The power of this tale is the fact that nearly everyone on the planet knows the story, even though few have actually read the book. For the Victorian reader, Stevenson hides the twist of the book until near the end. For those readers, Hyde and Jekyll were two men until Jekyll’s confessional letter sets them straight. – from the intro
He is not easy to describe. There is something wrong with his appearance; something displeasing, something down-right detestable. I never saw a man I so disliked, and yet I scarce know why. He must be deformed somewhere; he gives a strong feeling of deformity, although I couldn’t specify the point. He’s an extraordinary looking man, and yet I really can name nothing out of the way. No, sir; I can make no hand of it; I can’t describe him. And it’s not want of memory; for I declare I can see him this moment.
There is much to be gained by re-reading the classics. Great works of literature are considered great for a reason, mostly because the truth of their excellence persists over time, as each generation discovers them anew. In a parallel vein many become embedded in our culture, and suffer, in popular application, the erosion of original purpose, of nuance. A 2012 study of memory found that:
Every time you remember an event from the past, your brain networks change in ways that can alter the later recall of the event. Thus, the next time you remember it, you might recall not the original event but what you remembered the previous time. – from the Northwestern article linked in EXTRA STUFF
I expect this can be applied on a grander scale, to society and culture at large. Our recollection of the stories produced by the Brothers Grimm in the 19th century, for example, bears little resemblance to the truly grim tales they actually told, thanks in considerable measure to Disney. On becoming popularized, stories can become simplified, stripped down. Alice might recognize the great peculiarity of reducing complicated things to their elements to the extreme of absurdity.
“Well! I’ve often seen a cat without a grin,” thought Alice; “but a grin without a cat! It’s the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!” – Alice in Alice in Wonderland
What we have achieved in our collective recollection of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is just that, a grin without a cat. Jekyll has been reduced to a well-meaning physician, and Hyde a monstrous container for human evil. Black and white. Jekyll good, Hyde bad. Not so fast.
Stevenson in Samoa – image from Britannica
Jeff Keeten, long-time Goodreads superstar reviewer, offers his take on the book in a thoughtful introduction. He points to the existence of an earlier, possibly more lurid version, of the novella, a 19th century Go Set a Watchman. Good or bad, it would have made a fascinating counterpoint to the final. Keeten provides some wonderful details about the writing of the story, and shows a thematic continuation from Stevenson’s prior work.
Jeffrey D. Keeten – image from Gravelight Press – it is remarkable what vast amounts of makeup and digital touching up can accomplish
For a quick refresher, there has been a series of dastardly deeds committed in a London neighborhood. We learn of these through Gabriel John Utterson, a lawyer, and friend of Jekyll. A culprit has been identified. Mr. Hyde, a known associate of Doctor Jekyll. Utterson is asked by Jekyll to treat Hyde as his heir. But as knowledge of Hyde’s activities becomes more widespread, Hyde must go into hyding (sorry). Exposition is handled via direct observation, but also via documents from another professional peer, and Jekyll’s final message to Utterson.
I read the original version of this novella (thirty-something thousand words) a lifetime ago. Can’t say that I remember it from that reading all that clearly. But I do recall the sense I have acquired from seeing multiple productions of the story on screens, and in print, both tellings of Stevenson’s story and interpretations of the work that extracted, or tried to extract, the substance of the allegory and apply it in a modern context. In its simplest understanding, the story highlights the conflict between good and evil in human nature.
John Barrymore in Hyde mode – 1920 – image from Public Domain Movies
There are many tales that address what the natural state of humanity is, i.e., how might we behave without the benefit of civilization. Lord of the Flies pops to mind as a premier example of the genre. Keeten, in his excellent introduction, points out that Stevenson had shown in his other work an interest in internal moral divisions within people. Britannica describes Treasure Island as at once a gripping adventure tale and a wry comment on the ambiguity of human motives. But divisions are not necessarily slashed in straight lines down the core of our moral being. More than all else, one thing stood out for me in this latest reading. It is not a battle between good and evil. It is much more an attempt at accommodation. There is plenty of cat to go with that conflictual grin. Jekyll is no paragon. (BTW, according to Daniel Evers, of the University of Bristol, the proper Scottish pronunciation of Jekyll is ‘Jee-kul.’ – article on this is linked below.)
Spencer Tracy in the dual role, really, really wants you to pay your share of the bar bill – 1941 – image from Fiction Fan Blog
He does not so much conduct objective research into where in people is drawn the line between good and evil. On the contrary, Jekyll knows he has urges and desires that are not considered socially acceptable. He is not so much looking to suppress those by some form of internal bifurcation. No, no no. He is looking to give his dark side free reign, while sparing his Jekyll side the inconvenience of conscience. So, what was Stevenson writing about? What was his intent? To show the hypocrisy of the Victorian upper class? I have not seen any specific report that he was a political writer in the way of Dickens, who used his work to highlight the class horrors of an age. Stevenson’s aim seemed more tilted toward demonstrating the internal conflict between good and evil that permeates us all.
Frederic March’s 1932 version ignored Stevenson’s subtle distinction between the two – image from Fiction Fan Blog
And what is the relevance to today? How might we use the lens of this tale to gain a focus on our present? As noted above, classic tales are often reinterpreted to offer us a new take on modern themes. My favorite among these is the 1990s staging of Richard III, with Ian McKellan. I was blessed in being able to see it in person in Brooklyn, and later as a film. It was breathtaking, using a 16th century drama as a vehicle for portraying 20th century fascism. I get chills still, just thinking about it. It became clear to me that RLS’s scenario could be applied, as well, to the contemporary political realm.
Richard III as a fascist dictator … Ian McKellen in the 1996 film image from The Guardian – photo by Ronald Grant
In this take, the good doctor might be seen as the Republican Party of the mid-to-late 20th century. No longer the party of Lincoln, the GOP largely abandoned the good work their predecessors might have been proud of. Instead, particularly after the Southern Strategy of Richard Nixon, it became a party that was not only willing to tolerate its excesses, the racism
(In 1971 – Dr Jekyll and Sister Hyde offered an interesting twist – image from British Horror Films
that opposed civil rights legislation, the classist hostility that opposed the New Deal and Great Society, and any allegiance to sustaining a fair voting system. They understood that they had these urges and constructed potions meant to separate the worst behavior from the respectable core. This is where we get the Tea Party, Q, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, Three Percenters, and other on-the-ground kinetic actors, spurred on by demagogues spreading disgraceful lies, the Rush Limbaughs of the world, the Alex Joneses, the demagogues-du-jour on Fox News. The party wanted to let their fascist freak flag fly, but deniably. So, Jekyll wanted to give his dark urges a way to be sated, while maintaining a clear conscience, or, at the very least, deniability. Doctor Jekyll is not a good guy. And, as with the GOP, once you breathe life into your darker side, that darker side will not be satisfied with partial residence for long, no matter how many lies he tells, or how much orange hair dye he might use. As with Jekyll, over time, the GOP feels less and less constrained by decency, as they boldly attack voting rights, civil rights, even the law itself, with a decreasing need for an external beard. What might Jekyll v. Hyde stand for in your understanding of the 21st century? There may be other elements that jump out for you, aspects that shift your take on the dumbed-down vision most of us have of the J/H conflict.
In a 1990 production, Michael Caine is really tired of the other actors calling him Alfie. – image from TV Worth Watching
There is a short story added on at the end, Markheim. It is rich with familiar elements and it is clear that, published only a year before J/H, it was a primary source from which the longer tale grew. It would be easy, though, to see it as an alternate ending to the later novella.
Eddie Izzard has signed on to play a trans Dr Jekyll in an upcoming production
And, of course, it would be perfectly natural if, at the end of reading, or re-reading The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, you are of two minds about it all.
in one of my more wakeful moments, my eyes fell upon my hand. Now the hand of Henry Jekyll (as you have often remarked) was professional in shape and size; it was large, firm, white and comely. But the hand which I now saw, clearly enough, in the yellow light of a mid-London morning, lying half shut on the bedclothes, was lean, corded, knuckly, of a dusky pallor and thickly shaded with a swart growth of hair. It was the hand of Edward Hyde.
Review posted – 7/07/23
Publication date – 4/3/23 – of this volume – J/H was first published in 1886
I received an ARE of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde from Gravelight Press in return for a fair review, and a printout of my special formula. Thanks, folks,
This review is cross-posted on Goodreads. Stop by and say Hi!
=============================EXTRA STUFF
It was definitely a fun experience for me to trot down memory lane for a re-look, and a better look at J/H. Keeten’s smart intro definitely helps. You might also check out some of the links below for more. Gravelight promises a slew of horror classics, one new one every six months or so. Upcoming are The Picture of Dorian Gray and Frankenstein, complete with Keeten’s insightful introductions. Nifty collection material for horror afficionados, and ideal gifts for Halloween. No, I do not get a commission!
Links to Keeten’s personal, FB, and Instagram pages
I have written one prior review for a book intro’d by Jeffrey Keeten
—– Exhumed: 13 Tales Too Terrifying to Stay Dead – edited by David Yurkovich
Songs/Music
—–The Who – Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde
—–Bear McCreary – The Skye Boat Song or Sing Me a Song of a Lad That is Gone – the theme song of the TV series Outlander sets a Stevenson poem to music
Items of Interest
—–British Library – ‘Man is not truly one, but truly two’: duality in Robert Louis Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Greg Buzzwell
—–Wiki – Adaptations of Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde – There is a wonderful catalog here of J/H productions from 1887 to the present
—–Northwestern Now – Your Memory is like the Telephone Game by Maria Paul
—–Britannica – Robert Louis Stevenson
—–Interesting Literature – The Surprising Truth behind Jekyll and Hyde by Daniel Evers
—–Dark Worlds Quarterly – Classic Monsters in Comics: Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde offers a fun look at comic treatments over the ages
What me worry? – from above article
Coot's Reviews 