctly, the werewolves of Breton is one, but they were hardly prevalent).
It is because moon is the symbol of wisdom, it lights through nights, and people in old ages had the time to speak about lofty topics after daytime chores, when the moon had already rised. So, when the moon waned, it was the time of creatures with basic instincts and urges, such as the werewolves (not to mention, that in contrast with full moon, a mere mortal can hardly see anything during new moon nights, therefore he is more of an easy prey for nocturnal predators). There is also the legend of the wolf eating the moon.
However, full moon provides way better visuals in a film than full… darkness, I guess. So, that is why we ended up with werewolves transforming during full moon.
Hedgehog Dan: In some ancient cultures (as far back as ancient Greece!) , the full moon was assumed to increase insanity somehow, hence the term lunatic. I would guess the origin of the connection between the full moon and werewolves has somethign to do with this.
“Counterpoint: there is no Jekyll. Jekyll is just Hyde, restrained by
the conventions & force of society. Hyde is the true self, Jekyll
is the face created in fear of the world’s justice & punishment.”
Why is it always the bad thoughts and desires deemed powerful and real, while the good stuff is just a layer of fluff on top?
I try and treat those around me right because I either love them (in the case of friends and family), or it makes me feel good (in the case of others). Not because I “fear punishment and justice.”
I suppose there are many people like you deem Jekyll to be, but I’m betting there’s also lots who are genuinely good people, not innate cowards.
Michael_GR: Well, that is a good point, too! :) (And regarding the term “lunatic”, actually, you can find this logic behind words with similar meaning in other languages, such as, in Hungarian, “holdkóros” means “moonstruck”, or, literally, “moonmad” or “moonsick”, where “hold” is “moon” and “kóros” is “sick (of something)”.)
HYDE SMASH
Just because Plato said this doesn’t make it true. I was horrified when
I first read Plato in college after hearing him described as a “great
philosopher” and realized that his philosophy was essentially fascist.
Oh, definitely. I’ve no time for the philosophy that people are essentially wicked and are held in check only by the fear that someone (their neighbours, or the police, or Ceiling Cat) might be watching. Just pointing out the similarity with the Invisible Man.
Wells didn’t believe it was true of all people either; but it makes a good story if it’s true of the person who gets the gift of invisibility…
Interesting article, thanks.
As a small correction, it should be “dual personalities”, not duel.
Interesting article. Thanks.
One thing I would adduce against the theory is this from Andrew Lang. It’s hearsay of course, but it’s one of my favourite quotes:
‘He told me once he meant to write a story about a fellow who was two fellows, which did not, when thus stated, seem a fortunate idea’
One thing that supports the theory, I think, is that it is that the reader is not made aware that Hyde and Jekyll are the same person until the final part of the book. Up to then, the story seems to be about the mysterious hold evil Hyde has on respectable Jekyll.
Finally, it is well said that it is never, I think, specifically stated that Jekyll is good, he is respectable which is not the same thing.
First rule about Fight Club: Nobody talks about Fight Club.
It is a modern take of Jekyll and Hyde.
I think you might find Jorge Luis Borges’ review of one of the Hyde movies helpful, as he addresses many of the issues you bring up. One point on which he differs, is the emphais in the movie versions of the strong physical contrast, describing (disdainful of the concept) the movies’ portrayal of Hyde as “negroid” in feature. I think he believed that Hyde should be malicious, and very much acting on his id, yet his physical appearance shouldn’t connote this malevolence, and certainly racial prejudice should not play a part in what his appearance should be.
Another approach that contains much of what you’ve written here is in Mary Reilly, written by Valerie Martin, where a servant girl sees these two characters from the outside, and never connects them. It’s fascinating, because if I remember, Reilly sees Hyde as just one more gentleman who thinks he can do with a woman whatever he likes, and she’s rather naive in her view of Jekyll, unwilling to see him as anything but a spotless innocent.
I think They Might Be Giants worked this out with “My Evil Twin” some years ago.
And anyway, the title led me to believe that I was going to learn Jekyll was actually a lesbian ferret from Saturn, or something. Otherwise, this is a highly specific pet peeve that I am glad you likely do not have to endure often.
Either way, this series created the worst NES game of all time.
Dude, nobody gets this wrong. The extent of Jekyll’s agency in Hyde’s actions is the central question of the book. Everybody gets it. Your theory – that he’s entirely in control – is totally valid, but it’s not laid out specifically in the book because Stevenson wants different conclusions to be possible.
Do you hang out with people who read, ever? Because nobody, seriously, misses this about Jekyll and Hyde. It’s, like, super obvious.
This is all quite clear in the 1931 movie starring Frederick March. We see that he is a not-quite-as-good-as-he-appears man who is aware that he is repressing certain urges and would like to be able to excerise them without social consequences. The movie does not suggest that there are two different physical or moral entities at work. It’s all Jeckyll all the way.
Would it be ok with you if i quoted you in an essay? My Ela teacher spent many an hour lecturing us on APA so don’t worry i’ll give you credit and you will be on my referances sheet :)
I got the impression Hyde, though not separate in the way he is usually protrayed, is still distinct from Jekyll. He mentions that Hyde began to “resent” having to hide as Jekyll and was “refusing to be opressed”. At first Hyde is just Jekyll’s disguise, but gradually acts in ways that frighten Jekyll and thus becomes distinct. Also he doesn’t write the statement as Hyde, but his last time as Jekyll as the hour of transformation is approaching. He also locks Hyde in the room, though Hyde has pretty much given up at that point and decides to commit suicide rather than being caught.
Hi,
While I very much agree with most of what you wrote there was one fact that was a little off and kind of still leads one to question whether Hyde was a seperate entity ripped from the mind of Jekyll, and thrust into it’s own body..
When you said Jekyll is in Hydes body and writing his “full statement of the case” he wasn’t..
Jekyll was still in Jekyll’s body, and says within the book that the moment Hyde takes over he may rip up the statement..
Jekyll states how he sincerely hopes that doesn’t happen because he wants Mr. Utterson to understand whats become of him.
However, there was a time when Jekyll was in Hydes body and managed to still force Hyde to go to Dr. Lanyon for a potion that would return him to his former self… but it’s obvious he is slowly losing control, slipping away, becomeing only Hyde.
The book also states that “Hyde” is the embodyment of Pure evil, and “Jekyll” is both good and evil.
Jekyll wished that by creating Hyde and making the evil seperate from himself that he would end up with Jekyll as pure good, and Hyde as pure evil with no more conflicting emotions. However, that wasn’t what happened. It didn’t work out as he inteded.
Whilst I agree with the principle of this argument, I find that it is far too simplistic.
First of all, whilst it is easier to say that this book is about the innate ‘good’ and ‘evil’ of all humans, I find that it is much more complicated than that. To me personally, it is more like a critique of Victorian society (for example, Utterson, whilst saying that he hopes Hyde isn’t blackmailing Jekyll, admits that he has committed misdeeds in his past) and how the people that are our superiors are supposed to be better than the rest of us and yet can be just as immoral as criminals.
I also find that the fact you say that he wishes to bear no consequeces for his actions….is not actually a fact. From what I can remember (I have read this book rather recently but long enough for some of the details to slip from my mind) he believes in the duality of human nature, he even states it himself when he says ‘man is not one, but two’. He believes that there is an angel and a fiend fighting on the battleground that is the human soul. They fight for the mastery of this soul, thus explaining why these people who are supposed to be our betters indulge in their darker sides. He is obviously proved wrong when he carries out his experiments to prove his theory but ends up unleashing Hyde, who can be seen as the ‘fiend’ but he has no angelic counterpart, as Jekyll does not fully embody ‘good’.
Thirdly, it is not so much that Hyde is seen as a different person from Jekyll, it is that he is the part of him that is the primitive being, or ‘troglodyt’ as Utterson calls him. He shows that he is primitive due to his impulsiveness. Whilst Jekyll enjoys the power that this gives him to begin with as he relishes in his achievement, he begins to let the primitive side of him take control and eventually, he loses it. Hyde isn’t a seperate being per se, but is the embodiment of Jekyll’s repressed primitive side.
My final part of opposition against this ‘rant’ is that Hyde doesn’t have the cares that Jekyll has most of the time. He has the same desires, bt if he was as bothered about Jekyll’s cares then he would stop himself from committing the attrocities that he does.
Whilst this is the way I see this novel, I suppose it is all a matter of perception. If people all read in the same way I suppose that this world would be a very debate-less place. So my conclusion is that Hyde, although not a seperate character from Jekyll (sort of, that matter is rather complicated but considering this idea came from a dream Stevenson had and the fact that it is a mystery, I think it was meant to be left open), there he does exist, in this novel at least and generally he does in all human beings if you want me to get into an in-depth meaning of this novel and it’s characters, themes, motifs etc.
P.S. I apologize for any grammer/spelling errors. I have other things to do than check over my rants all day. Thanks!
This article is a very good analysis and has a good perspective. Helped very much. Thank you
Although primarily I agree with you, regarding the fact that Hyde is supposed to actually just be Jekyll, and it is not a dissociative break in the normal sense of the term, I feel like the fact that he has to take a potion to “transform” is enough to make the statement “there is no Mr. Hyde” misleading. Dr. Jekyll, when he has “turned off” the brain chemicals that make him moral and conscientious, is no longer Dr. Jekyll, because those brain functions are a part of what creates the whole. But yes, Hyde is and does what Jekyll wants to be and do.
Also, have you seen the musical? It doesn’t embody this concept completely, but it does hint at it a little more heavily than most of the adaptations I have seen, particularly in the returning song “Facade.”
Very profoun topic.
Answers many questions of my own.
Such as, why do we have a voice on either side in the first place, and why is one good, and one bad?
After reading simply twenty minutes of this article, it occurred to me how simple this really becomes.
Think about what make one smile, as well a frown. Both can be extremely intense to the point of complete insanity.
So yes. We all have this nature that gives us a conscience. The good side brings things we feel good about. The bad, something to hide…no pun intended.
So what voice wins in the end? Thats my favorite question.
Its the one we feed the most.
So then do we like who we are? And why? What voice do we “act” out?
sp
I read this book a couple years ago, not as a kid, and I totally got it that Hyde is Jekyll’s guilty pleasure. I recommend the book, “The Deadliest Monster,” which looks at this book & others from a religous worldview standpoint. Stephenson was a deeply spiritually conflicted guy; the book is HIS story.
As a fan of Stevenson and his works I really enjoyed this article. The only problem that it has, in my opinion, is the selectiveness with Jekyll’s statement of the case. You make a good point in saying that Jekyll’s narration is unreliable, but you cannot categorize some parts of it as more reliable than others. It is true that Jekyll refers to the crimes in first person, but that could be because of many reasons. Another thing is that when Jekyll is writing the letter, he is still in his normal body. It is mentioned that because of the continued use of the draught, the regular state of form is Hyde’s body. The draught had to be taken constantly for Jekyll to return to his normal body and THIS WAS DONE BY HYDE. Hyde hated the position he was in and vandalized Jekyll’s property as a form of revenge. Hyde was the one who went to Dr. Lanyon’s to get the draught. Hyde was only doing this as an instinct of survival. As long as Dr. Jekyll was present he was safe from execution for the crimes commited. This is just my opinion on the book and could be wrong, but isn’t this, analyzing a book and discussing it, what is fun about it.
My narrative has hitherto escaped destruction. Should the throes of change take me in the act of writing it, Hyde will tear it in pieces.
This disproves your claim that Hyde is writing the confession.
I am worried because my name is Hyde. No kidding! Is there any hope for me? LOL
I hate to burst your bubble- even if you’re partially correct. The whole point of it is two sides fighting for dominance. Henry Jekyll creates a formula to test his theory of the dual nature of man. It works. Jekyll allows Hyde to commit some acts early on then realizes later on that Hyde is out of control.
Jekyll is not fully in control of these actions. This is not supposed to be put to a realistic standpoint since it is fiction. There is no possible way to tell if anyone got anything right or wrong about because this is all out of an author’s own head- nothing more.
Although I would agree with you fully on it if there was enough evidence to substantiate your claim. Jekyll realizes the only way to stop Hyde is to kill himself so Hyde does not take control and does not do anymore damage.
Otherwise you do make excellent points.
I stumbled across this while researching the book for a 3 Unit English assignment and enjoyed it a lot. I don’t have the patience to read through all of the comments, but I really like Mordecai’s idea that there may be no Jekyll, and that Dr Jekyll is just Mr Hyde who has been in hiding for a few years.
Mr Hyde is simply the expression of an addictive personality. The whole story is about addiction (of any kind).
Craig Nakken tells you all about it in his brilliant book “The addictive personality”, where Jekyll and Hyde also are mentioned.
I believe that Mr Hyde is Doctor Jekyll with no inhibitions. Similar to a person a person who gets too drunk, its still them, they are not some other person yet they do things they would not normally do when thinking rationally. This is what i believe happens with Jekyll, in the paragraph written above somewhere it states “on the thought of the separation of these elements. If each, I told myself, could but be housed in separate identities, life would be
relieved of all that was unbearable; the unjust delivered from the
aspirations might go his way, and remorse of his more upright twin; and
the just could walk steadfastly and securely on his upward path, doing
the good things in which he found his pleasure, and no longer exposed to
disgrace and penitence by the hands of this extraneous evil.” which shows Jekyll knows he has dark or impure thoughts and that his experiment was to seperate himself into two seperate people one pure good and one who has all the dark, impure thoughts. This is where i think most reditions take their plot and that it only half works creating the dual identities only not creating another body. However in the book i believe that when he transforms it removes his better judgement (similar to overly drunk people) and so acts with only on those impure thoughts driving him without thinking of the consequences and as i said before he would still be the same person just with no inhibitions and so he would obviously feel responsible for those crimes and refer to himself as Jekyll when in first person as Hyde is not truely a seperate identity but Jekyll with no inhibitions on sinful actions.
You point out some important points of misunderstanding about the novella. However, I think you leave out some important points, too. It is true that Hyde is fully present within the person of Jekyll, but it is not true that Hyde is only a physical transformation.
While I can agree that Jekyll is somewhat of an unreliable narrator (though not a very unreliable narrator, as you characterize him), his final confession is not written in the body of Hyde. Hyde has no desire to confess his sins, as it is made clear that Hyde has no conscience to clear. Jekyll specifically says that he fears Hyde will tear up his confession if given the chance, and this also speaks to the basic nature of the two personalities. Hyde is Jekyll’s sinful, uncivilized nature made manifest–this really could not be more clear in the novella.
While indeed the vast majority of adpatations ignore half the novel, your interpretation ignores the other half, which is just as bad.
the essence of well being are our feelings and we act according to those, but as we grow up and build our lives around them, we are confronted with “identities”, which, as we begin to experience as an adult, can apparantly have an impact on feelings and even dig out buried ones, that do not function in society
jeckyl n hyde shows that 1st confrontation with such an identity awareness
the person is the same, but there are in fact 2 identities with distinct preferences, a baby and a tiger, if u want so
the tiger will jump into any fire, while the baby doesnt even like the thought of it and ultimately both feel different about the situations, they go through, despising or enjoying
those feelings are, that one acts upon and thats why the identities should be seen as something different
Actually in these cases Hollywood is not to blame – it is theatre that is to blame. ;) In both the case of Dracula and Frankenstein, the films are basically carbon copies of popular plays. In the case of Frankenstein, the film is based on a 1927 play, that is in turn based on another 1823 (yes, 1823) play called Presumption, that made the creature into a mute brute. The play also introduced the hunchbacked assistant Fritz, and even added the line “It lives! It lives!” – very much like Colin Clive shouting “It’s Alive! It’s Alive!” The 1823 play was a musical comedy.
OK, so in the case of Tarzan, Hollywood really is to blame – but on the other hand, Burroughs wasn’t really in the literary league of Stephenson or Shelley, either …
I difinitely agree that one might say that Dr. jekyll did both succeed and fail in his attempts to proof the co-existence of good and evil in the human mind: While Hyde represents only evil and has no counterpart (which, in my perspective -is also a warning that his experiment can and will provoke an inbalance) , Jekyll is STILL both good and evil. He, at one hand, wish to release his primitive instincs and wild and cruel sites and ALLOWS it to do so, thinking this would encounter his ego to act “better”/ “less evil” when his “evil site” is NOT in demand.
On the other hand, exactly doing so, he looses control because for so many years hes dark sites have been suppressed at an unnatural level and therefore gains control in order to make a balancae between the bright and dark site of his soul.
Facing the fact that actually separating good and evil of the human kind is impossible in any kind of way (and is MEANT TO BE -because of the natural balance between good and evil) -suicide is a natural consequence and end and the only way out for him: To get rid of “evil” you also have to get rid of “good” -and thus, to stop Hyde -who IS Jekyll, suicide is his only way out of his escalating lack of control. A lack of control unintentionally provoked by Jekylls idea that separating the evil site from the good in himself would be the result. So -I guess, if you tried to suppress and/or remove the good site, the good site would resist and take control. but then again: Being “good” includes good intentions, not being selfish and good actions as well, while the devil/evil takes any given chance to take control and acting all selfish ONLY for the sake of his own servival and to eliminate any resistance. the “good” would -and will -accept resistance and not only acting for his own sake adn survival. At some level, I have learned that Jekyll IS actually acting kind of selfish when wanting to release his dark, suppressed self to balance himself -even if hurting or murdering others…Conclusion once again: Try to separate good and evil entirely and you will always fail. In other words: His experiment ended up as a dead end…good and evil co-exist just as well as black/ white, light/dark and so on…
Have you seen every adaptation out there? Just the other night I was watching the Jack Parlance 1968 version of the story and its quite clear in there that Jekyll and Hyde share the exact same consciousness/mind/memories/etc.; its just that Hyde allows Jekyll a way to funnel all his hidden desires without (as you’ve said) fear of reprisal. A character even makes it clear at the end that Jekyll is ultimately the one responsible for everything and Hyde is just a red Herring to mask all his sins.
This is a very insightful opinion to the whole take on the relationship of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. When reading it myself the information from above never even crossed my mind. I never really thought of it this way and the article was completely right when at the beginning it said everyone forgets Hyde. While reading it like other readers completely overlooked the fact that Jekyll and Hyde were not the same person Hyde was just a skin or mask for Jekyll. This now puts a different light on Jekyll; he is evil, Jekyll is evil, Hyde is not in control of Jekyll, but instead Hyde in merely a puppet for Jekyll’s wrongdoings. This was such an insightful article and it has changed the way I view the book and the characters in it
I never really thought of the relationship between them to be like this. Now that I see this from your perspective, I can conclude that it makes perfectly good sense that Hyde is really just a creation of Jekyll to reveal his true urges. I feel he means for this “mask” to show his temptations to be evil yet keep his image he wants everyone else to see as Jekyll. Like Harrison said that Hyde isn’t in control of Jekyll. When Jekyll screams for mercy, it seems he is actually crying for help to reveal Hyde without hurting his friends around him. Jekyll may have been seen as an example of mere kindness and light but this shows his mask of Hyde is actually his evil being exposed and expressed with his actions.
I, along with many other people, belong in the category of “everybody” used in this article. I thought that Hyde had his own personality. This article cleared things up for me and probably many other people about how the only thing that changed in Dr. Henry Jekyll is his appearance. I recommend that this article be read by readers of “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”. To give a little extra information. In the popular Vegietale, “Dr. Jiggle and Mr. Sly”, it consists of the same idea found in this informational article. Dr. Jiggle did not have two personalitlies but just expressed his desire to dance in a different appearance. If you have not seen this clip please go and watch. I believe you can find it on You Tube. This article changed my view on “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”. Thank you for your attention in reading my comment.
Dr. Jekyll is very good He is very good, very good, almost a perfect person, has a very high reputation. But behind these rings, his pressure is huge. So, he made a bold experiment, the deployment of a potion, can make themselves into a completely opposite – Mr. Hyde, he is like evil. This story makes me think, in fact, each of us has some “evil thoughts”, and we are also a “dual character” of the people, but we can control their own. Our minds control our actions, but sometimes we also need a way to release the heart of depression, which need to choose a right way, can not indulge themselves, otherwise it will be like Dr. Jakil to the end can not control themselves and regret life.
I think this website is very interesting because it tells real facts, and it doesn’t tell lies or opinions. This is site is very similar to the book, but the facts on this website is more interesting, it’s understandable, and it’s very easy to catch on in this article. In my opinion, this article is better than the book because it’s very easy to learn from, and it’s a lot easier to observe, interpret, and to apply it to your life.
I agree with mostly everything on this post, that Hyde doesn’t truly exist, and all, but it is worth noting that when writing the “full statement of the case”, it is Jekyll writing it in his own body, not Hyde’s. He states “About a week has passed, and I am now finishing this statement under the influence of the last of the old powers. This, then, is the last time, short of a miracle, that Henry Jekyll can think his own thoughts or see his own face” He then even later on states that “Should the throes of change take me in the act of writing it, Hyde will tear it in pieces”. So, if Jekyll were in Hyde’s body during the statement, he would’ve already torn the explanation to pieces and it wouldn’t exist.
This doesn’t take away from your post as a whole, there is still plenty of evidence to back up Hyde never existing, but I figured you ought to fix that small mistake before anyone gets to crazy over it. :)
From about chapter 3 of this book I was fully aware that Jekyll and Hyde were the same person. However, I had no clue how Jekyll turned evil, or visa versa. Seeing it from this POV is quite interesting. I love how the term “mask” is used, because being a teenager this is a very relative metaphor in my life. A lot of times people put on these “masks” because they are too afraid to be themselves or they do not want to show any signs of weakness in their lives.I recommend this article to anyone who has read “The Strange Case of Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde” or is in the process of reading it now.
Nice summary! I read the book in english class and lately I’ve been watching several Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde adaptations. It was quite clear to me that the adaptations didn’t really understand the concept of the original story. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are one and the same person, that is. Jekyll even planned to discard his life as Dr. Jekyll and continue living as Mr. Hyde according to his will. Hyde was never a split personality. These “evil vs good” adaptations are childish and stupid. There’s no person on earth who is pure good.
“Even when he looks like Hyde, Jekyll always thinks of himself as Jekyll.”
I disagree. In the final page of Dr Jekyll’s full statement of the case, he refers to Hyde in the third person:-
“Hyde will tear it in pieces”
“Will Hyde die upon the scaffold?
Hyde is simply “another than [Jekyll}”. Thus, I would say that the struggle between the good and evil with Jekyll concern such isolated beings, that they are eventually two different, full, personalities within the same body.
Twas a prophetic metaphor for NATO.
Or should I say US/NATO..
I agree with the author. Jekyll was Hyde from the get go. A more recent award winning rendition of this phenomenon is the TV series Breaking Bad. Walter White began his transformation for all the ‘right’ reasons, first of which was to provide income for his wife and children after he succumbed to cancer. The end result, after 5 or 6 years, he had fully transformed into a cancer free murderer and drug dealer totally, irreconcilably separated from his family and the ‘good life’ he once had with with them.
I’ve never read the story, but I never got the impression they were supposed to be two people. I always thought the whole point of the story was that Hyde was the hidden evil side of Jekyll. The adaptation I remember best – the one with Spencer Tracy in the lead – supported the reading from this essay. The only difference ie that Hyde didn’t look younger than Jekyll, but that’s for the obvious reason that you couldn’t make Tracy look younger than himself.
People certainly do like the “it’s a completely different, evil person who takes over his hody!” interpretations. See the popularity of the “Angel and Angelus, two totally different dudes” fanon, even though it doesn’t make sense from anything that happens on Buffy/Angel.
@13 That paragraph is true of some people, but only of the minority. Essentially, it describes psychopaths. Most people can feel empathy and have internal morality that’s based on what they feel is right and wrong, rather than just on reward and punishment.
@20 Really? I thought Murphy’s version was clearly about a guy using steroids to lose weight and be conventionally attractive, and starting to act like a huge jerk as a result (as steroids can make you act).
@22 Or how, in popular consciousness, thanks to adaptations, people tend to think Wuthering Heights is a sugary, sappy romance about a brooding romantic hero who looks like the whitest, most Anglo-Saxon actor alive, and some bland dead girl who married another guy because she was wishy washy or something.
There are also misconceptions about Shakespeare’s characters, but it’s classic criticism and older theatre adaptations that’s largely responsible for those:
“King Lear was a good man, how did his daughters turn out so evil” – no, he wasn’t. He was an asshole.
“Macbeth was a totally nice guy, and everything was the fault of his evil wife”
“Othello is a story about a really jealous guy, Othello”
“Iago had no motive for his malicious actions” – Yeah, right. This is mostly a case of pre-20th century critics wanting to ignore what’s staring them in the face, even when it is spelled out in the play itself.
“Hamlet’s problem was that he just couldn’t make a decision/act” – He had a lot of issues, but that wasn’t one of them. On the contrary. He definitely should have acted less rashly on some occasions (he wouldn’t have killed Polonius if he had).
Oh dear, it seems a1ay didn’t understand the story at all. He falls for the one of the very myths invented entirely by the movies – that Jekyll was trying to find a “cure” for evil. There are many, many valid interpretations of this most excellent story, which is why we’re having this discussion here so many years later – however, the idea that from the outset the ultimate aim of Jekyll’s research was to rid himself of his Hyde-like nature is laughably wrong and completely unsupported by the text (but one can see why early Hollywood would have preferred it to be that way).
Well why don’t I give you a nice hypothesis , what if Dr.Jekyll’s formula didn’t actually have any effect on transforming him into Hyde ? what if he was only convinced that it will help him turn to Hyde what if he only believed it ? just to convince himself that he had the excuse to commit whatever evil he wants to commit , and never pay the price . maybe the formula didn’t work sometimes because he didn’t want it to , because he was to scared to become Hyde , or because he always wanted to be Hyde . hypocrisy man !
HOW has no one mentioned Sigmund Freud yet? This book was published around the same time that Freud and his colleagues were developing theories about the human consciousness and psyche. I know Freud is out of fashion these days, BUT…
In Freud’s tri-fold theory of human consciousness, the ID is the repository of all unconscious desires, wishes, emotions, and “base” urges. In contrast, the SUPEREGO is the internalized conscience, the “I should” voice that keeps the id in check. Certainly works of literature on the “dark side” of human nature have been around since people discovered language. However, Stevenson is DEFINITELY engaging with Freudian theory here.
And yes, the “transformation” is a metaphor because, according to Freud, one’s id is a fundamental part of human nature and not something that can be excised or ignored. Given the “potion” Jekyll takes, I also wonder if it’s not also a metaphor for drug or alcohol abuse, as other commenters have noted (or – combining the two – abuse of laudanum, the Victorians’ favourite vice!).
You got a few things right but you’re pretty wrong on a lot of others:
-You’re right that Jekyll and Hyde are not discrete personalities but you’re wrong in thinking the transformation is only external. The personality TRAITS change. Hyde is Jekyll with his conscience and inhibitions stripped away. He does things Jekyll would never do even if he knew he would never be held accountable.
-You’re wrong that literally every adaptation has “missed the point”. The 1931 version, for example, never implies Jekyll and Hyde are two different minds in one body. And judging by Jekyll’s actions it’s clear he’s a decent guy but is still motivated by self preservation, and therefore not pure good. Otherwise he’d have committed suicide to spare the world of Hyde’s evil instead of continuing to pretend he’s a different guy.
-Finally I reject this notion that adaptations are somehow defective if they don’t interpret things the same way they are in the novel. If the film maker or playwright or whoever wants to utilize the stereotypical “split personality” gimmick in their version, that’s their prerogative. The result should be judged on it’s own merits, not how closely it resembles the original story.
You did not spell the author’s name correctly.
@84 – Fixed, thanks.
you’ve just been smoothwalled
ssssssssssssssmmmmmmmmmmmmmmooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooottttttttttttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
When I was at university, I attended a lecture which provided a very different interpretation about how everybody gets ‘Jekyll & Hyde’ wrong. The lecturer also mentioned Freud as being relevant here – although as I understand it (and as the lecturer made clear) – Stevenson’s novel pre-dates Freud’s ego-superego-id tripartite structure of the psyche by some years. Anyway – the theory is this: Jekyll & Hyde is not and cannot be a novel about duality. The evidence lies in ‘Henry Jekyll’s Statement Of The Case’ in which the narrator refers to himself as ‘I’ and is generally assumed to be Jekyll. This interpretation is fine while the narrator refers only to ‘I’ and to ‘Hyde’ however, it becomes problematic as the statement continues when the narrator begins to refer to both Hyde AND Jekyll in the third person. At this point in the lecture, the concept of an ‘infinite regress of ‘I’s’ was raised and also the idea that Stevenson had created in fiction not just something that was eerily similar to Freud’s model of the psyche but also a fictional case study of an ‘individual’ with a multiple personality disorder that included at least 3 distinct personalities.
Alright, I just want to say that you are not wrong, however you’re not right. You can’t just interpret a piece of literature and be like “oh my god everyone is an idiot because they don’t see it the right (my) way!” While I don’t agree with majority of your claims, I’m not just gonna directly call you an idiot and say you’re just entirely wrong. Books are supposed to be interpreted for our own enjoyment. However, I do want to add my two-cents in on why I disagree. Given this book is my research topic (technically the historical context of the book) for a month-long research project for my English class, I gotta look up a bunch of literary criticisms on this stuff. While reading (I’ll link the most helpful article), I’ve learned how even Stevenson to an extent admits this is inspired by the idea of a split personality, or rather the popular idea floating around during the Victorian Era (when Dr. J and Mr. H was written) “Brain-Duality Theory”. In this it explains how Hyde greatly (and I mean nearly exact) resembles what the right hemisphere of the brain represented in this said theory and Jekyll represented the left. So basically, to contradict your first opener, you’re wrong. Dr. Jekyll and Hyde are indeed two personalities, just the same brain. The article I read describes how the two struggled for control over the full brain until Dr. Jekyll took his salt potion (or whatever it was called, don’t feel like looking up the specific name), it severed the nerve connection between the two sides of his brain, allowing his dual personality, Mr. Hyde, to fully come into play. If what I’m saying makes no sense, I apologize because it’s kind of a lot and might just be too confusing because I’ve poorly explained myself. If you read the article and you’re actually interested, skip to the third section of brain duality. I actually enjoyed this criticism and found it very interesting. Here’s the link: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4127513?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=The&searchText=Strange&searchText=Case&searchText=of&searchText=Dr.&searchText=Jekyll&searchText=and&searchText=Mr.&searchText=Hyde&searchText=Robert&searchText=Louis&searchText=Stevenson&searchText=History&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3Facc%3Don%26amp%3BQuery%3DThe%2BStrange%2BCase%2Bof%2BDr.%2BJekyll%2Band%2BMr.%2BHyde%2BRobert%2BLouis%2BStevenson%2BHistory%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bpage%3D1%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Jekyll claims that his potion is the quest to divide man’s personality – into two sorts, each at peace with its own nature. However, there is no suggestion that Jekyll believes he will become two separate people. This begs the question: which ‘type’ does Jekyll imagine himself becoming/ hope to become? I think we know the answer to that one! Dirty bastid…
I understand the interpretation you have and I agree to an extent, yet it leaves unexplained the reactions of “unknown disgust loathing and fear” felt by those who encounter Hyde.
Does anyone have a good explanation for these feelings?
I disagree.
After having studied the book extremely closely, it is made clear that in fact Hyde does exist. And he exists in all of us. Before writing the book, Stevenson said that he wanted to write a book about the duality of man, and after a dream one night much like the dream sequence of Utterson in the beginning (where Utterson first dreams of the possibilities of who Hyde could be), he found the idea for Jekyll and Hyde.
Throughout the book, there are images of a duplicity of man. Even in Utterson, our supposedly perfect Victorian gentleman as he ‘drank gin when he was alone’, ‘liked the theatre’ (theatre back then was not seen as it is now — it was deemed as wrong in Victorian society), etc… and in Landyon who succumbed to his curiosity in chapter nine, ultimately leading to his death. What I believe Stevenson was trying to show here was that in everyone is a ‘Hyde’. No, he may not be a murderous, animalistic psychopath like Jekyll’s ‘Hyde’, but instead he is an immoral, sinfully lead part that everyone has in them, no matter how much they repress it. And if we do try to repress him, he will come out ‘roaring’.
So, yes, in short: Hyde does exist. He exists as a part of everyone in society, he exists as the result of our repression of our bad side, he exists as the ‘Devil’ within us. We may never get his narrative but that is because we don’t need it. We see him and his nature throughout the novella anyway. We see him reflected in the setting and in the ‘blistered and distained’ door, we see him as the repressed, curious part of every character, we see him in chapter ten as Jekyll struggles to tell his story and we see him in our own lives. By not having a narrative and still being greatly present throughout the story, it only increases the fear we feel of Hyde. He is a powerful force and he, along with evil, is present everywhere. Something we, and especially people in the Victorian age, try not to admit. But by doing this, Stevenson is forcing us to see the truth that Hyde does indeed exist within all of us.
You say that Jekyll’s plan was to remove the evil from people when his actual idea was to separate them so your whole fourth paragraph is invalid.
Uh, yeah…NO. Jekyll was NOT in control the entire time as the writer here claims, else there is no Jekyll and Hyde duality to begin with. The fact that the potion changed his appearance and empowers him to do his evil without any moral compunction is clear testament to the fact that Stevenson saw man as a being made up of component parts. No, Hyde was not a second, entirely separate personality, but he also was not just a less-attractive Jekyll. The whole point of the novella is to showcase that man is made up of two parts—one that recognizes good and virtue and wishes to perform it, and another darker part that enjoys evil and seeks opportunity to engage in it. Even in the text itself, Jekyll makes it clear that he is addressing the duality of man—a being of two sides, one light and one dark. It makes no sense to argue that Jekyll is an unreliable narrator; as the teller of the tale, Jekyll states categorically that he is torn between becoming fully Hyde and giving up all the graces accorded to Jekyll, or becoming fully Jekyll and have to abandon the pleasure he derives from the deeds of Hyde. Paul, the Apostle, said, “For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.” Stevenson has captured, in true literary form, the fundamental spiritual war that Paul describes as raging inside every fallen human being—that even when we want to do the good, there is a darkness in us that is urging us, pulling us to do that which is evil. This is not nearly as complicated as this columnist would have us believe—it is the literary version of the story of spiritually fallen man. Geez, this ain’t rocket science, people.
Oh, by the way, just for the sake of clarity, I am a college English professor, so I do have a teeny, tiny little bit of expertise where literature is concerned. Just sayin…
I have honestly never seen spam like that before.
So it’s Fight Club.
Of course Hyde is Jekyll’s amoral persona, what else could he be but a morally free Jekyll.
Surely this is the most basic of concepts to grasp before appreciating the book
My question is where and why did Dr. Henry Jekyll get the name “Edward” for his alter ego, Mr. Hyde?
thought of the movie “the purge” when i was reading the comments. one night of the year, you can go and do what you want, including killing someone, with no repercussions.
When I had read the book for the first time, I was already well acquainted with the perception of what Jekyll and Hyde is about. Yet when I read it, I came to the very same conclusion as you have presented here: that Jekyll and Hyde are one and the same. That Hyde is not Jekyll’s alter ego, but his disguise. Although I, personally, believe this to be a very good idea, perfect for a one of read that really hits you in the feels, from a writing stand point, the more split personality dynamic between Jekyll and Hyde is a very fun one to explore. I am a content creator after all (on other platforms) and I’ve always loved to study mental illnesses in my writing. Therefore, despite loving the original story, all elements of it including this very important but overlooked plot point, I’ve decided to stick to the ‘separate personality’ theory, as a fellow writer at least. An interesting point is that the copy of the book that I own came with an in depth introduction from a University professor. He had gone over many of the themes and important plot point present, yet, in all eight pages of said introduction, there was not a mention of the point that you have mentioned above. Hyde is instead referred to as Jekyll’s ‘alter ego’. I find it rather funny that not even scholars who’s job it is to teach about these literary classic, do not realise the true meaning behind Stevenson’s work, yet a mere students, like myself, has.
P.s. I’ve really enjoyed this article.
I definitely agree with this. When Hyde’s mask slip, it is intentional. Jekyll is a clever and smart person. He views things from an intellectual standpoint, not emotional. He wants to find a way to indulge, but fears repercussions on his reputation. So he creates Mr. Hyde to give him the freedom that society does not. Jekyll does not suppress his whims, he finds a way to make them happen.
So Mister Hyde is just the username Dr Jekyll would have used to shitpost on the internet if it had been around then?
Yes, my last name is hyde the username is not due to the book.
I see this as half right. Yes everything that is Hyde is contained in Jekyll but he makes a point that after the first transformation back to Jekyll from Hyde that he has not removed the evil of Hyde from Jekyll rather removed what he perceives to be the goodness of Jekyll when Hyde. Jekyll is attempting to split his personality in the hope he can kill and extinguish what he percieves to be undesirable urges and leave behind what he believes to be the innate goodness of Jekyll. Also the final paragraph is misleading because at the end of “Jekyll’s full statement of the case” he states that he is writing this in the final hours Jekyll has remaining before finally becoming Hyde with no draught to bring him back, and if he does not conceal the writing’s in some way he fears Hyde will destroy them. Also if there was not any actual transformation why do Lanyon and Utterson not recognise Hyde to be Jekyll, why is Lanyon so horrified at the transformation he actual dies because of it. Yes many of the points in the article ring true, and yes Hyde is not a separate entity to Jekyll and Jekyll retains memory of what happens while he is Hyde but to state Hyde is a mere disguise for the fulfillment of pleasure is overly simplistic. Hyde is both, he is both part of Jekyll, the part which wishes to pleasure himself regardless of consequence, and a separate entity, though contained in the same physical body. The physical attributes which Hyde takes on outwardly and physically displays the inner reduction of perceived goodness.
However I do like the article a lot, it is clearly a story of inner duality and through years of repressing a certain side to his character when it is unleashed as Hyde it does not want to relinquish this new found freedom. So yes, there is no Hyde in the sense that Hyde can not exist without Jekyll, however Hyde is in a physical sense a complete transformation of Jekyll, and the story is in my eyes about no person being purely good or evil, the every person has a duality of being and a struggle between personal gratification and moralistic virtue, and on the curious case of dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde, moral virtue succumbs in said struggle.
Stephenson’s book was not Freudian. At the time, Freud was publically unknown. Nor would he become known for decades.
Jekyll and Hyde was a Victorian book. At the time, Victorian consciousness was high on Social Darwinism. Read; hypocrisy, denial and splitting, projection.
The shadow nature of the time was projected onto the Lesser Breeds Without the Law. That included various subjects of the empire, and those who resisted becoming subjects.
Also the teeming poor within Great Brittan itself. Footpads and mudlarks and cut-purses and Irishmen and whores.
Dr. Jekyll carried within himself the consciousness of his age. As do we all. The same denial and splitting that characterized Victorian times, characterized his psychology.
Stephenson described that internal split, at a time when human consciousness was seen as unitary. He came to conclusions similar to Freud’s. But then, artistic invention often prefigures scientific invention.
I’ll close with Robertson Davies, who grew up in the fading of that age.
Old Frank Moore had played with Henry Irving’s son “H.B.” in a Jekyll and Hyde play where H.B. had made the transformation from humane doctor to the villainous Hyde before the eyes of his audience, simply by ruffling up his hair and distorting his body. Old Frank shows how he did it: first he assumed the air of a man who is about to be wafted off the ground by his own moral grandeur, then he drank the dreadful potion out of his own pot of old-and-mild, and then, with an extraordinary display of snarling and gnawing the air, he crumpled up into a hideous gnome. He did this one day in the pub and some strangers, who weren’t used to actors, left horridly and the landlord asked Frank, as a personal favor, not to do it again.
[Robertson Davies, World of Wonders, 1975]
This, I believe, was a commentary in story form on some drugs/alcohol in society back then, in that certain drugs would unleash the uninhibited side of a person, thus making them usually less moral and the more drug the more the bigger the uninhibited person grew. People liked the drug because it gave them freedom and power, but the freedom was to do things that were morally wrong. This was also delved into in the Portrait of Dorian Gray to an extent. And also the Invisible Man to a larger extent.
It’s quite difficult – but it is fairly simple when seen this way.
Hyde is Jekyll’s evil side. He is the embodiment of all “his” evil deeds and thoughts. Of Jekyll’s evil deeds and thoughts. What would be the difference there?
Once we say “Hyde is the evil side, Jekyll the good”, we miss the point that both are sides of Jekyll – namely Hyde is just a name associated with Jekyll’s evil side. Jekyll is the person born into a good life with very dark thoughts and urges despite his cultured moral high ground.
We are all partly evil and partly good. Giving our evil a different name and face is only like blaming someone else for having a bad influence on us. More accurately, we can’t stand the thought of being evil, with society telling us it’s bad. This is what drives Jekyll to make the potion.
If it wouldn’t be for a society, it’s morals and rules, who would feel bad when doing something evil? If no one told you that it’s evil, who will judge you for doing it? The disregard for those ethics and ignorance as well as arrogance are the only things that drive a person to do evil. Surely everyone will name a motive and cause, doing it for family, love or vengeance or justice. It’s our way of satisfying ourselves with the illusion of doing something right.
We are in that moment ignorant of a society that is telling us “no matter what for, we regard it as wrong” – we are arrogant to claim the right to do something that we would judge someone else for doing perhaps the exact same thing.
Jekyll displays this arrogance and ignorance by creating his disguise – he believes he will get away with all his misdeeds just because it bears a different name and a different face and body. He is sure to get away with it.
The problem comes when he gradually becomes this person. Deciding to indulge in his evil side, he becomes it – the only thing keeping him to being good is the fear for his appearance and his life later.
The only claim that can be made about Jekyll is that he is somewhat honest. He confesses to his urges and dark side, confesses to wanting to escape a society that restrains him and wants to live with no repercussions. Dishonest is that he does so by obtaining a different name in public to save his own name. Another honesty factor is that Jekyll does know that he is a hypocrite in some way; he is doing evil as someone else, but is doing good as himself as a way of making up for his misdeeds.
Hyde being evil is because Jekyll is evil.
The thing is that people are mislead to the idea of the solely good Doktor Jekyll and the evil Mister Hyde, both absolute opposites that are at war. The thing is, Hyde would have never existed if Jekyll was just good. A solely good person would not even think dark thoughts or anything the likes – at least that’s how we perceive the idea of good.
Jekyll is, however, sometimes displayed as an open hypocrite by some media – the musical displays a Jekyll that is shown as an intelligent intellectual with a drive to make life better for humanity and people with mental disorders, claiming he wants to get rid of all evil and asks for a test subject.
Nevertheless, when denied, Jekyll turns to insults and shows that he is also actually just trying to quell his own desires and his wish for success. He even disregards the question of what would happen to the evil side after the separation. Hyde turns here into his punishment because of his short disregard of the consequences, of what would happen in the case of failure.
Concluding, the concept Jekyll and Hyde has stayed somewhat similar to the book, with the key difference that Jekyll turns more pitiable in other media as if he’s the victim of an independent evil personality that shares the same body. Both are derived from the same person, but the book keeps to one personality being in charge of two separate appearances, while other versions show us two different personalities in one body either with minor or no changes to the appearance.
Have a good day y’all.
I find it somewhat ironic really. This whole article talking about people missing the point of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde because as I see it they themselves missed some key details. I can’t think of any adaptation of the work that has ever presented the two as wholey separate entities. The ones I’ve seen present them as two sides of the same coin. A very good analogoy to this would be a personality disorder or something similar. Something that alters your perception, alters your personality. Some traits are amplified in Hyde that Jekyll himself doesn’t quite share. Hyde is always more rough around the edges, more free. Jekyll is not the same person as Hyde for the simple matter that Jekyll can feel one way about something where Hyde feels another, they are the same person from the same brain but they aren’t the same anyway. Jekyll can never be free of Hyde because they are the same but they are also not. Every single person I have met in my life have a side of themselves that they aren’t proud of. Everyone has a “dark side”. I’ll use myself as an example here because what better example can there be than one straight out of reality?
When I was younger and got into arguments with people I went for voilence as a solution if I couldn’t find one with words. I didn’t want to hurt anyone, I didn’t intend to hurt anyone, I wanted something resolved and couldn’t find a way. Was voilence ever the right way? Yeah, sure. I don’t regret hitting a few bullies for example even if it didn’t lead to any solution. However, that wasn’t really me. It was but it wasn’t. See, I have never been a voilent person yet I have commited acts of voilence. How is this possible? Well just about the same way someone has different moods though to an extreme. See the me commiting voilent acts did not hold the same moral beliefs and values as the me who would never do such a thing. It is not truly a different person however it a different personality and that is what every adaptation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde have portrayed. So far of the on screen adaptations I’ve seen I really like the TV series which had a season of 10 episodes going a few years ago. In that, even though it is supernatrual Jekyll never feels like it ISN’T him when Hyde is “out”. Hyde is the worst Jekyll can be. Hyde could never do something that would directly oppose Jekyll’s feelings. Hyde couldn’t kill a friend of Jekyll’s for example unless Jekyll himself felt like he could or wanted to kill that person in the moment. I don’t think I have ever seen an adaptation of Jekyll and Hyde which didn’t have this quality to some extent. If there is one where Hyde goes against what Jekyll feels then I don’t imagine it to be any good. Well it might be as I haven’t seen one yet. However, it wouldn’t be my taste. Personally the reason I have always loved Jekyll and Hyde is because of how I can relate to it in a minor way. The feeling of not doing something you wanted because you shouldn’t or doing something you shouldn’t because you wanted to. Hyde is the “doing something you shouldn’t because you wanted to” and Jekyll is “not doing something you wanted because you felt like you shouldn’t”.
As far as I’ve understood it Hyde is just the dark side or the forbidden side of Jekyll given a name. I have never got the impression that they are supposed to be different people, just different personalities. I have also never seen or heard of an adaptation that let’s Jekyll off the hook for what Hyde does. Nor have I seen or heard of an adaptation that has Jekyll himself treating Hyde as someone not himself. Do they in many adaptations talk to each other in a way that would be indicative of being separate individuals? Sure but I talk to myself and I’m fairly certain I’m not two people in one. I could also give each different side of me a name that I use when talking to myself. Or when I introduce myself to others. That’s really what my online names are. They aren’t just a name I use on myself. I have different names for different sides and the side I show is influenced by the name I go by but the name I go by is also influenced by the side I show. For this page I go by Al today. Why? Because I believe to be quite close to the “neutral me” so to speak. If people have neutral selves. Maybe I’m mentally ill and I have some severe issue that makes me like this. I don’t know. I don’t think I do anyway. Just because I go under a different name doesn’t make it less me. Even if the perspective, morals, views and honestly most things are different between them. All of it falls under the label “me” though as the person writing this. I don’t ever use this to cover up for what I have done. This is at least how I see it but maybe I’m going too far into it. Maybe Jekyll is just Jekyll and Hyde is just Jeklly on drugs and/or alcohol. Could be that simple but either way the Jekyll and Hyde dynamic is good in most every adaptation I’ve encountered.
I’ve long thought that there’s an interesting parallel to be drawn between Henry Jekyll and Dorian Grey, both of whom wish to displace the wages of their vices onto another ‘self,’ in Jekyll’s case Hyde, and in Grey’s case the portrait. That the League of Extraordinary Gentleman film brought Grey into the story and failed to do anything with this is one of my larger grudges with it.