Strange case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
Ratings649
Average rating3.7
I don't think I will ever understand why the point of view of so many classic novels is placed at such a distance from the subject of the story. I think it was the reason I found [b:Dracula 17245 Dracula Bram Stoker https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1387151694s/17245.jpg 3165724] so profoundly boring. At least [b:Frankenstein 35031085 Frankenstein Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1498841231s/35031085.jpg 4836639] is told from Victor Frankenstein's perspective, even if it is within the pretense of him telling someone else. When The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde began, I was willing to humor the point of view, even though it does seem to be designed to be as uninteresting as possible. Banality can in fact be quite striking when placed as a backdrop to the extraordinary, and the presence of the rogue and demonic Mr. Hyde is quite extraordinary. At first. Though the story of Henry Jekyll and Edward Hyde has been rewritten mythologically in our culture as one of the duality of good and evil, it is in fact more about restraint and lack thereof. Dr. Jekyll, by his own admission, does not manage to rid himself of his unearthly desires, but rather gives himself a means for indulging in them that does not damage his reputation. Edward Hyde is less an alternate personality and more an elaborate disguise. The problem arises when he can't take the mask off. Whatever proclivities Jekyll has that he uses Hyde to enact are never elaborated on. I suppose that's the point - when we are told Hyde is evil, but Jekyll was simply “wild” in his youth, we're supposed to come to our own conclusions about what that means Edward Hyde is running around doing. Not going to lie though, it is mildly disturbing to think that whatever Jekyll wants to get up to so baldly but doesn't want to get caught doing, he's willing to to experiment on himself with dangerous chemicals in order to get away with it. Hyde's not the one that bothers me. It's the upstanding scientist whom everyone thinks is swell but in secret wants to....I guess you can just insert your personal evil here. It makes the good doctor far from sympathetic. His scientific advancements are less spooky and more like the predecessor to rohypnol.In short, this novella is more like a building block than a particularly good story in itself. It's no wonder that it has inspired movies, tv shows and books galore. By the time the story devolves into droning letters (much the same way Dracula does), its pretty clear why so many of those adaptations take the original story as inspiration, rather than direct source material. Ah well. At least I can say now that I read it.
The commonly held assumption is that Dr. Jekyll is good and Mr. Hyde is evil. I was surprised to find that that is not the case. While Mr. Hyde is undeniably evil, Dr. Jekyll is, at best, amoral. His creation of Hyde is partly due to his desire to engage in activities that society and his conscience would deem morally corrupt. Metamorphosis into Hyde eases Jekyll’s conscience, but he is conscious of everything that occurs during these outings and repeats the process many times. The author seems to be operating under the Judeo-Christian worldview that even “good” people have evil inside themselves.
Though it is an older book, it was still chilling in its exploration of the nature of evil.
I was kinda amused by the names he chose - I wonder if Robert planned the names because of this pun, or if he just picked names and then realized he could add a pun
An excellent story that deals with temptation and the duality of human nature (good and evil). Some things should not be studied. The curiosity of a person's identity, lead to the separation of that identity. What was once a blend became two entities, one good and one evil. When evil is indulged, that side of our identity grows stronger and can overshadow the good. Evil cannot be controlled. It can be suppressed.
Summary: This story is a novella rather than a novel. When Mr. Utterson first learns of the existence of a horrifying man named Mr. Hyde, he cannot imagine how much significance this man will hold in the life of Mr. Utterson’s friend, Dr. Jekyll. However, when Dr. Jekyll orders Mr. Utterson to transfer his entire fortune to Hyde in the event of his own death or disappearance, and Dr. Jekyll subsequently starts behaving strangely, Mr. Utterson begins to suspect that some kind of evil, secret connection must exist between the two men.
It really shows that this was written in the old days, and is an interesting glimpse into some of the old (and unfortunately still modern) biases against people with physical differences. There is a noticeably frequent mention of deformity when it comes to Mr Hyde, and the deformity is apparently tied to the evilness and repugnance that Mr Hyde radiates. It was very uncomfortable and frustrating to read; especially since the deformity seemed to be tied to Mr Hyde's apparent short stature/dwarfism. This ‘physical difference=evil' belief is unfortunately still rampant nowadays, especially in fictional media and character design.
Beyond that, the novel is... kinda okay? It's not revolutionary nor do I really get why it is so influential. I think this is partly because I have been spoiled by modern tales that develop and explore the themes brought up in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde in more depth. Despite the advanced language, this was a fine prose to read, if somewhat annoying in its wordiness; but an exception has to be made, since English at the time of writing was different than the modern-day version most use today. However, that does not change the fact there is little actually happening in the novella, and its length would have been halved-or perhaps quartered-if the prose did not run on as it does.
This was a rather underwhelming read. I'm glad I finally read what everyone seemed to rave about, but I just don't see the appeal.
His terror of the gallows drove him continually to commit temporary suicide, and return to his subordinate station of a part instead of a person; but he loathed the necessity, he loathed the despondency into which Jekyll was now fallen, and he resented the dislike with which he was himself regarded.
When Stevenson wrote a sentence he turned it into a paragraph and when he wrote a paragraph he turned it into a chapter. This is a short but dense novel (in a good way). I'm amazed at the amount of story that Stevenson was able to squeeze into less than 200 pages. I really enjoy the poetry of the language of this type of literature.
And, yes, the story still holds up. I had my doubts at first (the ending was obviously already spoiled - Thanks, Scooby Doo...) that the story would be relevant, outside of the cultural dualities of Victorian society, but it, nevertheless, held up.
Robert Louis Stevenson was definitely not handling being gay and into drugs in the victorian era very well
Escalofriante
Muy recomendable escucharlo con música de ambiente de fondo
“He podido observar que, cuando me presentaba en la figura de Edward Hyde, todos los que se me acercaban por vez primera sentían una visible turbación. Y esto, en mi opinión, es porque todos los seres humanos con quienes convivimos son una mezcla de bondad y de maldad. Y solo Edward Hyde, entre todos los hombres, era maldad pura”
Reflexión: En un comienzo Jekyll quería sacar su parte mala porque siempre había estado reprimida y ansiaba libertad de hacer lo que quisiese. Pero una vez lo consigue y ya hecho tantas maldades, se acaba repugnando de sí mismo (o de Hyde) y quiere ser bueno siempre otra vez. Es como que una vez liberados todos los instintos, se calman y ya no necesitas hacer el mal.
No lo veo como una doble personalidad sino como dos pensamientos de una misma persona, q sabe lo que está bien, pero igualmente anhela hacer lo q quiera porque se lo pide su naturaleza, sus instintos.
(Me recuerdan un poco a lo que decía el Marqués de Sade)
It's difficult to judge classics because so many other books have been based on their concepts. So this seemed pretty perfunctory but I can appreciate just ingenious it must have been in the late 19th century.
Just finished The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson on Audible and wow! It's such an intriguing story. I like how it ended with the different stories from different people, and how it ended with Jekyll. I'm not sure how the text version looks like, but the Audible version narrated by Richard Armitage was well done with the voices changing based on who was talking. It gave me shivers with the smooth transitions between Jekyll and Hyde at the end!
**Read on Audible
A great collection of short stories - probably the best I've read so far (though not being a fan of short fiction definitely affected my enjoyment).
I picked it up initially for “Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde” only, but decided to read through all stories and I am so happy I did! Each story had a paranormal twist and kept me curious till the end. Mind you, nearly all have a sort of an open ending, so beware if that's not something you enjoy.
My favorite stories were “Olalla”, “Will O' the Mill” and “The Treasure of Franchard”.
This review is for the audiobook version. I got this due to having seen the movie many years ago. I don't know how to describe my reaction to this book. I found it difficult to follow at times. I think it translates into a movie better but that's just my opinion. Read it, you might enjoy it.
3.5
i did predict what the story is about like 2 chapters in but i really enjoyed the way its written and just the story itself. last chapter kinda took some points coz it was too long and just said what i already knew.
An excellent final chapter, however everything leading up to it feels like exposition. Granted the last chapter of the book takes up about 25% of it, but which it had been as good all the way through.
It would be a delightful book, with actual mystery, if you are not familiar with the story
This was a short read but somewhat difficult at the beginning, which made it a bit slow at moments. I had some difficulty with the Victorian style; I got confused several times and had to re-read the same paragraph twice or thrice.
Esta fue una lectura corta pero algo batallosa en un inicio, lo que en momentos la volvió un poco lenta. Tuve algo de dificultad con el estilo victoriano; varias veces me confundí y tuve que releer el mismo párrafo una segunda o tercera vez.
I liked the way the author manages the chronology and his use of different narratives from varied characters' point of view to slowly make the pieces of the puzzle come together, because this helped build up the tension and gives the story the mystery touch: it keeps you expectant of what piece of information will be revealed next.
Me gustó el manejo que el autor le da a la cronología y su uso de las diferentes narrativas desde el punto de vista de distintos personajes para lentamente ir juntando las piezas del rompecabezas, ya que esto ayudó a construir la tensión y le da el toque de misterio a la historia: te mantiene a la expectativa de qué revelarán a continuación.
I was also satisfied that all my questions were answered by the end, though the chronology's ending came actually at two thirds of the book ( for me, the excitement was diminished when finding Mr. Hyde dead on the floor and stilll having questions to answer). However, it was still interesting to, after, be able to know of all the events behind Dr. Jekyll's transformation.
También estuve satisfecha de que todas mis dudas quedaron resueltas para el final, aunque el final de la cronología haya sucedido a dos tercios del libro (para mí, disminuyó bastante la emoción de la historia al encontrarnos con el Sr. Hyde muerto y teniendo aun preguntas por resolver). Sin embargo, aun así fue interesante poder enterarnos posteriormente de todos los eventos detrás de la transformación del Dr. Jekyll.
In the end, it was a good classic for me and I liked it.
Al final, para mí fue un buen clásico y me gustó.