The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde

By Robert Louis Stevenson

Link: https://librivox.org/the-strange-case-of-dr-jekyll-mr-hyde-by-robert-louis-stevenson/

Listening Time: 3 hours 8 minutes

Quote: “I have lost confidence in myself.” 

Theme: Friendship

This is probably the first classic work I read as a kid. I remember I was about 11 years old and I'd read the "Great Illustrated Classics" version of the story first.

 Then I read the original. The language was so archaic and difficult, but I was so proud of myself for completing it (all 100 pages...)

Revisiting it now, it's a lot easier to enjoy. The story is still every bit as gut wrenching and poignant as I remembered, but the language is more accessible to me. It's alive with symbolism and so concise; I feel like every word is intentional and meaningful. 

Everything from the social dynamics between the characters to the architecture of the buildings (particularly the descriptions of Dr Jekyll's and Mr Hyde's respective houses) is meant to communicate something significant. 

I really love symbolism, so reading and re-reading this story this year (and finding something new each time) has really been a joy for me. 

Here's a bit of what I learned:

Dr Henry Jekyll and Mr Edward Hyde-

(This is pretty close to what he looks like in my mind, 

except he has graying temples and a full hairline.)

Unlike Victor, I feel Henry hasn't changed much from my childhood reading.  As a kid when I got to the end of the story, I felt like I knew exactly who Henry Jekyll was: I felt like saw his whole life laid before my eyes. I think a part of this is because Mr Stevenson invites us to do our own worldbuilding: Even though he's the subject of the story, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde are, narratively speaking, secondary characters so a lot about him is left to the imagination. We get to decide whether we think Dr Jekyll's apparent goodness is socially motivated (by the desire to look good in the eyes of other people), or whether his values are internalized. Is he a dishonest, unscrupulous rogue? Or is he a man who fails to live up to the expectations he sets for himself?

The real answer is probably some combination of the two, however, I like to think his values are genuine (at least at the start).

When you're a young person, on the brink of adulthood, you make choices about who you want to be an the way you want to live your life. Then, when your older, you re-evaluate: Did those choices make you happy? Are you proud of the way you've lived your life? This is pretty much what happened to Henry.

It's implied that, as a kid, he operated more on the "Hyde" spectrum, but he never got into serious trouble because he had a dad who looked out for him. (Just like Adult-Jekyll does towards Hyde). 

At some point, probably when he decided to become a doctor, Henry decided his life had to change. People are more willing to overlook the misconduct of a kid than they are a grown man, particularly a grown man of the class that society is wont to depend on. I also think that Henry, particularly as a young man, was in love with the idea of being the best version of himself. 

As a young doctor, he never compromised his values. Ever...

That's actually a part of why he's problems as an older adult got so bad. For a while I'm sure he though he'd truly created a new man all on his own. But after a while he discovered all he'd been doing was covering up ( or "Hyding") the old/young man inside him. After he discovers this, he's always on guard against himself because he's so afraid he'll slip up.

So by the time he's approaching middle age, he's figured out that all this stuff he's done his whole life hasn't satisfied him as a person. 

Aannnd the midlife crisis begins...(But of course, Henry is a scientist so his midlife crisis will be fairly extreme...)

I. Love. This. Guy!!

I love that I get to believe the best of him as Utterson does, or believe the worst of him as Lanyon does. It's a valuable perspective on life. It's opened my eyes to the kind of friend I want to be, and how I want to see people. 

Gabriel John Utterson-

My perception of Gabe has changed a bit. As a kid his behavior confused me: he's seems so dismissive and strict: "Let my brother go to the devil in his own way." And yet he spends the whole book trying to do the exact opposite. 

Becoming more familiar with Victorian mores helped me understand a lot of the things he does. 

Now I think he's adorable. He talks all tough, but inside he's a big softie!

(I like to imagine he looks like this)

Like Henry, Gabe is restrained. He's afraid to have fun because he's scared he'll go to far. 

But Gabe finds his ballance in a friendship with a guy who's a bit more "out there" than himself. 

Richard Enfield- 

Richard and Gabe are cousins. I like to imagine they met at a family reunion because it's pretty clear they don't travel in similar social circles, and they wouldn't have had occasion to get to know each other any other way. 

Richard's not quite a "Mr Hyde", but he does hang out in the same social circle as Mr Hyde. He's wears his emotions and thoughts a little more on the surface, he's a bit more prone to gossip, a bit more apt to be confrontational...and you get the feeling it probably gets him into trouble sometimes. 

Even though they have substantial differences in personality and temperament, Gabe and Richard are confidants. 

I really like the idea of friends who are different from each other. Gabe know that, as a professional man (he's a lawyer) he'd not be able to get away with a lot of the stuff Richard does. And Richard probably admires Gabe's professionalism: his ability to keep his cool, to keep a straight face, and to call people (even himself) out on their behavior without being judgmental. 

I don't have a particular face for Richard. Except for he's tall, got black hair and looks like he could beat you up. But for now, I think I'll go with this guy:

(Because this story needs a dashing, romantic hero...

and we know it isn't Jekyll)

Dr Hastie Lanyon-

"I was never more disappointed in any man than Lanyon."-Henry Jekyll

I get the feeling that quite possibly Hastie could have been the Gabe to Jekyll's Enfield. We know that at one time they were pretty close, and they worked in the same field. It's likely that, at the beginning, they were collaborators. And then at some point they had a falling out. 

Sometimes I feel like I could kick Gabe for not asking more questions about why the two had a falling out. I really think he could have figured out the whole thing sooner if these two had just put their heads together. But talking disrespectfully about your friend, particularly if it implicated them in some way, was apparently a pretty bad thing in Victorian days, so both of them are reluctant to divulge what they know. 

To me it appears that Henry started to open up to Dr Lanyon. (I can just imagine him kind of approaching the subject 'tactfully': "Hey Hastie, have you ever wanted really bad to do thing, but also wanted really bad to not do a thing?"

And Hastie is all...

(Awkward...)

It's a shame, too. Because Jekyll never really confides in anyone else after that.

I can still see their partnership as it should have been: 

The doctors Jekyll and Lanyon: founders a new field of scientific study..."Paranormal Psychology"

What's disappointing to me is that, even at the end when Jekyll confides in him again and puts himself completely at Lanyon's mercy... Dr Lanyon is at the perfect position to set things right, and what does he do? 

Nothing...

("I was never more disappointed in any man than Lanyon."-Mormonhippie)

Gabe may say he lets his neighbors go to the devil in their own way, but Lanyon actually delivers on that. And that's a poor reflection on him. Of course, confronting the depths of depravity his former friend has fallen to tears him up on the inside but not to the point where he's willing to reconcile or take action. It's extremely unfortunate because I think he could have turned the whole story around.

• Personal-story time!

I after listening to the book for the second time, I took one of those personality quizzes...

"Which The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde Character Are You?" Type of thing...

(Found here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/egg270/which-strange-case-of-dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde-char-19rcp?utm_term=.om2x0R9AY#.rrBJqxGW0 )

"I got Hastie Lanyon:

'You probably feel like the only good guy in most situations, and that’s because you are genuinely kind. You always try to help others, and you don’t have time to involve yourself with evil things. However, you can be stuck in your ways, and you will often abandon people you disagree with, even if it is out of your inherent morality.'"

This the description wasn't a total surprise (Parts of it were more like "Yup, that's me!"), but it did lead me to think about the kind of person I am and the kind of person I'd like to be. Lanyon isn't a horrible person, but he's not the greatest friend. 

And I get that it can be hard to be a friend, especially when your friend is bonkers and prone to getting himself into trouble!

I think I am sometimes guilty of the 'hands off' mentality..."let them go to the devil in their own way" 

(As Mr Enfield says:

“You start a question, and it's like starting a stone. You sit quietly on the top of a hill; and away the stone goes, starting others; and presently some bland old bird (the last you would have thought of) is knocked on the head in his own back garden and the family have to change their name. 

No sir, I make it a rule of mine: the more it looks like Queer Street, the less I ask.”)

Sometimes it seems easier to just not get involved in other people's drama. Sometimes it's the smart thing to do, other times it's not. Other times it's actually more destructive than taking action. It certainly would have helped both of them come to better ends...

Anyway...

Since that time, I've imagined Dr Lanyon as a woman:

(With a shock of "prematurely white" hair)

So, yes...Dr Lanyon is a woman. No I don't care.

The Murder of Sir Davers Carew (AKA Mormonhippie's fan theory)-

To most readers, Sir Carew's murder seems like a senseless act on Mr Hyde's part. Like he is totally out of control and acting out on some malicious drive that no one can explain or understand. 

I've always kind of wondered about it, and to me the whole "Mr Hyde is just a monster" dismissal of the incident doesn't make sense. 

Mr Hyde actually has excellent impulse control: He can keep his cool when he's run down that little girl, even when it's clear he'd love to have a row with Enfield. He doesn't  make people targets for his anger, even if he might have a dispute or disagreement against them (Like Dr Lanyon).

I don't mean Mr Hyde is a great guy, but he's concerned with satisfying himself, and hurting other people just for the sake of hurting someone just doesn't seem to satisfy him.

(The thing that makes Mr Hyde Mr Hyde is that he can't experience guilt after he's done something that would bring Dr Jekyll shame. And for Dr Jekyll this is an extremely liberating thing: 

When a concerned Gabe first confronts Dr Jekyll about the actions of his friend, Mr Hyde, it seems like Jekyll almost wants to say. "Utterson you have no freaking idea! This the total OPPOSITE of a problem. I'm finally having a good time!" 

For the first time in 30-ish years, Mr Hyde Jekyll's life is "relieved of all that was unbearable". 

"Unbearable" is how he describes his everyday life...and he lived like every day! It's so sad!! #ugh #feels)

So why did he do it?

I found the answer by examining some other of Mr Hyde's behavior during that time period.

At first it appears as sporadic outbursts of uncontrolled malice, enmity, or rage. But when you take a look at what he did a pattern starts to emerge:

Mr Hyde defaces an inspirational scripture or poem that brings Henry peace, he also defaces a portrait of Henry Jekyll's father. 

Why?

One explanation is that he wanted to show his dominance over Henry, and I can understand that viewpoint, but I don't think he would have killed Sir Carew under such pretenses. 

I think all the while, as Mr Hyde was in the process of becoming the primary identity of Henry Jekyll, his mind was assuming a lot of Henry's personality. He wasn't erasing Henry as much as they were assimilating into one being: the person Henry Jekyll has always been in his heart. Capable of good and bad.

That means he also was inheriting Henry's ability to feel guilt. 

So when he looks at that beautiful scripture, or sees a picture of his dad (the man who raised him, the man who believed in the best of him), or sees a walking incarnation of the goodness he cannot hope to achieve in his elderly years...he feels guilt.

And just like his perfectionist alter ego, he has no idea what to do with it. His life has just become "unbearable" once again.

Conclusion: 

Of all the stories I've read this year, I think this one is my favorite. Even though it's sad, I think there are some really important messages in it.

For a while I was searching for the ultimate adaption of "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" I watched the stage musical, listened to a radio drama, started watching about four movie versions, and welll...

None of them are that great. (though the musical does have some cool songs)

Really, I think the best "adaptions" of this story are original stories were inspired by the image of the Jekyll/Hyde scientist (Bruce Banner/The Hulk, Norman Osborne/The Green Goblin, Walter White/Heisenberg)

None of the actual adaptions of the literary work are what I as a viewer would hope for...

So, just for posterity's sake, I'm going to list here the essential elements of an amazing Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde adaption:

• Dr Jekyll must be middle aged

This is a midlife crisis story. It's pretty much the ultimate midlife crisis story and it just doesn't make sense for someone to go through what Dr Jekyll did while their still in their twenties or thirties. All the issues he's facing in this story have been fermenting inside him his whole life, and he just wouldn't have had the same outburst when he was younger. 

If he did create Hyde, Hyde wouldn't have been the same because Hyde was born from years and years of Dr Jekyll not being able to address his issues. 

• The story should NOT be told from Dr Jekyll's perspective 
• 
  

I used to not care so much about the mystery aspect of the story (because quite frankly this story is so well known though popular culture that pretty much everyone already knows what the solution is). 

 Now I think you loose something really precious when you take away Utterson, and that's the perspective of a friend. 

Through Henry Jekyll's perspective, this story is about how you can never overcome your dark impulses. (I think that message sucks!)

Through Gabe Utterson's perspective, the story becomes "You can never overcome your dark impulses...alone" (Which I think is much cooler)

(It's like that song from Frozen:

"Everyone's a bit of a fixer-upper, that's what it's all about!

 Father, Mother, Sister, Brother...

We need each other...

to raise us up and round us out!")

• Mr Enfield should be utilized as the romantic hero. (Not Henry.)

Jekyll just doesn't fit that mold. Sure, he's good-looking, but it's clear he that by the time this story takes place he really has no desire to connect with people on an intimate level. As the doctor, he's more into his job and the whole being-a-scientist thing. A relationship would require more commitment than he's willing to offer. A spouse might figure him out...and he wouldn't want that! Nor would he want to hurt somebody who cared for him. Alone, and un-attached, he can do all of these experiments. He can behave destructively and fool himself into thinking that he's not hurting anyone because he has no close relations who depend upon him. 

There's also the question of whether Mr Hyde would have been created if Henry had a healthier outlet for some of his impulses. 

(I rather think there would have been more than two alternate personalities if Dr Jekyll had been married or in a relationship: the person he is in public, the person he is in private, and the person he is with family. All different sides of the same self, but probably not as extreme opposites as Jekyll and Hyde appear to be.)

Richard, on the other hand, has ample opportunity within the story to be chivalrous. Like the time he was about to beat up Mr Hyde, but he can't because there are ladies present (Well...not ladies from the Victorian perspective, they were all female tradeswomen and vendors...but to Richard their presence commands a certain dignity.) I think it's funny because it's pretty clear those women would have no problem tearing Mr Hyde limb from limb for running down that little girl...except there is a gentleman present to handle things. 

As far as gender dynamics go, I think this is an interesting start. More constructive, and more compelling (to me at least) than yet another Dr Jekyll cheating on his non-canonical girlfriend scenario.

• The scenery should also tell the story

I really didn't pay attention to this before someone else pointed it out to me, then I couldn't believe I'd never noticed it before.

The house Dr Jekyll lives in was was custom-made for the it's previous inhabitant; a man who was also a doctor. You'd think the house would suite Jekyll perfectly, but it doesn't. The old doctor was a surgeon and Dr Jekyll is a developmental pharmacologist. Dr Jekyll would have no idea what to do with the surgical theater in the middle of his house! It's not made for him, it's not meant for him...Just like the life he's created for himself.

There's also the architecture as you move through the house: The front of the house, the part all his visitors get to see, is really pretty and comfortable. Mr Utterson thinks it's "The pleasantest room in London." The back of the house, which he rarely gets to see, is a different story; the house becomes progressively more and more dilapidated and run-down as you move from the front to the back.

And then there's Jekyll's laboratory, which is the worst part of the house...Jekyll never lets anybody else in there; and it's also the place he locks himself in when he becomes Hyde for the last time. 

Mr Hyde's Soho house is the visual reverse of Jekyll's house: It's really horrible-looking from the outside, but once they get to the room Mr Hyde lives in, Utterson is struck by how it's decorated similar to Jekyll's 'pleasant room'. It's really quite pretty on the inside! 

Utterson surmises that Jekyll and Hyde have the same decorator (that Jekyll paid for all of Hyde's rooms and furnishings)...which is technically true. ;)

Hyde, as horrible as a person as he is, has all of Jekyll's good qualities within him...somewhere.

I think this communicates the themes of the story in a very visual way. Something I think would transition to cinema very well.

(...Plus, I just really want to see that house!)

• Mr Hyde must loose access to Jekyll's bank account at some point

Because he basically walks around the whole book like this:

And I'd really love to see him have to deal.