---Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, The ~ Export

"Idealistic young scientist Henry Jekyll struggles to unlock the secrets of the soul. Testing chemicals in his lab, he drinks a mixture he hopes will isolate—and eliminate—human evil. Instead it unleashes the dark forces within him, transforming him into the hideous and murderous Mr. Hyde.

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde dramatically brings to life a science-fiction case study of the nature of good and evil and the duality that can exist within one person. Resonant with psychological perception and ethical insight, the book has literary roots in Dostoevsky’s “The Double” and Crime and Punishment. Today Stevenson’s novella is recognized as an incisive study of Victorian morality and sexual repression, as well as a great thriller." from the Publisher

INTERESTING LINKS
On line Reading With Chapter Guides
Biography of Robert Louis Stevenson

DISCUSSION SCHEDULE
April 1 through April 8	Chapter One through Chapter Five
April 9 through April 15	Chapter Six through Chapter Ten
April 16 through April 22	Epilogue

Discussion Leader: Bill H

B&N Bookstore | Books Main Page | Book Discussion Guidelines | Suggest a Book for Discussion
We sometimes excerpt quotes from discussions to display on pages on SeniorNet's site or in print documents.
If you do NOT wish your words quoted, please contact Books.

Welcome to The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

We start the actual book discussion today. Gosh! We have waited a long time for this.

I have to say that RLS showed his wit in the very first sentence. when he gave the name Utterson. What better name could any attorney have!

In the back of my book, there are a few questions asked by Jenny Davidson who also wrote the Introduction in my book. The one that sticks in my mind is the third question, which reads

"How would you define the part of the self that Hyde represents?

All that we yearn for but deny ourselves?

Whatever is taboo or forbidden?

Lust?"

The above in blockquote is all part of the third question asked by Jenny Davidison. I hope I didn't sidetrack your thoughts by posting this question. I just thought it would be a good landmark for us to remember as we read along.

I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on the first half of this strange story.(chapters 1 through 5).

Bill H

I am off to read the first five chapters I wanted to approach this as if this were my first time to read ...Will be back later to see what other posters write and share what my thoughts. Looking forward ..anna

Anna, I'm looking forward to your posts

Marjorie, thank you for creating the heading.

Bill H

I love the way RLS describes his characters. As in Treasure Island one can almost see "Utter(son)" enunciating, pronouncing and declaring. I liked "his affections were like ivy-" they grew over a period of time. RLS claims "Utterson" is a tolerant man yet undemonstrative and that pretty much sums up the ole boy for me, Bill. Thank God he has a friend such as Dr. Layton, a more happy, theatrical type. A true Damon and Pythias (Phintias)- the two philosophers noted for their faithful friendship of one another. mmm, I'm not so sure I'd trust Utterson.

Off to Orlando to see a stage production of "42nd" Street. Will return to look in on Dr. Jekyl this evening.

"How would you define the part of the self that Hyde represents?

First of all, speaking of names and how Stevenson uses them, how about "Hyde"? The hidden self, as it were.

Ok, so the part of ourselves that Hyde represents is the part of our soul without social restraints. For Stevenson, I do think a large part of it is lust, or of a sexual nature. It's an animalistic, primitive drive without conscience.

I have read only the first chapter so far and in the 19th century literature everything seems to take on immense proportions, but my mind is looking for the plausible, I can't help it.

Richard Enfield is telling Mr Utterson where he first met this Mr. Hyde. It was 3 AM on a black winter morning.What was a child of 8 or 10 doing on a London street at 3 AM bumping on a man coming from another direction? She apparently was not hurt, but frightened and the whole neighborhood came out to the rescue. Then a large sum of money was offered for compensation, in compensation for what? for having scared a little girl?

Obviously this is an introduction to our main character, but i find it weak. Let's read on before I pass judgment. I have the movie with Spencer Tracy and will look at it today. I saw it years ago, but I don't remember it.

Éloïse

.What was a child of 8 or 10 doing on a London street at 3 AM bumping on a man coming from another direction? She apparently was not hurt, but frightened and the whole neighborhood came out to the rescue. Then a large sum of money was offered for compensation, in compensation for what? for having scared a little girl?

You're going to have to use your imagination on that one, Eloise. keeping in mind that Hyde is a base, foul creature, so we know he wasn't doing anything nice with the girl.

There does seem to be a lot of dark, and erotic insinuations going on in the novel. And the Jack the Ripper stuff was going on at this time, too, I think.

I have a working theory that the dual nature in these characters is not so much good vs. evil, but rather civilized and uncivilized. The defintions of these words are for our purpose are:

Civilized: to cause to develop out of a primitive state: to bring to a technically advanced and "rationally" ordered stage of cultural development.

Uncivilized: barbarous or wild, lacking culture or refinement: Philistine. A Philistine is a person who is guided by materialism and is usually disdainful of intellectual or artistic values.

Can any of these definitions be applied to Mr. Hyde? The answer would be yes and at first we might be tempted to describe him as barbrous or wild and acting like a Philistine, but I hope to show that there are times when Mr. Hyde acts more civilized than those around him.

In the opening chapter Mr. Utterson's face is described as "never lighted by a smile," that he is silent for the most part and that he appears to be "lean, long, dusty, and dreary." And yet the author tells us that he is "loveable". In addion Mr. Utterson is described as being "austure with himself; drank gin when he was alone, to mortify a taste for vintages; and though he enjoyed the theatre, had not crossed the doors of one for twenty years."

I don't know about you folks but Mr. Utterson may have seemed lovable and civilized on the outside, but on the inside he had "urges" and tried to "hide" them by drinking alone and denying himself the enjoyment of the theatre. Is this a healthy way to live?

Tolstoy once said that: "The best stories don't come from 'good vs. bad' but from 'good vs. good.'" I think this is what Stevenson was trying to tell us in the story: That the characters [and in directly ourselves] struggle against good vs. good or in other words civilized vs. [un]civilized but that sometimes there are some thoughts, words and deeds which are thought of as "uncivilized" but in reality are not so at all. It is only how we look at these deeds, thoughts and words that make them "uncivilized".

I am just jumping in here. I'll be reading and mostly lurking. I've never read this book so it will be a treat. Of course forever there have been references to the Jekyll and Hyde. So I'm looking forward to everyone's opinions and I enjoyed the historical aspects that Scrawler presented.

My personal working theory and one I've read a lot about and that makes my life most workable is that we each have a dark side, shadow if you will, and that we need to recognize it for what it is and then it doesn't have power over us to become overt behavior. It's there and that is it. If it takes power then we need to find help as we recognize what is going on.

~Marj

Scootz- the girl had been sent for the doctor from her family and was on the way back home. It's there in an odd sentence.

What struck me first is the somber mood. All the men are bachelors. Not one has a family life. For Utterson, Enfield, Drs. Jekyll and Lanyon there is no softness of a wife or a child to warm their hearts or fill their brains with the least of happinesses. There is no normal sexual outlet for these men. Their professions are supposed to fulfill all their human needs.

To counteract this overseriousness of mood Stevenson will, every now and then, lighten the mood such as on Page 17 when Utterson utters ""If he be Mr Hyde, I shall be Mr. Seek".

Mr Hyde is not only despicable in his acts he is ugly and misshapen in form. But Evil is not always so easily remarked.

Judy

and since my memory of the first time was later replaced by the movie I find it interesting..Bill you said you didnt think it was written for children and I think you are right. The many references to older writers, the language itself would have been out of the realm of most children and many adults. The sly things as mentioned Mr Hyde and Mr Seek ..Was it published as a whole? It almost reads a serial ...to me...Sorry I could look that up

In a time when most people have phones and doctors are located in office areas closed at night it seems strange this little girl is out at that hour. So we are given a view of that time and London when the smoke from many fires covered the city often and made it dark , gloomy and treacherous.

I had to laugh out loud at the Hyde and Seek sentence Just to let us know RLS had a very droll side. anna

Inre the girl out at night, child prostitution was pretty common then and that's what I assumed was going on here.

http://home.pacbell.net/tonyprey/burning/vicera.htm

In the introduction, of "Treasure Island," Angus Fletcher writes that the governess of RLS "...filled the child with the darkest tales and scariest bogies to be conjured by Calvinist fears of hell and damnation. Given such a beginning, one is surprised, or relieved to find that Stevenson was destined to write one of the great parables of the eternal battle between good and evil. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde...." Could the governess' dark tales played much of an influence in writing such a tale as Jekyl/Hyde?

Introduction

by Jenny Davidson

"Enfield's account raises a number of questions that will become increasingly relevant as the story develops. In addition to that strange displacement whereby Hyde— himself accused of blackmail and all manner of other crimes—actually prompts Enfield and the doctor to blackmail him, there is something very odd about the offense described in this scene. As chilling as the description of Hyde running down the child may be, the narrative does not accuse him of the more obvious offense that a man might inflict on an eight- or ten-year-old girl in a London slum. Though social reformers during this period often expressed concern about the prevalence of sexual contact between children and adults (and of child prostitution) in London's poorest neighborhoods, Hyde's is not an explicitly sexual offense, and Stevenson seems to have gone to some trouble to exclude sex from his story. In part this was due to his acute sense of what the market would bear—Stevenson had no desire to write a story that would be considered obscene or inappropriate for young readers. But the exclusion of sex (though it is implied that Jekyll's early sexual transgressions are the seed of the later split in his personality) may also be motivated by Stevenson's somewhat polemical desire to decouple sex and sin in the face of respectable society's determination to make the two synonymous."

I don't understand what Ms Davidson meant by "...there is something very odd about the offense described in this scene."

Bill H

This book was first published right before the Jack the Ripper murders, so Stevenson was not thinking of them while writing. Although he may have been thinking of similar crimes.

What's so civilized about modern civilization anyhow? Were children still being hung for stealing loaves of bread in this year, whenever it was?

And what's so rational about the modern era, much less the Victorian one, that presupposes the rich are innocent and the ugly are guilty?

The rich would have been the Philistines, though, as hardly a poor man could be "guided by materialism" without a roof over the head or enough food to eat, no matter how indifferent to the intellectual pursuits he was.

And is it civil to think folks are evil just because of their looks? This may be a modern day way of looking at things, but it's hard to imagine how unpleasant it must have been to not be pretty enough to be considered civil.

I think that RLS is alluding to our civil versus our uncivil self. But I don't know that I agree with him, that these are two halves of human nature. Civilization is something usually marked higher by self than by an unbiased observer, I suspect.

Bill, isn't that just what Ms. Davidson then elaborates upon, how odd the offense is that Hyde is not being accused of the more obvious sex crime upon the child?

Kleo

I just picked up my book and started reading it this evening. (Sorry to be late - I'll catch up fast.) I am fascinated by the Introduction.

The first thing Jenny Davison writes about in the Intro is about how Richard Mansfield - famous late-19th-century actor - bought the copyright to Jekyll/Hyde thinking to have exclusive rights for theatrical adaptation. (I glommed onto this because the acting club at my college called themselves "The Richard Mansfield Players," so I had to check this out.)

Mansfield toured around performing the role of Jekyll/Hyde. Davison writes in the Intro that after Mansfield's first performance in Boston in 1887 "Strong men shuddered and women fainted and were carried out of the theatre...."

Mansfield was invited to perform the Jekyll/Hyde role in London and he opened on Aug. 4, 1888. On the last day of August, the first of Jack the Ripper's victims was discovered, and then subsequent bodies were found. Richard Mansfield was one of the suspects charged with the murders "at the peak of the frenzy"! Apparently, his transformation into Hyde and murders on stage led people to believe that he committed the real-life murders!

Here's info about his role as Jekyll/Hyde from a bio of Richard Mansfield on the web:

"Mansfield advanced still further in public favor in a melodramatic version of the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (right) of Robert Louis Stevenson. The play reproduced some of the leading incidents of the story and some of the text, but very little of its spirit, significance, and power. As for the performance of Mr. Mansfield of the double personality, that was full of melodramatic effect and theatrical strokes, but showed very little sympathetic imagination. It was in the externals that gratify the crowd, not in the clairvoyance of a perfect intelligence, that it excelled. Jekyll he represented as a young, sallow, melancholy student, with cleanly shaven face, very dark and heavy eyebrows, and long, black hair. Far from being the jovial, debonair man of the world, he was haunted by the terrors of his position, a sort of Hamlet in a frock coat. Hyde he made a nightmare of goblin hideousness, a white, leering vampire, with a ferocious mouth and glazing eyes, deformed, lame, palsied, and infirm. A loathsome object, certainly, and, to a certain extent, like a medieval demon, suggestive of evil, but not half so appalling or infernal as the shriveled Hyde of the original, with his horrible lightness, activity, and energy, impressing the observer with a sense of a deformity which did not actually exist. The subtleties of this creation eluded Mansfield completely. For an imaginative symbolism-in which Irving, who once meditated playing the character, would have reveled-he could only substitute something grossly palpable and material. He utterly failed to denote that one character was supplemental to the other. Essentially the difference between his two men was physical.

The moroseness and gloom of Jekyll had much in common with the sullen ferocity of Hyde. By making Jekyll buoyant and convivial, as he is expressly described in the book, he would have prepared a much finer and more artistic dramatic contrast. That he showed much acting power in illustrating his grotesque idea of Hyde, I fully acknowledge, but it was not of an inspired kind. J. B. Studley, and others of the old Bowery melodramatic days, could have done as much. He was at his best in his scene with Dr. Lanyon, where, after getting the drugs, Hyde taunts him with his incredulity and curiosity At this juncture there was a dash of the demoniacal in his voice and gesture, but the double impersonation, as a whole, evinced no astonishing amount of intuition, or genuine versatility, and was wholly unworthy of the rhapsodical encomiums lavished upon it. Some of the critics seem to have accepted the commonest of theatrical tricks as unprecedented miracles."

http://www.wayneturney.20m.com/mansfieldrichard.htm

Another interesting thing Jenny Davison writes about in the Intro is how Edinburgh (where Stevenson grew up) life was "dominated by Presbyterianism, a version of Calvinism that emphasizes the natural depravity of man and the doctrine of predestination-the belief that God has foreknowledge of all events-and makes stark distinctions between sinners and those destined for salvation."

Davison describes how Edinburgh was divided into an old section, a squalid slum, and a new elegant section, joined by a bridge, in the early 19th century. Davison says, "...the two towns of Edinburgh made visible the divisions between old and new, sordid and respectable; they also symbolized for many observers the psychic contradictions of Calvinism itself".....

Davison continues "....Commenting on the paradoxical attraction of Puritanism to 'repellent things'...., [G.K.] Chesterton attributes the origin of the story of Jekyll and Hyde to Calvinism's pathological rendering of the relationship between good and evil..."

Does anybody know about the dedication at the beginning of the book? The book is dedicated to "Katharine de Mattos." The dedication is a sad one. Maybe the identity of Katharine de Mattos is unknown. Robert Louis Stevenson must have wanted to keep her memory alive.

Here is the dedication.

It's ill to loose the bands that God decreed to bind;
Still will we be the children of the heather and the wind;
Far away from home, O it's still for you and me
That the broom is blowing bonnie in the north countrie.

The dedication, I think, speaks of a longing for "home." The word "still" makes me think RLS never gave into the struggle to forget and not to remember his native shores of Scotland. Then again, Scotland could have been a metaphor in the dedication for another type of "home."

This dedication can speak to anybody. All of us carry a Doctor Hyde within us or have at some point in our lives. I see this yearning, this struggle written about in the book as whatever makes our hearts and souls hurt. It's a desire. It's a need. It's a hunger. Maybe it's lust.

Whatever it's called living with our Doctor Hyde is impossible, life becomes a living hell, a daily boxing match. It's a raging hunger. It debilitates. It's an uncontrollable force. It's the emotional longing for something we don't have now and might never have in the future. Maybe it's an experience we can never have again. We once had it. Now it's gone. Still, the pain stays with us. It makes us cry when we would rather not cry. This is the feeling Doctor Jekyll no longer wanted to face each day.

In this day and age some people, unfortunately, choose suicide rather than live with a Doctor Hyde for the rest of their lives. It becomes tiresome to "hide" for any longer. In the Victorian Age, I suppose even suicide wasn't an available option. People who committed suicide didn't have the right to a decent funeral and burial.

The people of the Victorian Age stifled their true feelings, layered their hearts with cloth, lace, ruffles and crowded rooms. These people showed only their Doctor Jekyll side. I remember, at times, going to church all dressed up in my Sunday best and crying on the inside, wanting to ask questions which might seem without faith or blasphemous.

In the long run what did the Victorians suffer? Did they suffer more physical pain? Now we know our unhealed emotions can cause physical ailments. Is there such a thing as dying of a broken heart? That is another type of Doctor Hyde.

What is called "home" to us? If it's lost to us, can we live vibrant lives without this comfort zone?

I think there are many different layers or ways of looking at "Doctor Jeyll and Mr. Hyde."

I do not buy the premise of this book. I'd like to say this at the outset although I still enjoyed the book and want to discuss it. I don't think I have a Hyde in me. It's too extreme an idea for me to get my head around, and I don't believe it. I can accept that we all have good and bad sides, but not that each of us has a Hyde within us, no.

That said, could I be forced to commit an act of violence to save myself? Probably, but I wouldn't know till I was there for sure. And even if I could, that doesn't make me a Hyde, in my opinion. Could I commit and evil deed to save myself- that one really puzzles me.

Why did he want to separate the two halves? So he could commit evil deeds, or was he trying to prove a point scientifically?

I don't think it's just about violence and evil. I think there are many different types of Doctor Hydes. All of us have dealt with emotional pain. I think this is what the dedication is about and maybe another way of looking at the plot. Emotional pain can tear the body apart violently, if I must use the word "violence."

Otherwise, wouldn't "Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" become just a thriller or something written about a small segment of society?

I don't think it's just about violence and evil

I do think this is what RLS is trying to get at in this book, though. As I see it, he is saying that we have a primal side, buried deep by society and its rules, that could be unleashed if we could separate the two. He set out to prove that point.

But to me, Hyde is more an "altered state", and doesn't really prove anything more than the fact that drugs can eliminate social inhibitions. Now that I do buy.

I think it's about what rips us apart emotionally. Until my Doctor Hyde self is controlled, my Doctor Jekyll side will find itself totally dissatisfied, unhappy, maybe depressed. For example, many people in our society need to deal with anger. There are anger management classes or workshops. If I have an anger management problem, I can never feel balanced without control.

The good part, for me, is knowing that character is manipulative. Maybe RLS is also writing to a judgmental society. A society which found it hard to believe in the fact that man could ever find redemption or ever become rehabilitated.

Whenever I read a book I wonder when other people see the author as trying to tell us some deep and meaningful thing. And while I can see that perhaps the story can mean that I can also see the author had a good idea for a story. He tells it because he is a writer , he cant stop writing and something will trigger a thought and perhaps when he starts he really intends to tell another story but his mind is remembering things and soon he is telling a story that is a bit different than what he started out to say.

We can disect it as much as we want but is RLS really writing a book to show us we have different sides? It is true and circumstances can make us deal with the side of us that is not the one we would like to see. I love all the comments but in the end it is a story..I can see deeper meanings in it or I can just say that is an interesting story. I know when I saw the movie I felt a sense of astonishment ..it seemed so different than my memory. It seemed to play up the lust of Mr Hyde and I didnt see that in the story then and I havent seen it in the story now. Will I see it when I turn the last page and read the last word? I wonder! anna

In my opinion J/H doesn't portray "Everyman" but a certain character which we can all envision can exist. The fact that Hitler or Stalin existed doesn't mean that each of us has the potential to become that person. If you research the life of an "Evil Person" you will find a childhood filled with brutality, beatings ,severe abuse without the absolving factor of love. Not every child who suffers this becomes an evil adult but every evil adult had evils inflicted on him as a child.

The premise of our book is not that everyone can be evil but rather that evil can exist in certain people without our suspecting it. That is a much more frightening premise.

The other frightening premise is the visual one. Giving Evil a physical appearance. In a sesnse it is simplistic but on the other hand it made the story appeal to the masses..; especially in Theatre and Movie form.

Judy

Hats: I loved reading your posts. You express yourself beautifully. I also loved reading RLS' verse. It reminds me of the many beautiful Scottish ballads such as "Barbara Allen," some of my favorite songs. I didn't find it in my copy. However, I did find out where the verse is from - a letter that RLS wrote to a Katharine De Mattos in 1886. It sounds in the letter like she was a very old and dear friend. RLS says in the letter "it is sent to you by the one that loves you - Jekyll, and not Hyde."

There are two verses in the letter. Here's the whole thing from the letter:

"Bells upon the city are ringing in the night; High above the gardens are the houses full of light; On the heathy Pentlands is the curlew flying free; And the broom is blowing bonnie in the north countrie.

We cannae break the bonds that God decreed to bind, Still we'll be the children of the heather and the wind; Far away from home, O, it's still for you and me That the broom is blowing bonnie in the north countrie!"

Poem

I can see the "broom" on the heather now. I now know what it is because I planted a broom plant ("midnight broom") two years ago. It is a rather scraggly flowering bush that grows 4-6 feet tall and 4-6 feet wide. It does sort of look like a big broom and is covered in spring with tiny yellow flowers.

Chapter One: In modern horror movies and books, the opening scene might show some teenagers necking in a car in "lovers lane" and than...Jason or Freddie enters the picture and starts slicing and dicing. The message here is that if you "behave" like this [necking in a car] than you're going to get hurt.

Now in Stevenson's scene one message might be that little girls shouldn't be running around at night because you never know who you might run into. You might run into a "gentlemen" than your behavior [even though in this case the girl had a legitimate reason to be out so late] might get you hurt. We can also look at the scene and say this scene represents the abuse of both girls and women [since this was a female child.] But in fact the child is only in the spot light for a brief moment when the story takes a turn in another direction.

When writing a story as a general rule: for every action there most be a re-action, and this is where the horror lies. The horror is not so much in what Hyde does [although he is the cause], but rather how those characters around him react to him and his action. This is the real horror.

Reputation in the Victorian value system was held in high esteem. Above all else a man's "reputation" must be saved even at the expense of others. So blackmailing a "gentlemen" such as Mr. Hyde for trampling the girl was not thought of by the surrounding crowd or family or Enfield to be "uncivilized" but quite necessary in order for the "gentlemen" to keep his reputation.

When Mr. Hyde's check turns out not to be forged, but genuine than Enfield jumps to the conclusion that Hyde is blackmailing his benefactor. Mr. Utterson also comes to the same conclusion that Hyde is blackmailing his benefactor, but Utterson knows that his benefactor is his own client Dr. Jekyll because of Jekyll's will.

So, to me the message Stevenson might be sending in this scene is that preserving one's reputation is "the" most important act a man should do under the Victorian value system. And not only must the reputation be preserved but that one must avoid gossip about the gentleman at all costs.

But to me Stevenson is saying just the opposite: that a man's "reputation" although important is not the "most" important value. That other values such as the love of family are more important. If we remember that Stevenson, against his family's and friend's wishes, not only fell in love with a married woman, but followed her to California and than married her after she divorced her first husband; we can see where Stevenson's own "reputation" would be in danger. His own actions by the standards of Victorian society were not considered civilized.

When I started reading the book last night, the very first thing I was jolted by immediately in the first two pages was how it was filled with contrasts and contradictions - of course, like we will see eventually in Jekyll and Hyde.

Mr. Utterson himself is an example of this:

of rugged countenance vs lean and long; cold, dreary, with a face "never lighted by a smile" vs lovable; austere with himself vs approved tolerance for others; undemonstrative but with a friendly circle; bound closely to his best friend but they seemed never to even say anything to each other.

Utterson inside seems a man pulled in opposite directions, struggling constantly with himself:

he drank gin when alone to "mortify a taste for vintages"; he enjoyed the theater but had not attended the theater for 20 years; he had a tolerance for other but wondered "with envy, at the high pressure of spirits involved in their misdeeds."

Utterson makes a reference to "Cain's heresy." Right on the first page we are faced with the story of Cain and Abel, a story of a "good" son vs a "bad" son and the the tragic results of favoritism and jeolousy.

Even the streets and houses seem full of contrasts:

The street was small and quiet but "drove a thriving trade"....on Sunday "it veiled its more florid charms" and lay empty; "the street shone out in contrast to its dingy neighbourhood, like a fire in a forest"; the street had a general cleanliness and gaiety but this was broken by a "sinister block of building."

Scrawler: I found your post very interesting. I wasn't really thinking about it in such depth. I did think there was a real horror of Mr. Hyde in what happened to the girl. Hyde and the girl ran into each other at a corner. The girl was knocked down. Instead of helping her, apparently Hyde took the opportunity to trample upon her severely.

What a vivid first picture of someone terrible.

But, you're right about the results of the action when Hyde was caught immediately - held up by the people in the vicinity and the family. Hyde paid them off to get out of trouble.

That didn't strike me as the biggest horror because it is typical of life. It happens all the time. Trampling a child does not. Trampling a child says "This man is capable of any evil."

Marni,

I can't believe you! You can find anything in the world. When I see your name in a discussion, I know much of the unknown will come to light. Thank you. Oh, thank you for the earlier link too.

The letter is so beautiful. Robert Louis Stevenson had a special gift. He wrote poetry and prose so beautifully.

Scrawler,

Your post is very thoughtful and seems very sensible too. RLS's chosen lifestyle during that time might have put his "reputation" in jeopardy. I remember Lily Barth in Edith Wharton's novel. This is after the Victorian Age. Still, her "reputation" came under suspicion because she entered a man's apartment alone, without escort. During the early 1900's and during the Victorian Age reputation could make or break a person.

I can't imagine what type of man would hurt a child in this way. It is a terrible incident. I think Hyde's face matches his crimes. I see a religious message here, sin versus virtue. In the first chapter I see some religious terms:

1.Cane's heresay(Marni mentioned this one)
2.catholicity
3.apocryphal/Apocrypha
4.The door/Door/Christ is sometimes called a Door to salvation
5.Satan

I feel as though Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde may be a religious, moralistic tale too. If you choose to be a Mr. Hyde, what will happen to you?

There is a full description of Mr. Hyde's door and apartment. It's almost as if a person is being described and not just a building. The building is suffering ill repair because of lack of care.

The chapter is called "Story of the Door." It's not called Story of Mr. Hyde. This is because the door is a description of Mr. Hyde.

1. sordid negligence
2. blistered and disdained
3. no repair to the ravages

Your posts are truly wonderful. My amazement continues to grow as I read the feelings you achieve in your posts.

Hats and Marni, I loved those two poems. And thank you Marni for that great link.

I would like to say this about the child who was trampled–only a beast could do that. But the parents seemed to be bought off very easily. However, I imagine a hundred pounds in Victorian England was handsome bit of money.

I keep trying to equate what a hundred pounds would be in today's economy. Would it be ten times more, twenty times more?

And even today I suppose there are parents who could be bought off by a tidy sum of cash as compensation for a child being trampled. I would prefer to see the perpetrator brought to justice for such a malicious crime.

I forgot to turn my clock ahead last night and, when I looked at my computer clock I thought something was wrong. Then I remembered "Daylight Savings." Thank heavens for the computer clock and the VCR clock.

Bill H

In chapter two, Utterson refers to Jekyll as Jack on two occasions. This made me wonder if it was a mistake on the author's part or was it an acceptable nickname for Henry. Perhaps the following quote may help explain if it was a mistake on Stevenson's part.

"Stevenson's wife was critical of the first manuscript, after he read it to her. She called it a bit of sensationalism–when it should have been a masterpiece.

" Stevenson, in what may have been either irritation or agreement with her judgment, threw the manuscript into the fire and rewrote the story from scratch. Osbourne then observes:

"The writing of it was an astounding feat, from whatever aspect it may be regarded. Sixty-four thousand words in six days; more than ten thousand words a day. To those who know little of such things I may explain that a thousand words a day is a fair average for any writer of fiction. Anthony Trollope set himself this quota; it was Jack London's; it is—and has been—a sort of standard of daily literary accomplishment. Stevenson multiplied it by ten;

and on top of that copied out the whole in another two days, and had it in the post on the third"

Fanny Stevenson's description gives an even clearer picture of the circumstances in which the story was com posed: "That an invalid in my husband's condition of health should have been able to perform the manual labour alone . . . seems incredible. He was suffering from continual hemorrhages, and was hardly allowed to speak, his conversation usually being carried on by means of a slate and pencil."

Could the name Jack been a mistake of haste or of JLS illness? If it was a mistake.

I believe we have one or two writers in the discussion. Could this speed of writing and posting a novel still be considered a remarkable achievement, in this day of modern word processors and the like?

Bill H

Could Henry Jekyll's personality altering formula be compared with some of the mind altering prescription drugs of today? In this age, we have mood changing pills such as uppers, downers, anti-depressants, and pills to put us to sleep.

Not to mention the illegal narcotics that are on the market. We are all well aware of the roll these psycho tropic drugs play in the atrocities being committed today.

But how about the overuse of alcohol that allows the drinker to shed his/her inhibitions and commit acts deserving the contempt others and even shock themselfs when sober. I would suggest alcohol is another chemical that allows the escape of their own Mr. Hyde.

I don't mean to say that the use of these drugs turn the consumer into a change of state similar to the beast Hyde. But is the alcoholic not a Mr. Hyde. Think of the wife/child abuse and the homes that have been ruined because of alcohol. I would suppose any abused wife or child would say "Oh, yes, he is a Hyde."

However, I have read that ant-depressants (another mind altering drug) can cause the user to become overly aggressive or even suicidal. How can we ever know what atrocities these various legal or illegal drugs have caused.

Henry Jekyll was not the fine fellow everyone supposed. This is evidenced by the fact that he would allow himself occasional forays into the darker parts of London, thereby, slacking his desire in whatever manner he chose.

If this side of Jekyll had not existed, if he had been a fine upstanding man through and through, would an angel have appeared instead of the devil Hyde?

Bill H

Bill, I'm reading on-line and Mr. Utterson does not use 'Jack' at all.

"We are all well aware of the roll these psycho tropic drugs play in the atrocities being committed today." Bill

Aren't there plenty of atrocities committed today that don't involve psychotropic drugs? Still, it drives me crazy how American culture tolerates alcohol abuse and the crimes committed from it, drunks mowing down children and trampling all over them with their cars all the time. People who have been arrested numerous times for DUI then allowed out and drunk and behind the wheel to kill innocent folks.

"That didn't strike me as the biggest horror because it is typical of life. It happens all the time. Trampling a child does not. Trampling a child says 'This man is capable of any evil.'" Marni

But weren't children trampled underfoot literally all the time in Victorian society, the hungry waifs standing on street corners in Soho, the news boys out at all hours for barely any wage hawking the day's events? The children out collecting the soils of life, being sold as the spoils of life? Should we conclude but ignore that this society is capable of evil?

"If you research the life of an "Evil Person" you will find a childhood filled with brutality, beatings ,severe abuse without the absolving factor of love. Not every child who suffers this becomes an evil adult but every evil adult had evils inflicted on him as a child." Judy

But just how do you define these evils, since you say that "every evil adult had evils inflicted on him as a child" aren't you just looking for proof of your statement?

I don't know much about Hitler or Stalin as children, but what evils were done to them that were so much worse than any other child? After all, they survived to adulthood in times when many children didn't. Aren't we just proving our expectations, that anyone who is evil can't be normal, but must have been abused?

The rest of the world is safe from fear of acting in an evil way as long as their parents performed their duties and protected their childhood from evil? I'm not sure I believe this.

I think that evil can be committed by ordinary people. This is why the Nazis were so successful in some countries in murdering so many Jews: they had so many willing executioners helping them. It's hard for me to say well that just happened because every person had evil done to them as a child. Surely some of those had lesser and some of those had greater evils? What child hasn't suffered? Any? Isn't that just part of life?

Kleo

RLS emphasizes that although all abhor looking upon Mr. Hyde none can quite put their finger on what is so ugly about him. He is not physically disfigured or deformed. It is rather a feeling that others have when looking upon him. I've added emphasis to a few quotes.

Mr. Enfield, in chapter one, "There is something wrong with his appearance; something displeasing, something downright detestable. I never saw a man I so disliked, and yet I scare know why."

"Something" wrong? Nothing definite, but something that can't be named. This isn't the physical description of a face, but rather the impression of a man's soul.

And he continues:

"[Hyde] 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 Mr. Utterson in Chapter 2 thinks:

"Mr Hyde was pale and dwarfish; [Hyde] gave an impression of deformity without any nameable malformation, he had a displeasing smile, ... a sort of murderous mixture of timidity and boldness, ... - all these were points against him; but not all of these together could explain the hitherto unknown disgust, loathing and fear with which Mr Utterson regarded him."

He then asks himself, "... or is it the mere radiance of a foul soul that thus transpires through, and transfigures, its clay continent?"

I think I agree with this.

At the end of chapter 4:

"Only on one point were they all agreed; and that was the haunting sense of unexpressed deformity with which the fugitive impressed his beholders."

I appreciate Stevenson not going for the easy, that if you're physically ugly you must be evil.

Kleo

He then asks himself, "... or is it the mere radiance of a foul soul that thus transpires through, and transfigures, its clay continent?"

Thinking of a golem, dear Mr. Utterson, or Mr. Stevenson are we? The supernatural brought to life?

So, is Mr. Hyde the unvoiced evil soul of Dr. Jekyll? And, it seems even more golem-like when we see the evidence of Dr. Jekyll's confidence that he is not in any danger from Mr. Hyde. After all, neither the golem's creator nor the Jews of Prague have anything to fear.

Kleo

Bill; Re:Psychotropic Meds: I would like to set some facts straight:

There are no such things as Mind Altering Prescription Drugs! There are medications for people who suffer from Mental Disorders. The invention of these medications have helped millions. There are also Street Drugs which healthy people take to alter their Mental state. Some of the more common are Cocaine, Crystal Meth and Heroin.

Anti-Depressants do not cause suicidal or aggressive behavior. Depression is a disorder of LACK of ENERGY. Aggression is the Antithesis of Depression. Depressed people may kill themselves but not because they take anti-depressants. There are a variety of anti depressants ,each slanted for a slightly different type of the disease. If the MD prescribed a medication that doesn"t help ,the person he may return to his suicidal ideation since no one helps him to get a more effective diagnosis and a more effective prescription. When people are imminitely suicidal they are usually hospitalized so the Dr. can get to see what specific medication is effective in helping the problem while the patient is in a protective envirement.

The Science in this story is Science Fiction. We can't take the Scientific process itself as fact. In the book the process is done in a solitary manner, the scientist is reckless and loses control of the process. Hyde is the arrogance of science with no forethought as to the consequences of what he is doing.

Judy .

Judy, I thought that it had been decided that anti-depressants can indeed cause suicide?

"FDA Launches a Multi-Pronged Strategy to Strengthen Safeguards for Children Treated With Antidepressant Medications

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today issued a Public Health Advisory announcing a multi-pronged strategy to warn the public about the increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior ("suicidality") in children and adolescents being treated with antidepressant medications.

(Emphasis in the original.)

Black Box Suicide Warnings

Anti-depressants have many side-effects, as they are used to treat mental disorders I would think some side-effects might be mental. It's like taking a drug for blood thinning--wouldn't you think some of its side-effects might be related to the blood?

There's a fine line between a poison and a medicine, generally just the dose ("the dose makes the poison"). A medicine designed to impact a system may have undesirable impacts on that same system--after all, that is what it is targeting.

I don't know a lot about anti-deprresants, but they involve multiple classes of drugs subscribed to people for various disorders. I'm pretty sure suicide has not been eliminated from all classes for all disorders.

I'm not so sure about off-handedly blaming the ills of humanity on psychoactive drugs or evils done to children or any one cause. I don't think it's that simple. OR that humans are that simple. Or that we know enough about the impact of environment or genes or both coupled with culture on human beings.

I don't think that RLS is being quite that simple, yet. Maybe he gets there. But I think he sees human beings as quite complex, from the beginning, his allusion to Adam, to the modern era (Victorian England in his case).

But, yes, the story is science fiction. It will useful to remember this. And that the good Doctor does not show much in the line of medical or scientific ethics.

Kleo

KleoP

Here I take the time to apologize for using the name "Jack" No, it was not Jack, it was Harry. What follows is a sentence from Chapter two.

"...The last, I think; for, my poor old Harry Jekyll, if ever I read Satan's signature upon a face, it is on that of your new friend."

I suppose, in some circles Harry could be used for Henry. However, I can't Utterson using it again, and I still wonder why RLS used here.

I will attribute my mistake as having a senior moment.

Bill H

Re: "Could Henry Jekyll's personality altering formula be compared with some of the mind altering prescription drugs of today?"

I think Jekyll's formula is more than personality altering. It is also physically altering to an unusual degree. It's more than the essence of deformity and evil that Hyde projects. It's even size. Hyde is repeatedly described as small, short, dwarfish. Jekyll, on the other hand, is described as large. and with a large handsome face.

--------------------------------

I think the name Harry is often the nickname for someone named Henry. Utterson refers to Jekyll as Harry several times when he is concerned about him. Apparently they had been very good friends for many years. Utterson seems to call him Harry as a term of endearment.

--------------------------------------

Re: "But weren't children trampled underfoot literally all the time in Victorian society.....Should we conclude but ignore that this society is capable of evil?" I don't think anyone is ignoring that.

I think everyone is made up of good and evil. Society sets rules to protect a culture from inner evil that can be let loose. People internalize a society's mores that help them to keep violent natures under control. Difficult circumstances such as wars or poverty can impact societies and allow people to feel freer from societies' normal restrictions. War, poverty, starvation, abuse, etc. can bring out the worst in some, and sometimes, perhaps, the best in others. Power can bring out the worst in some, the best in others.

People certainly react differently to adverse situations or to power. Some people, for whatever reasons, don't have self-control over violent tendencies. Perhaps they are amoral. Perhaps some are naturally more evil than others.

---------------------------------

Re: "So, is Mr. Hyde the unvoiced evil soul of Dr. Jekyll?" I think that is exactly what he is, although I don't think Jekyll's soul is purely evil. I think we'll see that Hyde is the evil portion of Jekyll's soul.

RLS begins to create a picture of Henry Jekyll in the first 5 chapters. Utterson thinks about him, "He was wild when he was young." He thinks it possible that Hyde's control over Jekyll may have something to do with "the ghost of some old sin; the cancer of some concealed disgrace..." Dr. Lanyon hasn't seen Jekyll for a long while. He says about Jekyll, "...Jekyll became too fanciful for me. He began to go wrong, wrong in mind....such unscientific balderdash."

We see there were seeds of something in Jekyll's nature that may have led him into something awful.

When we finally meet Jekyll for the first time, we see he has "something of a slyish cast perhaps..." We find out he is terribly disappointed in his once friend, Dr. Lanyon. Jekyll gets a blackness about his eyes when Hyde is brought up. He swears to Utterson that he can be rid of Hyde "the moment he chooses" as thought he is trying to talk himself into believing this.

Importantly, Jekyll has prepared for Hyde to be taken care of when he, Jekyll, is no longer around. He says to Utterson, "I only ask you to help him for my sake, when I am no longer here." He seems to have accepted that Hyde will be around when he no longer is. He seems to understand his fate.

Marni

RLS uses wonderful imagery to create the tone of the story. One image he uses repeatedly in these first chapters is fog and, of course, darkness. Fog is everywhere, day and night. It even seeps into people's houses.

"at night under the face of the fogged city moon"; "a fog rolled over the city in the small hours"; "the first fog of the season"; "the fog would be quite broken up"; "shifting, insubstantial mists"; "the fog lifted a little"; "the fog settled down again"; "the foggy cupola"; "even in the houses the fog began to lie thickly"; "The fog still slept on the wing above the drowned city"; "the fogs of London";

The fog is contrasted by imagery of fire or light.

"like a fire in a forest"; "brilliantly lit by the full moon"; "nothing to be seen but lamps"; "street after street, all lighted up "; "shaft of daylight"; "its lamps, which had never been extinguished or had been kindled afresh to combat this mournful re-invasion of darkness"; "a scroll of lighted pictures"; "great field of lamps of a nocturnal city"; "labyrinths of lamplighted city"; "the light falling dimly"; "the lamps glimmered like carbuncles"; "the glow of hot autumn afternoons"; "the room was gay with firelight"; "A fire burned in the grate; a lamp was set lighted on the chimney shelf."

Bill; Re:Psychotropic Meds: I would like to set some facts straight:

There are no such things as Mind Altering Prescription Drugs! There are medications for people who suffer from Mental Disorders. The invention of these medications have helped millions. As opposed to these medical remedies for mental disorders there exists a blight on society known as Street Drugs which healthy people take to alter their Mental state. Some of the more common are Cocaine, Crystal Meth and Heroin.

Anti-Depressants do not cause suicidal or aggressive behavior. Depression is a disorder of LACK of ENERGY. Aggression is the Antithesis of Depression. Depressed people may kill themselves but not because they take anti-depressants. There are a variety of anti depressants ,each slanted for a slightly different type of the disease. If the MD prescribed a medication that doesn't improve the depressive state,the person may return to his suicidal ideation. This may happen when there is no one to help him to get a more effective diagnosis and a more effective prescription. When people are imminitely suicidal they are usually hospitalized so the Dr. can observe what specific medication is effective in helping the problem while the patient is in a protective envirement. When the patient leaves the hospital with the correct medication he will either remain on it for a long or short period depending on the specific nature of the depression.

The Science in this story is Science Fiction. We can't take the Scientific process itself as fact. In the book the process is done in a solitary manner, the scientist is reckless and loses control of the process he began. Hyde is arrogant in his use of science with no forethought as to the consequences of what he has done or how it will effect others. Stevenson wished to enthrall us and he succeeded.

Judy .

Chapter One: I see the "trampling" of the child as a hook or foreshadowing to what is to come - a "trampling" of a gentleman's reputation. The real horror is that no one bothered to seek "justice" for the child, but that they would rather blackmail someone like Hyde. These civilized people would rather blackmail a man which Enfield describes as: "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 specifiy the point."

Stevenson's writing: "As was the custom, Mrs. Stevenson would read the draft and offer her criticisms in the margins. Louis was confined to bed at the time, and she left her comments with the manuscript and Louis in the bedroom. She said in effect the story was really an allegory, but Louis was writing it just as a story." Is this story an allegory? If you believe, as I do for example, that the "trampling of the child" was symbolic and stood for the "trampling of a man's reputation" than you might say the story was an allegory.

Bill, you asked if "the mere physical feat" of turning out a story in such a short time was usual for an author. I would say it depends on the author. I usually spend more time researching my topic than actually writing it and once I have my notes together the story practically writes itself. 10,000 words a day would be over-the-top for me; but some were between 1,000 to 1,500 a day would I say be about average. But like I say it really depends on what is comfortable for the individual writer. Some days you might write like there is no tomorrow and other days you stare at a blank page.

Chapter Two: Mr. Utterson since he received Dr. Jekyll's will has been disturbed about the fact that at the doctor's "death or his disappearnce" everything of the doctor's should go to Mr. Hyde. And now that he knows something about "young" Mr. Hyde he is convinced that Hyde is not only blackmailing his benefactor, but with the will's reference to "death and disappearance" it makes Utterson think of the possibility of MURDER! He is determined to get to the bottom of it by becoming an amateur detective. So if Mr. Utterson is so concerned, why doesn't he go to the police?

Ah! Dr. Jekyll's reputation is at stake. At all costs there cannot be even the remotest idea of a scandal. He does not seek the help of the police, but rather seeks the help from a peer of Dr. Jekyll - Dr.Lanyon. But Lanyon only adds to the mystery. Not only does Lanyon not know about Hyde, but he informs Utterson that he has broken off relations with Dr. Jekyll as a result of a "professional dispute". Lanyon refers to Jekyll's resent research as "unscientific balderdash." Harsh words coming from such a gentleman as Dr. Lanyon. But like the "trampling of the child" in the first chapter. The idea that Jekyll's recent research is considered "unscientific" is once again the "real" horror. What could Jekyll be working on that could be so horrific, unscientific and above all so uncivilized that Lanyon would break off relations with such a "gentleman" as Dr. Jekyll???

Just got back from a trip to LA, so am catching up with the posts. Quite a lot for a few days.

Bill, regarding your initial questions about the nature of Hyde, I don't think it's simply lust or evil or lack of social retraint. The primary thing Jekyll was seeking was freedom from his conscience. He wanted to be able to give into his baser desires without his better self constantly fearing the destruction of his career or reputation.

If you can't imagine someone else's pain, if you have no empathy with your fellow human beings and their suffering, then killing means no more to you than swatting a fly. If you know what pain feels like, you don't like the idea of inflicting it on someone else, but Hyde doesn't have that built-in check. He feels no guilt or regret for his crimes. True evil knows no conscience. So perhaps evil is an absence of empathy, mixed with a strong need for something. It's a trait shared by many psychopaths, politicians and CEOs, so that makes a lot of sense to me.

If we are talking about true evil, then, Scootz is correct. Not every person is a Doctor Hyde. I would feel insulted if someone called me a Doctor Hyde. It has been difficult for me to connect with sheer evil. I have heard of psychopaths and sociopaths. Now I wonder what is the difference between these two terms?

I think anytime we look at the news we see some truly evil people. Not all, but a few, have no sense of remorse. If you can't feel remorse, can a person call themselves human? What makes humans different from animals? Isn't it that we have the ability to think and choose right from wrong? Then, also, when wrong to feel shame and sorrow? If a person can no longer feel, is that person a criminal or a person with a mental disorder?

Hats, The question you raise about the place of mental disorder in a discussion about crime and evil is a good one.

Horselover,

I am glad you are back. You always add to a discussion and make me think. Thinking for me doesn't come easy either.

Robert Louis Stevenson drew a word picture of the ugliness and small stature of Hyde. I formed the opinion that RLS was showing the reader how he compared immoral and malevolent behavior to the beauty and strength of the moral excellence or admirableness of goodness and truth.

The author drew an elaborate account of making a clown of Mr. Hyde. "His trousers fell far below his shoes, his coat sleeves hung beneath his hands." Jekyll could see this and loathed Hyde.

As I read this story, I thought of the mind of being a great hallway or corridor in a large hotel with many doors along it's length. I could imagine a key (a chemical so to speak) opening a door to these chambers off the hallway. What would we find? I'm certain we could find beauty dwelling in some of the mind's chambers, while others may have ugliness and a sort of evil lurking in them just waiting to escape.

I don't mean to imply that any of us here have the beast Hyde lurking in our sublimate self.

To follow up on the author's characterure of Hyde. Ms. Davidson asks this question.

"What do you make of Hyde's appearance? (He is small and subtly deformed.) Do you think he should have been depicted as tall and hypermusculasr, or obese and debauched, or pale and cadaverous? Why? (Or why not?) Is there a specific meaning in, or reason for Hyde's appearance?"

Bill H

Scrawler,

The real horror is that no one bothered to seek justice" for the child

My sentiments also. If I had been a parent of the trampled child, I would have sought justice for this despicable act. I'm sure such a child would cry this traumatic experience all through her adult life. I wonder if this poor waifs ever seen any of this settlement.

Horselover,

"...then killing means no more to you than swatting a fly"

I would think that the dictators of this world both past and present fit this desription. We all know the atrocities they have inflected on others.

Hats

"...we have the ability to think and choose right from wrong."

This is so true and it is the development and evolution of the human brain's limbic systems that sets apart from animals.

However, in the evil doer I don't think his/hers limbic system devlolped in the normal maner.

Bill H

Hats ; In answer to your question re: the difference between Psycho and Sociopaths. Sorry if the answer is a bit wordy but there is no simple answer. Most of this material is from The Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition.

Both of these are under the heading of Anti-Social Personality Disorders. " A pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. Deceit and manipulation are central features of this disorder.' (Think of Jekyl/Hyde here) " Decisions are made on the spur of the moment without forethought and without consideration of consequences to self and others. Their only goal is to gain Profit or pleasure: money ,sex or power. They continuously commit acts of physical asaults including child and spouse beating. They show a reckless disregard for the safety of themselves or others. They may blame the victim for being foolish, helpless or deserving their fate."'

In general Serial Killers are Psychopaths whereas some, but not all, CEOS and Politicians are Sociopaths. i.e. The Socio kind not caring for societys rules and the Psycho kind not caring for peoples lives.

Hope I didn't bore you.

Judy

Judy, you didn't bore me at all. I found your post interesting.

Since this pervasive pattern begins in early childhood or adolescents, could it be considered to be Learned Behavior and not a disease of the brain at birth?

Some of the returning POW Vietnam veterans could give testimony to the barbaric actions of their captors. However, most don't wish to speak of the anguish they endued.

I suppose I'm trying to say that a great mass of human kind doesn't need a Jekyll formula to release their Mr. Hyde. To quote a phrase from the play "South Pacific," They have to be carefully taught." I can't imagine one human being so cruel to another. However, as you pointed out, we do have the serial killers and child molesters in society and some of their cruel and inhuman behavior would put Stevenson's Mr. Hyde to shame.

A comment on Mr Utterson. He was quoted as saying, "I'm not my brothers keeper." Nonetheless, he couldn't help but meddle into Jekyll's matters.

Do you think Utterson was right to meddle?

Bill H

Marni,

RLS uses wonderful imagery to create the tone of the story

I meant to comment earlier on this but got sidetracked. Yes, RLS is extremely good at painting a picture with words much as an artist does with brush and paint on canvas. Those of us here that were in the Treasure Island discussion can attest to that.

I must confess that my mood is set, whenever I see the use of the phrase "fog hanging pervasively over the city." I just know this story will be filed with suspense and intrigue.

Bill H

Several people have commented on Hyde's appearance--"small and subtley deformed." Bill asked if he should have been tall and muscular. I think part of the reason is our cultural bias in favor of tall people. Many research studies have shown that our culture regards tall as better (see example below). Therefore, it seems reasonable that RLS would make Hyde small to show his more primitive nature and to make us detest him even more.

Short Changed
Why do tall people make more money?
By Steven E. Landsburg

Economists have known for a long time that it pays to be tall. Multiple studies have found that an extra inch of height can be worth an extra $1,000 a year or so in wages, after controlling for education and experience. If you're 6 feet tall, you probably earn about $6,000 more than the equally qualified 5-foot-6-inch shrimp down the hall.

Hats,Don't be modest. I can tell you do lots of thinking, and it's lucky for the rest of us, too.

Marni, I did not question that Dr. Jekyll's "soul is purely evil," simply that Mr. Hyde is the evil part of it.

Yes, Harry is a nickname for Henry, although it can stand alone, also. It is thought by some linguists that "Harry" is actually the correct pronunciation of "Henry" at one time.

Judy, your comment about anti-depressants is different from what I have read in medical journals and FDA alerts--I have to go with the science on this rather than unknown sources because I don't know much about it.

Also, your definition of psychopath and sociopath is different from ones I am familiar with or could find. I thought they were simply older terms, but they may mean something different, and one source says they're not used in the DSM-IV, rather the term "antisocial personality disorder" is used. This latter is what I thought, psychopath was the old term, sociopath the newer term, and APD now the preference.

"Antisocial personality disorder is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. This pattern has also been referred to as psychopathy or sociopathy."

I will look at the DSM-IV next time I'm in the library. Maybe this refers to older versions, or on-line is inaccurate (always possibly).

I did find something interesting a "Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R):"

(I've included some for Hyde items, of the 22 listed, thus far.)

Factor 1: Aggressive narcissism Glibness/superficial charm Grandiose sense of self-worth ... Lack of remorse or guilt ... Callous/lack of empathy

Factor 2: Socially deviant lifestyle Poor behavioral controls Juvenile delinquency [Can we find this out about Hyde, his juvenile status?]

Other Traits Criminal versatility

Psychopathy Checklist

There are others, psychopathy checklists or diagnostic tests.

But I think I'm more interested in the evil committed by the ordinary humans in all of us rather than the socially deviant. After all, both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are functioning in society.

Kleo

I think that a poor family in London might rather have 100 pounds than abstract "justice." What can you do with "justice?" And poor people don't really get justice today (obviously not true and simply a personal bias), how would they have gotten it in the 19th century.

Why isn't this justice enough? What would it have done for the child to have to go to court and speak out about the man and the happening and being trampled in front of a judge and jury and audience and press?

I suspect the child might have gotten the advantage of more regular heating and better food for a while. Isn't an advantage to her family an advantage to her?

Kleo

"Ah! Dr. Jekyll's reputation is at stake. At all costs there cannot be even the remotest idea of a scandal....The idea that Jekyll's recent research is considered "unscientific" is once again the "real" horror."

What could Jekyll be working on that could be so horrific, unscientific and above all so uncivilized that Lanyon would break off relations with such a "gentleman" as Dr. Jekyll???

Scrawler, emphasis added

Oh, I love this thought. It had not occurred to me at all, yet it seems, now that you've mentioned it, absolutely central to the book, this see-saw where Dr. Jekyll's reputation as a gentleman sits on one seat and his reputation as a scientist on the other! Egads, the horror of it all indeed!

What an interesting twist on it.

Kleo

Re: "What could Jekyll be working on that could be so horrific, unscientific and above all so uncivilized that Lanyon would break off relations with such a "gentleman" as Dr. Jekyll???"

This is interesting. Where do you draw the line regarding scientific experimentation? What is considered civilized and helpful to humankind vs What goes over the edge and puts society in danger? Our country is facing this right now regarding issues of cloning, stem cell research, etc. Religion, of course, enters the picture.

I have not finished our book yet, but it seems Lanyon must have found out how far Jekyll was going with his experiments. What can be allowed and what is too harmful to be allowed by a culture? This reminds me of The Island of Dr. Moreau and the experiments with humans and animals.

Just think of the experimentation on soldiers who were forced to take new drugs and who were guinea pigs without realizing it and who suffered the consequences. But then think of where we'd be without scientific experimentation. The age-old question.

Regarding Hyde's physical appearance....Another thing about him was that he seemed young and he ran a number of times - not only ran but jumped and sort of leaped about. I wondered why he would have been depicted that way.

I didn't think Hyde's too-large clothing was comical or clownish, I must admit. I thought it just showed that Hyde had transformed from Dr. Jekyll and still had Jekyll's clothes on when he turned into Mr. Hyde. Jekyll was large and Hyde was small. That the clothes didn't fit emphasized the difference between them. I thought it made Hyde seem more gruesome.

Judy, your post did not bore me at all. Your post and all of the others are really fantastic. It's taking me awhile to take all these thoughts in.

I do believe there are stereotypical views about height. If RLS had made Mr. Hyde a tall character, he would have been viewed as a hero, a man with dignity, strength and intelligence. Often criminals or child molesters are overlooked because their appearance doesn't match their crime. A tall man in a good looking suit vs. a short, frowning, miserable, dirty looking bum are in a lineup. Which man would most likely become the one fingered for the crime? Probably, the short, dirty, looking guy. So, Mr. Hyde's appearance is the expected appearance of a man who would trample a child and beat a man to death.

I have a hard time thinking of Doctor Jekyll as a man with problems. It's known about his wild behavior. His mind is a little off centered. Still, because he carries the title "Doctor Jekyll," I want to think of him as a good citizen, nothing like Mr. Hyde. Really, my mind is biased because of his title. If I am on a jury, do I take these biases with me?

RE:"This is so true and it is the development and evolution of the human brain's limbic systems that sets apart from animals.

However, in the evil doer I don't think his/hers limbic system devlolped in the normal maner."

Bill H,

If the limbic system isn't fully developed in the "evil doer," does this excuse his abhorrent behavior?

"There is something wrong with [Hyde's] appearance," Enfield says in the opening chapter. "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 to point."

In other words, Hyde's ugliness may not be seen as physical, but rather metaphysical. Metaphysical is defined as: relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses - supernatural!

Stevenson was a follower of Calvinism. This religion is marked by a strong emphasis on the sovereignty of God, the depravity of mankind, and the doctrine of predestination. I can see where Mr. Hyde could represent "the depravity of mankind" and that Dr. Lanyon is upset because Dr. Jekyll when he tries to separate the depravity from the good in man is in reality playing God. But what horrible being has he created - a being that is not only physically ugly and deformed, but which symbolizes the warped ethics of mankind and is supernatural?

Let's face it Hyde was one ugly dude!

And in Stevenson's time many people believed in the science of physiognomy, which is a pseudo science, based upon the belief that the study and judgment of a person's outer appearance, primarily the face, reflects their character or personality. Or in other words if your short, ugly and deformed you have to be a criminal. So when Stevenson portrayed Hyde as he did we can see where some people in the 19th century might have found a connection between Hyde and the science of physiognomy.

With all this going against Hyde is it any wonder that he was seen as a "criminal-type" - a blackmailer and now if you believe Utterson a possible murderer!

Marni,

"not only ran but jumped and sort of leaped about. I wondered why he would have been depicted that way. Marni"

I believe this was RLS way of explaining the temporary and misguided feelings of one whose inhibitions have been freed by the use of alcohol or perhaps the use a narcotic that gives the unfortunate user a type of pleasure. This pleasurable feeling is probably what causes the addiction.

Perhaps Jekyll's subliminal self craved this freedom.

Hats

"…the limbic system isn't fully developed in the "evil doer," does this excuse his abhorrent behavior?"

No, I don't think the law excuses this behavior in the evil doer. However, I have read that if the perpetrator of a horrendous crime is judged to be insane, then he/she may be sentenced to some sort of psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane.

I watched a good example of this on Law and Order. An older man with Alzheimer's disease killed his wife in a fit of jealous rage. The court allowed him to plea bargain, but he was still sentenced to a prison psychiatric ward for six years.

It was brought out that a prison psychiatric ward did not have the finest facilities nor did the victim receive the best of care. With only two nurses on each tour of duty, the victim would be left lye for hours or even for a day with minimal careA doctor would make the rounds once a week.

Now, I realize this was just a TV program, nonetheless, I imagine there was a ring of fact to it.

Bill H

BillH,

I understand. The program does have a "ring of truth." I believe we can glean a lot of good information from these programs.

Bill, Many of the prison hospitals are really like the one on the T.V. show. However, just as there are special prisons for "White Collar Crime" there are some good prison hospitals which can really help the prisoners with the correct therapy and medication.You just need a very good lawyer to get you adjudicated to these places.

John Hinkley who shot Pres. Reagan is a case in point He was the son of very wealthy parents who did not know the signs of mental illness that their son was showing and threw him out of the house. When they understood their mistake they moved heaven and earth to get their son the correct help. The parents devoted a number of years of their own lives going to cities across the country to help educate other parents to the signs that they themselves had misread and misunderstood while their son was growing up.

In Stevensons day most families kept their mentally ill members at home since the insane asylums were such horrific places. The fear of mental ilness was even greater than it is today. Hydes horrible outer appearance may have effected the audience of that time even more than he effects us today.

Although Jekyl had the title "Dr." he had no patients ,just a lab. So I wonder what kind of Doctor he was supposed to be?

Judy

Judy, thank you for that informative post. Again I can see where money talks. "getting the right attorney."

You asked what kind of a doctor Jekyll was. I'm not sure but I believe it was pointed out somewhere in the novel that Jekyll was more of a scientist or research type of doctor, at least that is the impression I got.

Bill H

Jenny Davidson asks these questions
"The Nation" criticizes Stevenson for his use of "chemical hocus-pocus" in explaining Dr. Jekyll's transformation. How better could he have resolved his tale? Would the story have been stronger if Mr. Hyde never changed back?"
Do you think the story would have been better if Hyde never changed back. Davidson questions are worthy of some thought.
I suppose The Nation was some sort of newspaper or other publication during the Stevenson era.

Bill H

I'm confused. The schedule says we're discussing chapters 1-5, but most folks are further along than that. The change from one to the other is not revealed in the first five chapters.

Chapter 5, "The Incident with the Letter," ends with:

"`What!' [Utterson] thought. `Henry Jekyll forge for a murderer!' And his blood ran cold in his veins."

Are we on schedule or on the whole book, or where?

Kleo

Have any of you wondered why, in the part about the trampling of the child, those gentlemen who caught the detestable and evil Hyde --a creature that made them sick with fear -- would want to take him home with them and spend "the rest of the night" with him and have breakfast with him, just so they could get some money from him? ___________________________________________________________________

Jekyll's so-called "chemical hocus-pocus" does not seem so far-fetched today when we know how to use hormones to change body characteristics. Small amounts of these powerful chemicals can produce startling results. So also other chemicals can produce strange mental states and alter personality. Maybe not such "unscientific balderdash" after all.

There was a quote from this story in a recent scientific article about Telomerase, a drug that can produce cellular immortality. The author quotes, "I hesitated long before I put this theory to the test of practice...for any drug that so potently controlled and shook the very fortress of identity, might, by the least scruple of an overdose utterly blot out that immaterial tabernacle which I looked to it to change." So scientists continue to cope with the very same questions now.

It would seem for some modern "Doctors" and I use that term to indicate people who as a rule are respected and admired by many who really are not admirable..Each day the newspapers and TV and articles describe so called respectable people, educated , in high places, with money enough to have some of what we call the finer things in life are revealed to be evil and feed thier base nature in numerous ways, We dont need medicine or other scientific means to become less than we should or could be..we need access to TV, to movies , magazines and newspapers that print all that is bad in our society and ignore the good. So these are fed to everyone,and in my own belief they poison many. If all you see are the base side of society and not the noble than I think it affects people. I dont think people are born good or bad but I do think they are affected by what they see and hear.

And computers have released the MR HYDE in many as we see this am when what is he? a director of Homeland Security has found to be ( apparantly since I think I read he has pleaded guilty) to asking for explicit sexual behavoir to a young girl through the internet. No need for mysterious elixers or physical changes but just allow yourself to give in to a base nature.

I used to love mystery stories but now find most are blueprints for horrific crimes. And TV shows the same ..so explicit are the crimes committed anyone who watches them even older people can be affected by them. And certainly get ideas from them ...And since RLS has a terrific imagination and was able to write stories I also suspect the news of his day was no different than ours. I know I have written several short stories after reading a paragraph in the newspaper ( mine I must say were about scientific theories and not mayhem and murder)

I think I am going to read some of my grandchildrens books...and even in them you cant escape the wicked witches and trolls. anna

Anna, that's a wonderful post.

I am still thinking of the looks of Mr. Hyde. RLS describes him as "something troglodytic..." I am not familiar with that term. I looked it up. The definition is dwelling in caves. I put the definition of "troglodytic" together with the description of Mr. Hyde's door.

"...marks of prolonged and sordid negligence. The door, which was equipped with neither bell nor knocker, was blistered and distained."

My mind is thinking Mr. Hyde's environment might have led him to act out his hostilities on other people. He is described as being someone who lives in a cave, dark, dank, still. I am thinking Mr. Hyde's disconnection with other people might have caused him to act out his anger. I feel that what we do with criminal minded people is very important. After all, society must protect itself.

It is also important to figure out why these people become so full of rage. I wish Doctor Jekyll had concentrated on making a drug to stifle rage and inhumane feelings for other human beings. There has to be a cure for inhumane behavior like child molestation, rape, people who beat up elderly people. Maybe some sociologists, scientists or psychologists have studied why hate can drive some people to destroy other people.

Little children who live through wars like the one in Iraq, are they more likely to become adult murderers? Are we breeding criminals while not even being aware of what we are doing?

Anna mentioned some of the ailments of society. I think her post is very true.

RLS also mentions Dr. Fell. I am not familiar with this fictional character or real person.

""God bless me, the man seems hardly human! Something troglodytic, shall we say? or can it be the old story of Dr. Fell?"

Like Marni, I didn't think the clothing was comical either.

Also, as to Mr. Hyde's appearance, eyewitness testimony is known to produce strange results. All feel the man is physically repugnant, without being able to name a single true malformation. His smallness may be the same thing, such a mean man could not be tall and strapping and healthy looking their minds might tell them.

Yes, horselover, I noticed it strange they should bring him home with them. However, my overall conclusion about this and the scene is that they recognize he is a gentleman. After all, if he was a common low-life crook, not one of them, as opposed to one of them gone wrong, they would have just called the police. Who would have 100 pounds to give? Not a workman, only a gentleman would have the money and pay up.

Still, mighty strange they would want to share a house with such a man--they had to have recognized themselves in him.

Kleo

I was just thinking about the movie "The Three Faces of Eve" about the woman with multiple personalities. These people actually exist, people who seem to have different aspects of their personalities separated within themselves into distinct persons. I wonder if there had been anyone like this in RLS' day - maybe in the news - someone who gave him the idea for his story.

RLS himself seems to have been a person with a wild side. He came from the Scottish Presbyterian background and must have heard sermons about Presbyterian beliefs about the nature of man. Perhaps RLS felt guilty at times about things he had done with his life and questioned why he had done them.

Maybe RLS was a person with some deep inner anger because he was so very sick so much of the time. Maybe he felt very dark about it and then wondered at his inner feelings of turmoil. Maybe he felt inside himself a strong pull between good and bad.

I thought about RLS's health too. Being of poor health, maybe he wished to separate himself from such an ill body. To feel full of health must have been part of his imagination or his hopeful thoughts.

I do not like thee, Doctor Fell,
The reason why I cannot tell;
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.

This Nursery Rhyme was written in 1680 by the satirical English poet Tom Brown (1663-1704).

This rhyme fits Mr. Hyde.

"Whilst Tom Brown was a student at the Oxford university of Christ Church he got into some trouble and was sent to the Dean - Dr. John Fell. Dr. Fell (1625–1686) was an English clergyman, the Dean of Christ Church who later became the Bishop of Oxford. Dr Fell was furious with Tom Brown but before expelling him he set him a test. If Tom passed the test, to assess whether he could use the literary style marked by the use of epigrams, he would not be sent down."

Now you're the person coming up with the answers, Hats!

Marni, I hope it is the right answer.

Mr. Hyde is described as a

1.troglodytic
2.Juggernaut
3.Dr. Fell

Towards the beginning of the story, Jekyll states that he wants to separate the twosides of his nature so that His "good" side can operate without the temptations from his dark side. But Jekyll only succeeds in liberating his darker side, freeing it from the bonds of conscience.He never liberates himself from this darkness. Once released, Hyde gradually comes to dominate both personas, until Jekyll takes Hyde’s shape more often than his own. By the very end of the novel, Jekyll himself no longer exists and only Hyde remains. Hyde seems to possess a force more powerful than Jekyll originally believed. The fact that Hyde, rather than the good man emerged from the experiments may mean that Jekyll's basic nature was not really as good as his friends thought.The dominance of Hyde as a latent force within Jekyll, then as a tyrannical external force subverting Jekyll may say something about RLS' notion of human nature. Hyde is described as resembling a “troglodyte,” or a primitive creature; maybe RLS believed that Hyde is actually the original, authentic nature of man, which has been repressed by civilization, conscience, and societal norms. In the story, it tells of Jekyll's wild oats when he was young.Maybe RLS is saying that man's basic nature is barely constrained by the bonds of civilization.And once those bonds are broken, it becomes impossible to reestablish them.Eventually, Hyde permanently replaces Jekyll. Stevenson suggests that the dark, instinctual side of man remains strong enough to devour anyone who, like Jekyll, is foolish enough to unleash it.

According to the Dictionary, "troglodyte" is a defined as: 1) a member of any of various peoples (as in antiquity) who lived or were reputed to live chiefly in caves. 2) a person characterized by reclusive habits or outmoded or reactionary attitudes.

Jekyll's laboratory is described as "a certain sinister block of building...[which] bore in every feature the marks of profound and sordid negligence." With its decaying facade and air of neglect, the laboratory might symbolize Hyde himself, but it also looked like a cave.

According to Sigmund Freud: "the unconscious ID represented primary process thinking - our most primitive need gratification type thoughts. The SUPEREGO (also unconscious) represented our socially - induced morals and ethics and counteracted the ID. The EGO (conscious and ego ideal) stands in between both to balance our primitive needs and our moral/ethical beliefs. A healthy EGO provides the ability to adapt to reality and interact with the outside world in a way that accommodates both ID and SUPEREGO."

Now I can see where Hyde might be seen as symbolic for the ID and Jekyll represents the SUPEREGO, but who or what in the novel is symbolic of the EGO?

Perhaps Hyde is really the original man whose "urges" have been repressed or even destroyed by the constraints of civilization. And once those bonds are unleashed there is no turning back. That without an EGO; even the SUPEREGO is no match for the HYDES of this world.

Anna, I liked the ollder mysteries also. That is why I still love the old Sherlock Holmes Stories. Authors such as Agatha Christie, Dorothy a Sayers, etc. wrote the read mysteries.

Even the old time radio thrillers much as "Lights Out Everybody," and the Sherlock Holmes radio stories were much better family entertainment than what we get today on the TV. When did it all go wrong?

"... presently her eye wandered to the other, and she was surprised to recognize in him a certain Mr. Hyde, who had once visited her master and for whom she had conceived a dislike. He had in his hand a heavy cane, with which he was trifling; but he answered never a word, and seemed to listen with an ill-contained impatience. And then all of a sudden he broke out in a great flame of anger, stamping with his foot, brandishing the cane, and carrying on (as the maid described it) like a madman. The old gentleman took a step back, with the air of one very much surprised and a trifle hurt; and at that Mr. Hyde broke out of all bounds and clubbed him to the earth. And next moment, with ape-like fury, he was trampling his victim under foot and hailing down a storm of blows, under which the bones were audibly shattered and the body jumped upon the roadway. At the horror of these sights and sounds, the maid fainted."

For me, The above excerpt from the book represents Henry Jekyll pent up emotions. In fact all of Hyde's exploits I thought of as Jekyll's true self. As Horselover pointed out. (I believe it was Horselover) Henry Jekyll was not basically a good man. Hyde is just an extension of his Jekyll's personality

The Carew murder was a release of Jekyll's pent up emotions. Think of it, what fun or relaxation did the good Doctor ever have. None as far as I have read. Even his so called dinner parties were always with a group of drab fellows of his circle.

As far as I have read, Jekyll never kept company with a lady friend. What sort of man was he. True he made forays into the darker parts of the city, but this was a matter of debauchery.

The term Anti-Social describes both Jekyll/Hyde.

Bill H

Have any of you noticed, except for the mention of the maid seeing Hyde murder Carew, there is a complete absence of women in the first half of the novel?

This held true in the Treasure Island story as well. However, Treasure Island, RLS did devote a few paragraps to the boys mother.

Bill H

Well, we dived into the entire book rather than the first five chapters, so I'm going for it.

Re: "Henry Jekyll was not basically a good man." I would say he is not ALL good. He certainly has much good in him. Look at the friends he has. And who is all good? I think Jekyll was a combination. He struggled within himself. Who doesn't? Even Utterson struggled within himself and forced himself against certain temptations such as the theater, which he loved. Jekyll had his wild side and perhaps let it loose more than some when he was younger, as Lanyon remembers.

One thing that is different between Jekyll and - say - Utterson is that Jekyll is a scientist and an experimenter. He is, perhaps, freer, less inhibited. He is very curious. He does not like the restrictions placed upon him by society and by himself. He decides to unleash his dark side. He wants to see what happens when he doesn't have to feel guilty about his actions.

In one way, Jekyll likes the results of his experiments. He likes how he feels as Hyde. But Jekyll is very careful to keep the phial of liquid that will return him to himself. He becomes horrified when he realizes Hyde is becoming stronger. Jekyll is horrified and terrified when Hyde becomes dominant and no longer needs the chemicals to bring him out. Jekyll realizes the hideous mistake he has made in unleashing the unknown dark side. He fights against it but loses the battle.

I never believe, however, as horselover said, that "Hyde permanently replaces Jekyll." Jekyll wins in the end as he loses. He is able to destroy Hyde when he still has the capability to do so. The part of Jekyll that is good knows Hyde cannot be allowed to continue living, even if it means Jekyll dies, too. Jekyll knows he will be gone anyway.

I just thought of the cartoon characters Heckle and Jeckle, the crows. I don't remember much about them. Were they opposites of each other or different in personality? I wonder if the names had anything to do with Jekyll. Does anyone remember these old cartoons?

Scrawler asks where is the Ego? Well Freuds basic tenet was that a person with a healthy ego is capable of both WORK and LOVE. Jekyll had no loving relationships nor did he do any type of work where he interfaced with others.Perhaps Lanyon and Utterson were the examples of the healthy ego that Jekyll was missing.

This Discussion has made me realize that what seemed to me a chasm between Hyde and Jekyll was only a thin partition. Stevenson enhances the difference by describing two physically different beings. But he gives hints too.On page 11 Utterson says of Hyde "I never saw a man I so disliked....he gives a feeling of deformity, although I couldn'tspecify the point". On page 21 we get Uttersons thoughts on Jekyll.."Poor Harry Jekyll..Ay it must be the ghost of some old sin, the cancer of some concealed disgrace.Punishment comes "pedo claudo" (Punishment comes limping). Years after memory has forgotten and self love has condoned the fault."

Racing through the book I didn,t see the hints that were given us and the significance of Hydes Limping movements.

Judy

Huh, so we're discussing the whole book now? I purposefully haven't read the whole book to be on schedule, as posted above--I simply read the first 5 chapters. I asked this before, but didn't get an answer:

Bill, I would appreciate knowing what is going on. Are we going by the posted schedule or discussing the entire book? I would be glad to read the whole book and discuss it, but if you post a schedule that says one thing and we're doing something different it makes it difficult to be on topic!

Kleo

Folks, Kleo is right. PLEASE!! Stay with the schedule. Otherwise it is just going to spoil everything for those who ARE following the schedule and for the readers who are following the discussion but not posting.
If I gave the impression that it is OK to jump ahead, I apologize. In a couple of more days we will begin the second half of the novel, then we can discuss the complete narrative.
I always try to keep an even keel in all my discussion.

Bill H

Was Hyde limping? I don't really remember limping, although I remember an essence of deformity. I remember running, jumping, and leaping - an almost youthful cavorting for one of Jekyll's years. Although now that I think of it, I'm not sure how old Jekyll was supposed to be. It sounds as though he's been friends with Utterson and Lanyon for many years. How old do you think he was?

Scrawler asked who or what in the story represents the EGO. I think it is Utterson. Utterson represents the perfect Victorian gentleman who seeks to preserve order and decorum, does not gossip, and guards his friends’ reputations as though they were his own. He is devoted to reason and common sense.He investigates a supernatural sequence of events but never allows himself to even think that something superatural may be going on. Even at the end, when he is called by Poole to Jekyll’s house and all the servants are gathered frightened in the hallway, Utterson continues to look for an explanation that preserves reason. He searches for excuses not to take any drastic steps to interfere with Jekyll’s life. In Utterson, Stevenson depicts society’s attempt to maintain the veneer of civilization over humanity’s darker side. Utterson prefers the suppression or avoidance of revelations to the scandal or chaos that the truth might unleash. It is the purpose of the EGO to repress and deny the existence of an uncivilized or savage element of humanity.

Marni has a good point when she says that, in the end, Jekyll is willing to destroy himself in order to destroy the evil Hyde So you could say that good does finally win out. As in most of the stories about tampering with Nature, humans are taught a lesson and the freak of nature is destroyed. Jekyll himself speaks of learning a lesson after Utterson tells him Hyde meant to murder him and Jekyll "had a fine escape."

"I have had what is far more to the purpose," returned the doctor solemnly: "I have had a lesson--O God, Utterson, what a lesson I have had!" And he covered his face for a moment with his hands.

Horselover, what chapter are you in with Poole calling Utterson to Jekyll's house? Again, this is making the book hard for me to discuss, that we're supposed to be discussing the first five chapters but some are discussing the entire book up until the ending.

I've only read the first five chapters in order to keep to the schedule. This is very frustrating.

Could we possibly keep to the discussion schedule as posted above? Here it is again:

DISCUSSION SCHEDULE
April 1 through April 8	Chapter One through Chapter Five
April 9 through April 15	Chapter Six through Chapter Ten
April 16 through April 22	Epilogue

Oh, I don't know, maybe Poole does call Utterson to the house in the first five chapters, but I can't find it.

Kleo

I like to follow the reading schedule.

The idea that Jekyll could literally transform himself into another and thereby disappear simply does not occur to Utterson, as it would to any "rational" person. So perhaps Utterson does represent the EGO in us all.

But than Stevenson enlightens Utterson to his own dark side through the "dream sequence." Utterson dreams of a "faceless" Hyde as he stalks through the darken city. Hyde swiftly glides through sleeping houses and at every street corner he "crushes" a child and leaves her "screaming." And than Utterson is seen standing by Dr. Jekyll's bed commanding him to rise! This last scene reminds me almost of Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" where the ghost of Christmas future commands Scrooge to rise from his bed.

But what does the dream sequence mean? Is it symbolic of the darker side that not only lurks in humanity but beneath the surface of a respectable city like London. London at this time was a world leader in technology, industry, and trade to name just a few. Her empires stretched the world over. Was this really the image that she wanted to project to the rest of the world? Notice that Stevenson doesn't go into detail about these "darker crimes" but rather leaves them "shrouded in mystery."

According to Sigmund Freud: "the unconscious conflicts over repressed wishes have a tendency to express themselves in dreams, parapraxes or "Freudian slips" as they are popularly called today. So what "Freudian slips" were at the back of Utterson's unconscious that he should "dream" such horrific crimes?

Kleo, much of what is being posted can be found in the first five chapters. This is a very short novel, in my book the novel is completed in eighty-three pages. I believe Hats posted that in her book the novel is completed in fifty-one pages.

In a well known story such as this, sometimes we do stray from the schedule. I would suggest you post your thoughts on what you have read in the first half of the novel. If you do that, I'm sure we all will respond to your posts and thereby, maintain the continuity of the narrative.

Some of us have been talking about the overall picture of prescription drugs and narcotics and the adverse affects it can have on the human mind. This is not jumping ahead but expressing our own views of Jekyll/Hyde.

Bill H

Bill H, you are right about the number of pages in my book.

A few times, my opinion has changed about Doctor Jekyll. He had a wild side while young. Doctor Lanyon describes him later as acting fanciful or strange in his mind. After a dinner party at Utterson's home which Doctor Jekyll attended, Doctor Jekyll is described as "a man of fifty" and "every mark of capacity and kindness." Although, RLS does say Doctor Jekyll had a look of slyness.

It seems like before Mr. Hyde's physical appearances to hurt and murder others, Doctor Jekyll would go through gradual changes himself because except for the slyness the above picture does not fit the second man living inside of Doctor Jekyll. I wonder if Doctor Jekyll would gradually start becoming Mr. Hyde. Could Doctor Jekyll feel the changes beginning in his head and body?

I also get the impression Doctor Jekyll must have shared his strange scientific ideas with Doctor Lanyon. Doctor Lanyon talks about his conversations with Doctor Jekyll. "Such unscientific balderdash," added the doctor, flushing suddenly purple..."

I can see Doctor Jekyll trying to explain his new scientific findings to Doctor Lanyon. Doctor Lanyon becoming totally bewildered and angry because it all sounded too weird. How many scientists sound out of the mind when there is some new discovery? Thinking that way makes me feel Doctor Jekyll might not have been " wrong in mind." It was just the fact that he had found out how to do something totally different from any other scientist. So, I think Doctor Jekyll is in his right mind. He's just come across something really unfamiliar to his friends and colleagues.

Also, it's easier for me to capture the look and character of Mr. Hyde than Doctor Jekyll. Doctor Jekyll's character and looks seems to slip away from me, at least in the first five chapters.

Scootz,

I am a bit slow. This book has a feel of science fiction. I find it hard keeping up with one man who has become two men.

It's a short book. I just think there is so much information in a short classic. Marni discussed the imagery just from the first five chapters. Will we miss some hidden innuendoes if we discuss the book in the totality? Horselover got into some fine information too. Scrawler is explaining the dream sequence just from the first five chapters. Judy has pointed out some fine points about Psychology. This is my second reading and I am getting more this time. But I am slower than others. Bill H asked about the place of women in the novel. We haven't begun to answer his question. There are a few women, I think, mentioned in the first five chapters The women are like background characters but we haven't discussed that either.

This story could also be a description of what happens to drug addicts. The first wonderful high they all describe when inhibitions and troubles fall away. Jekyll describes his sensations as incredibly "sweet." He felt younger, lighter, happier reckless, free of obligation. Then as time goes by, the addict develops a tolerance for the drug and can't achieve the same effect. He also can't controll his craving for the drug as he once thought he could. Jekyll also speaks of corrupted drugs--something addicts often have to cope with. Then comes a slow descent into illness and often death.

I tend to agree with Scootz that since this is a classic tale and we know the end, it's hard to keep that from coloring our perceptions of the early chapters. I'm sorry if I've slipped into doing this, but I was just responding to Scrawler's question. I will flog myself with a wet noodle and try to stick to the schedule.

Horselover,

Please forget using the "wet noodle."

It's not a big deal. Maybe it's best to go through the whole book. Scootz, your idea maybe is best. I don't know. I just travel with the reading crowd. I'm sure you guys can make the best decision.

Hats, you were right about missing some of the nuances if we discussed the book in its entirety. I post this excerpt from chapter two of the novel that I meant to remark on earlier in the discussion.

"...The will was holograph, for Mr. Utterson, though he took charge of it now that it was made, had refused to lend the least assistance in the making of it; it provided not only that, in case of the decease of HenryJek-yll, M.D., D.C.L., L.L.D., F.R.S., etc.,* all his possessions were to pass into the hands of his "friend and benefactor Edward Hyde," but that in case of Dr. Jekyll's "disappearance or unexplained absence for any period exceeding three calendar months," the said Edward Hyde should step into the said Henry Jekyll's shoes without..."

Now the following is pure speculation on my part but this is another way of novels bringing us entertainment.

If Henry Jekyll had gone missing for three months or more and the will was thus executed, how do you suppose Utterson would have dealt with this?

Can you imagine Hyde living in Jekyll's house? Or would he have lived in the house he inherited?

Do you believe Utterson would have tried to have the police investigate Jekyll's disappearance before or after executing the will? All speculation of course. But interesting.

Bill H

I thought it was interesting to see the "M.D., D.C.L., L.L.D., F.R.S." after Dr. Jekyll's name. What a guy! Not just anyone was a Fellow of the Royal Society. He had to have been quite well known for his accomplishments and have been elected by other members to join the Royal Society. (I remember reading about that because Ben Franklin and John James Audubon were elected for their scientific achievements.)

Jekyll, reassures Utterson by saying, "The moment I choose, I can be rid of Mr. Hyde." So many alcoholics and drug addicts have said, "I can stop whenever I want to." They have to hit bottom before they admit that they have no control over their cravings. In Jekyll's case, it is too late. As in so many cases, suicide is the result.

Bill, I do believe that Utterson would have resorted to whatever legal means were available to him in order to avoid executing Jekyll's will if he had disappeared.

Horselover Was it Suicide or an overdose? It was something like Drug addiction but with the Sci Fi addition of actually changing physical shape.

In the 1860s and 70s both Fantasy (1865-Alice in Wonderland) and Sci-Fi (1875- Around the World in Eighty Days) were becoming very popular. Freud didn't really start publishing until 1895(Studies in Hysteria). So I have to see the moral part as being influenced by Stevensons Calvinist upbringing. Perhaps his nanny 's(Cummy) preachings.

This is a powerful combination: Religion, Sci-Fi, and Fantasy.

Judy

Chapter 4: "The Carew Murder Case": I have a problem understanding what the murder of Carew means. What is Stevenson trying to say by having Hyde act in such a way and how do we know that Hyde actually committed the crime? There is only one unreliable witness and circumstancable evidence.

Hyde allegedly strikes Carew for no apparent reason. The witness, the young maid, who is "bemusing" herself at the window is unreliable at best. What exactly did she see? Perhaps what is more important is what did she not see or hear? Did Carew recognize Jekyll in Hyde and Hyde or Jekyll killed him in order that he wouldn't tell anyone. Perhaps Jekyll, as in some of the movies, saw Carew as the kind of man that would strike down Jeykell's experiments and in Hyde's mind this meant his own death.

The maid claims that when she saw Hyde strike down Carew that she fainted. How do we know if Hyde killed Carew? Maybe someone else saw the broken cane and finished Carew off?

Finally, the letter in the Carew's pocket seems to me like too much of a convenience Could it have been the sight of Utterson's name on the letter that caused Hyde to respond this way. What does Hyde have against Utterson?

I am reminded here of what the Green Hornet says: "Who knows what lurks in the hearts of men?"

Scrawler

"Chapter 4: "The Carew Murder Case": I have a problem understanding what the murder of Carew means. What is Stevenson trying to say by having Hyde act in such a way and how do we know that Hyde actually committed the crime?

I believe Stevenson was trying to point out that Jekyll had kept his Hyde emotions in check for about a year. When released again, Hyde vents his out of control rage of being kept pent up for a year by trampling Carew and beating him to death with a Cain for no apparent reason. I believe this may have been pointed out in the introduction.

"Who knows what lurks in the hearts of men"</i.

I believe this is from the "Shadow." an old time radio program of the thirties and early forties. Lamont Cranston was the Shadow. You can visit the Shadow website by using this link.

http://www.pulps.westumulka.com/shadow/
Bill H

Doctor Patient Confidentiality

"Jekyll is ill, too," observed Utterson. "Have you seen him. But Lanyon's face changed, and he held up a trembling hand. "I wish to see or hear no more of Dr. Jekyll," he said in a loud, unsteady voice. "I am quite done with...."

I thnk there is a law that allows a doctor of medicine or a doctor of psychiatry to break this code, if he/she thinks someone or society is threatened by his patient. Lanyon knew what a vile creature Jekyll had become.

Therefore, do you feel, as I do, that Lanyon should have at least confided in Utterson the truth he discoverd?

Bill H

The problem is, horselover, because I have not read the sections you are discussing, I can't respond to your posts. This means that when we get to that section, whatever your comment was, it will be lost in the past posts, not up with the section when it comes time to discussing it. It's hard to do an on-line book club that does not offer threads, but one full discussion, without just reading along and discussing on schedule, because it's difficult to go back to old posts.

I've read the book dozens of times, but that doesn't mean I can't suspend my knowledge of the entire story to admire how Stevenson develops the story. I think you miss this also, if you discuss the entire book too early.

In fact, I was admiring Bill's choice of chapters 1-5 for the first part of the discussion, thinking it a matter of perceptive excellence, not mere chance, that Bill chose to break the story right where we DON'T KNOW ANYTHING!

This break in the narrative for the purpose of discussion has given me a new found appreciation of an author whom I love for his craft in developing the suspense of his story to question the aspects of human nature that will later come to bear. I think if others reread the first five chapters, then stopped and thought about just those 5 chapters in isolation, they might come to see how brilliant this author is in taking you on this journey. It's one thing to know RLS is a genius, it's another to grasp it through his writing by stopping reading his book and reflecting upon just what he has given you: exactly what you need to focus your entire being on the story. Is RLS Jekyll?

Try it, you might like it.

"Also, it's easier for me to capture the look and character of Mr. Hyde than Doctor Jekyll. Doctor Jekyll's character and looks seems to slip away from me, at least in the first five chapters." Hats

And I think RLS is doing this on purpose. I wonder why?

Kleo

Thank you, Bill. You're right it was the "Shadow." [Than again I was "really" young when that program was on. Just kidding! We're all young at heart.

Chapter 4: Ah! I think I'm beginning to understand about "The Carew Murder Case." If you look at the murder from a biblical sense [like you pointed out Bill] - the Cane of Hyde is like Cain murdering his brother.

"When Sir Danvers steps back in the face of Hyde's rage, the narrative recounts, "Mr. Hyde broke out of all bounds and clubbed him to the earth. And next moment, with ape-like fury, he was trampling his victim under foot and hailing down a storm of blows, under which the bones were audibly shattered and the body jumped upon the roadway." I see now where there was probably no question that Sir Danvers was dead when Hyde got finished with him. But I still question the motive of Hyde? Is Stevenson telling us that if we allow our "ID" to go to far; we too might revert to these ape-like urges.

Kleop, what do you think of this ape-like fury? Could this be Darwin's theory but in reverse?

"Utterson is called in because the victim lacks identification but has in his pocket "a sealed and stamped envelope...which bore the name and address of Mr. Utterson." Utterson not only identifies the victim but recognizes in the murder weapon, "broken and battered as it was...[a stick] that he had himself presented many years before to Henry Jekyll."

According to the introduction I'm reading from (B&N), Utterson not only confirms the identity of the victim, but also that the stick belonged to Dr. Jekyll. I see this as the climax of the first part of the book when Utterson realizes that Dr. Jekyll is really involved some how with this murderer Hyde. But to what extent is still a mystery.

Kleo, if you could post your thoughts and questions on the first five chapters you have read, I'm sure we would all be glad to respond to them. I know I would.

Bill H

Scrawler, I have no doubt that RLS is showing us the ape-like roots of man's origins and alluding to Darwin's books here. And, yes, this is the climax to the introduction of the characters, leaving Utterson to doubt his own faith in his gentleman friend, Dr. Jekyll, before he starts filling with even deeper questions in chapter 5.

RLS also mentions the popular dissecting theaters of the time, as the one at the back of Jekyll's house where he works. All these beg the question: what is man?

Someone asked, by the way, what type of doctor Jekyll is: he is a medical doctor.

Kleo

It seems odd that Utterson does not immediately confront Jekyll with his suspicions that Jekyll is aiding and abetting a murderer.Instead, after questioning Poole and Mr. Guest, he locks the note, which he now suspects is a forgery, into his safe. Nor does he warn his client that withholding information about the whereabouts of a suspected murderer is itself a crime. He simply accepts Jekyll's assurance that "I will never set eyes on him again."

"...the haunting sense of unexpressed deformity with which the fugitive impressed his beholders." This is one of the most interesting aspects of the first five chapters. In real life, you can't always see some physical evidence of an evil nature. While the spirit or soul may become deformed, the person's outward appearance may remain pleasant. Or are there always physical manifestations when evil is done. In "The Picture of Dorian Gray," another supernatural tale of man's dual nature, all the physical deformity appeared on a hidden portrait. Is RLS commenting on our inability to see the true nature of another person, no matter how close we are to them.

Horselover, I also wondered why either Utterson or Lanyon did not reveal what they discovered about Jekyll. I felt they owed it to society to reveal there discovery.

I refer to my post #109, that post I asked

Therefore, do you feel, as I do, that Lanyon should have at least confided in Utterson the truth he discovered about Jekyll?

I 'm sure professional confidence ends when a threat to society presents itself.

Bill H

Re: Will

…"I don't ask that, pleaded Jekyll, laying his hand upon the others arm; "I only ask for justice; I only ask you to help him for my sake, when I am no longer here."

Utterson heaved an irrepressible sigh. "Well, said he, "I promise."

Hats, Marnie, do you believe it was proper for Utterson to make that promise. "of helping him?" Utterson was duty bound to execute the Will. But to help Hyde was another matter.

Bill H

Tomorrow, April 9th through April 15th we discuss chapters Six through Ten.

It is customary to also include the first five chapters also, now that we are nearing the completion of the story.

By doing so we can express our ideas concerning the whole novel.

Bill H

But isn't this what gentlemen do, keep their confidences to each other above all other matters? It's part of what is so reprehensible about the sense of justice meted out in Britain in the 19th century, gentlemen could have, whether it was theirs or not, and all others were excluded from the bounty.

They were just being true to their selves.

Kleo

Legal confidentiality
Lawyers are often required by law to keep confidential anything pertaining to the representation of a client. The duty of confidentiality is much broader than the attorney-client evidentiary privilege, which only covers communications between the attorney and the client.

Both the privilege and the duty serve the purpose of encouraging clients to speak frankly about their cases. This way, lawyers will be able to carry out their duty to provide clients with zealous representation. Otherwise, the opposing side may be able to surprise the lawyer in court with something which he did not know about his client, which makes both lawyer and client look stupid. Also, a distrustful client might hide a relevant fact which he thinks is incriminating (because it shows motive), but which a skilled lawyer could turn to the client's advantage (for example, by raising affirmative defenses like self-defense).

However, most jurisdictions have exceptions for situations where the lawyer has reason to believe that the client may kill or seriously injure someone, may cause substantial injury to the financial interest or property of another, or is using (or seeking to use) the lawyer's services to perpetuate a crime or fraud.

In such situations the lawyer has the discretion, but not the obligation, to disclose information designed to prevent the planned action. Most states have a version of this discretionary disclosure rule under Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6 (or its equivalent).

A few jurisdictions have made this traditionally discretionary duty mandatory. For example, see the New Jersey and Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6.

In some jurisdictions the lawyer must try to convince the client to conform his or her conduct to the boundaries of the law before disclosing any otherwise confidential information.

Note that these exceptions generally do not cover crimes that have already occurred, even in extreme cases where murderers have confessed the location of missing bodies to their lawyers but the police are still looking for those bodies. The U.S. Supreme Court and many state supreme courts have affirmed the right of a lawyer to withhold information in such situations. Otherwise, it would be impossible for any criminal defendant to obtain a zealous defense. _____________________________________________________________________

Bill, Because of the principle of legal confidentiality, I can understand Utterson's dilemma with regard to revealing information entrusted to him by Jekyll. But that does not explain why he did not make greater efforts to convince his client to conform to the law, since this was his duty as well.

I agree with Kleo. The Gentleman's Code seems to have trumped all other obligations in this story. They probably learned this code in English boarding schools: Don't tattle on your friends.

"The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" was published in 1886, just as science was discovering the existence of schizophrenia. It is perhaps significant in the world of arcana and irony that this was the same year Sigmund Freud established a private practice in Vienna, specializing in nervous disease."

Bill H,

When Utterson made the promise to Jekyll to help Mr. Hyde, I feel he only meant to give his help on a friendship level. For example, if Hyde would need some advice on how to spend his wealth, maybe just a friend to share a heartfelt conversation with or maybe some religious advice. Utterson was in the habit of reading "dry divinity" books on a given Sunday. So, Utterson might have enjoyed a religious debate.

Of course, It seems to me a man as brutal as Hyde would have to spend some time in jail, no matter who helped him. Maybe Jekyll wanted to make sure Mr. Hyde would get visitors while in prison.

It does seem to me Doctor Jekyll/Mr. Hyde is fighting with some mental illness. At one moment Dr. Jekyll is his old self. Then, he becomes inward, introverted and isolates himself from his friends. Mr. Utterson and Mr. Enfield can both see and feel the change, a change that will finally work itself into fits of anger. During this time, would there have been a name for this disease? It wasn't just drug induced, was it?

Acts of violence are not done by all mentally ill people. So, Mr. Hyde must have been a psychopath and/or sociopath. I am not sure how Schizophrenia is defined.

To me Utterson remains the proper Victorian gentlemen because in reality he would much prefer not only to avoid any hint of scandal, but also that underneath he didn't really want to know the "truth." That is why even when he suspects that Dr. Jekyll is covering up for Mr. Hyde he chooses not to go to the police. Utterson's insistence not only hinders the police from knowing the truth, but shows the very essence of Victorian society that in this novel lawyers represent.

In other words Stevenson is saying that Victorian society is so focus on the outer appearance of themselves that they fail to see the truth. Utterson thinks of Dr. Jekyll as an upstanding gentleman who couldn't possibly commit such a crime as the murder of Sir Danvers. He fails to see that the real truth lies in the fact that Dr. Jekyll are one and the same.

It's right in front of Utterson's face. Utterson finds a piece of the cane which he had given to Doctor Jekyll. I suppose Utterson tried to believe Mr. Hyde had stolen it from his friend, Doctor Jekyll. I guess when we don't want to see the truth, we can find many ways of explaining the truth away. Then, we can continue to live in denial. If Utterson had looked the truth in the face maybe he could have stopped Mr. Hyde from committing future crimes.

"Much of his past was unearthed, indeed, and all disreputable: tales came out of the man's cruelty, at once so callous and violent of his vile life, of his strange associates, of the hatred that seemed to have surrounded his career....."

We know people who seem so pious and full of good works and then we find to our horror and unbelief they were not only capable of terrible things but did them . I cant recall the person's name in the paper recently who was s deacon of a church, a family man who tortured women in his city , I think he lived in Kansas City and was knows A BTK Bind torture and Kill ...so RLS is writing about people in his time who did the same and is asking us if we have a DR HYDE inside us as well...anna

It doesn't bother me to say that I have to control my human nature. There are days I can hardly control my temper. I think it is difficult for most people to accept the fact that there is the bad and ugly living inside of their minds. It is easier to think of ourselves as angelic.

If that is the case, most of us are in denial of our Mr. Hydes. The denial is really the troublesome factor. If I refuse to believe a Mr. Hyde lives in my mind, then, I won't use self control. I won't try to improve my inner self.

I remember seeing the BTK man on the news. He lived like a good citizen for a long, long time, at least, he had the presence of a good citizen. All the while, he had done or was doing torturous acts to other people.

So, what are we to think about? We have named so many groups of people: the ones addicted to drugs, the mentally ill, the good citizens who hide behind their reputation. Did RLS want us to think of all these people? Are we to center our minds on just one group?

Who is the strongest within us? The Doctor Jekyll or the Mr. Hyde? Is evil stronger than good or the other way around?

I'm sorry, hats, but I just don't agree with your statements about denial of our "Mr. Hydes" etc. It doesn't mean that I see myslef as angelic, or without faults, but I'm not going to cop to having an evil side. There are people around who do have , just not me.

"To me Utterson remains the proper Victorian gentlemen because in reality he would much prefer not only to avoid any hint of scandal, but also that underneath he didn't really want to know the "truth." ... [Utterson] ... shows the very essence of Victorian society that in this novel lawyers represent." Scrawler

This is what I thought at first, that Utterson represented, well, not Victorian society, what I wrote on the first page is, "Utterson, is he Britain?" But I couldn't quite put my fingers on what I was thinking. Yes, Utterson would rather "avoid any hint of scandal" than be involved in unearthing a murderer, having his name in the papers in association with a trial, with his friend going to jail and being hung for murder. This was one of the despicable things about Victorian society, the undercurrents were putrid. This did not end with the death of Victoria as Dorothy L. Sayers shows so well in her Lord Peter Whimsey novels.

"I think it is difficult for most people to accept the fact that there is the bad and ugly living inside of their minds. It is easier to think of ourselves as angelic." Hats

I agree with you completely on this point, Hats. The majority of crimes, even the most horrendous ones, are committed by ordinary people under extraordinary pressures or circumstances. Was Nazi Germany peopled with millions of psychopaths for some reason? No, the Jews were murdered by ordinary people provoked to committing horrors they could never imagine themselves guilty of.

If one has never been tested, never suffered greatly, or been threatened with losing their life, or their child's life, one cannot say what they would be capable of under those circumstances. In survival situations the will to live trumps all, your survival skill-set is second.

"Who is the strongest within us? The Doctor Jekyll or the Mr. Hyde? Is evil stronger than good or the other way around?" Hats

It's a question we can ask, but I don't think it will ever be answered. Although in the 20th century it seems the evil in humans was stronger than the good, with ordinary peoples murdering Jews and Muslims and Christians and Chileans and Cambodians and Tutsis and Hutus and Gypsies and gays and and and the 21st century ain't looking that good.

I don't think the answer is that WWII Germany had a population 85% psychotic or sociopathic, but rather that German citizens were provoked to the unimaginable, to finding the Mr. Hyde in themselves, or perishing themselves, with their families. I can't imagine what I would have done under the circumstances.

In Poland during the occupation Polish citizens who were caught harboring Jews were executed with their entire families. Still many Poles harbored Jews and lost their lives and cost their families their lives because of it. In Israel for many years when Jewish children had their majority celebrations they sent money to the surviving members of these Polish families, who were known because a number of the Jews they harbored survived--the Jews were not executed, but rather sent to death camps for murder. I can't imagine what I would have done under the circumstances.

I haven't been tested in this manner. I can't say for certain I wouldn't fall to the same pressures ordinary German citizens fell to, or that I could have risen to the extraordinary under the same threat that some Poles did. I just don't know.

Kleo

Kleo,

I love to read your answers. It does not matter whether you agree with me or not. It is just that your answers are so in depth. Your thoughts are so concentrated and full. I am glad to see you in any discussion.

Scootz,

I know you do not agree with me. We are not going to agree with each other on every point. If we did agree with one another every single time on every single question, the discussion would not make us think or dig deeper and question our long held values. Your disagreement does not bother me. I still like you as a Seniornetter. I hope we can share another discussion together. In the next discussion or in this one we might hold the same views at some point. If we don't, it's just a discussion, nothing to blow our minds about.

In some discussions, I change my mind midway. Some poster will say something that will shake me up. At that point, I change my views. I am flexible, I hope to listen and learn and maybe change.

Kleo,

Good point! This is exactly what I have been feeling.

"If one has never been tested, never suffered greatly, or been threatened with losing their life, or their child's life, one cannot say what they would be capable of under those circumstances. In survival situations the will to live trumps all, your survival skill-set is second."

Kleo,

I think you are being thoroughly honest. I feel the same way.

"I haven't been tested in this manner. I can't say for certain I wouldn't fall to the same pressures ordinary German citizens fell to, or that I could have risen to the extraordinary under the same threat that some Poles did. I just don't know."

Kleo- Maybe it's just the way I'm reading it, but what you are saying and what hats said are two different things to me.

It would be pretty silly to argue the point that one doesn't know to what extremes one could be pushed. Of course, I agree with that.

But maybe, your definition and mine of what is truly evil are different and that would make a difference in our beliefs. Someone being driven to do something horrible in wartime, or to save one's own life, or the life of one's own child- I don't think I look at that as "evil". It's very much dependent on what one believes "evil" is. I myself reserve that word for very few things, not for every improper act, and not for acts where one is pushed to extreme measures by unusual cirucmstances. Don't know if that makes sense to anyone else but me.

We haven't really talked about a definition, per se, of what evil is and I imagine it could well be different for each of us. And that would make a difference as to whether one would think they had an evil side within them.

Scootz I think I understand what you are saying There is nothing in my makeup that would allow me to be cruel to anything ..I know that and I am always horrified that people who seem very kind and normal do horrific things..And without any outward sign to anyone they felt that way, BUT people being driven to do terrible things I would hesitate to say I would not I am thinking of one of my older brothers who was in the Battle of the Bulge where the Germans took no prisoners but executed everyone on the spot. He and his buddy were saved by the bravery of a Belgium farm family that allowed them to hide in the root cellar beneath thier kitchen floor, The Germans came into the house to ask if they had seen any Americans and they said no. That is courage I would wish I had but cant say if I do, I would never have wanted to reveal the fact that they were there but when my life and my families life were at stake I would like to believe I would have still has the courage they displayed and if they had revealed my brother and his buddy I would not and could not fault them.I do not condemn the German people as a whole for what happened..and I am sure that many were so scared they kept their mouths shut even if they themselves would never do the things if given a choice All people who do terrible things are not evil but those who do evil for evil's sake is another story.

For myself I have found it difficult as a reader to read some of the books in stores today ..The true ones are bad enough but some that are called mysteries are really murder books with explicit detail ,I find it makes me ill to read them and so I am becoming very careful about what I read now. I dont need fiction to know that there are a lot of evil people in the world ..I am not sure where I could draw the line if confronted with some things that others have lived through but I know I would have to be pushed very far and most likely to hopefully save someone I love to do something evil ..anna

Thanks annafair- I was beginning to think I couldn't make myself understood. You are understanding me precisely.

Like you said, I don't think that I have in my makeup the wherewithal to do a cruel thing to another human or an animal. Now, if I HAD to to save my son, maybe I could. But, would that make me evil? Not in my book. I also agree with what you say about the German people. I don't believe they were all evil, though some probably were.

The big difference to me is a person being able to commit an act of violence/cruelty/abuse on another for their own pleasure, and without a conscience about it. And they aren't being driven to do this act by something extreme that is threatening their life. They do it because they want to and like to. That's my definition of evil and it's why I say I don't have an evil side. To me, it is a person who has a few screws loose in their head for one reason or another. And they lack a moral compass and/or a conscience.

I have often heard the statement "There but for the Grace of God go I." I do not know if that explains our inner urges or fits this discussion. I have also heard another phrase "Never judge a person until you have walked a mile in their moccasins."

I say we know our past and present. We do not know our future. God forbid that anyone of us would harm another person for any reason. I think it is easy to water down our everyday deeds. Is it alright to harm a person by our words just as long as we do not hurt the person physically? I have never harmed a person physically, thank goodness.

Some crimes are white collar crimes. Are these Doctor Hyde cases easier to swallow, to allow than brutality? Which types of "Doctor Hydes" are we more willing to have lunch or dinner with, which "Doctor Hydes" are we willing to overlook, all, some, none?

RLS might have used the most brutal case just to make society take a closer look at themselves. His book, his brutal "Doctor Hyde" is making us in the 21st century look at our behavior.

But I would never say anything hateful on purpose Years ago and I mean years ago I unthinkingly said something that was unkind ..I apologised immediately but it colored our relationship and even now after all these years (our paths took different directions so I am never sure i was forgiven but even if they had forgiven me I have never been able to forgive myself)That is not the kind of person I want to be ...I think sometimes we can forgive others easier than we can forgive ourselves. The people I would say are evil are those that dont care what they do ..whether it is actually physically hurting someone or just belittling them just because you can ,.and anger is good when it is directed at terrible things ..to me for a person to be evil they would have to take a delight in what they do . whether it is physical or verbal. We can change if we want but it means you have to learn to be humble and caring about all things that are alive and share the world with us.I might step on a bug that might bite me but I could never pull its wings off or make its death a cruel act ..And to be honest I could never be friends with those that would do that either. We had great friends years ago but when they left that duty station for an overseas assignment I asked if they were going to take thier "beloved" boxer with them But they instead just walked off and left it saying someone in the neighborhood would take it in>>I am sorry but I could never be friends with them again. And to me that may be a little evil but it is evil because they were deliberately abandoned a living thing ....even now I say HOW COULD THEY>???

I guess I have said enough but a story like this does make you think What is evil and what is not.. anna

I think RLS was influenced by the new Darwinian theories and by some of the Horrific murders occurring in London at the time. Freud did not publish until 1896 and his theories were unknown when our book was written.

However Schizophrenia has been with us since history began. A first description of the disorder was found in "The Book Of Hearts" written by an Egyptian 3,000 years ago. The first person to classify it as a mental disorder was Dr. Emile Kreaplin in 1887. He called it "Dementia Preacox" (early dementia ). The actual name Schizophrenia was given to the disorder by Eugene Bleeuler in 1911 (Schizo-=Mind, Phrenia=Split).

During most of the years of history all people who were considered "abnormal" were largely treated the same, wether the abnormality was due to mental disorder, mental retardation or severe physical deformity. Early theories supposed that all these problems were caused by evil possession of the body and/or mind. The proper treatment was to exorcise these demons through various means.

The genius of Stevenson was to take a person who is seemingly good and yet inflicts madness on himself. To me this means that something was always basically wrong with Jekyll. Something drew him to Evil and abuse. This "something" is what makes it so difficult for me to establish the real person "Jekyll". HE IS NOT WHO HE APPEARS TO BE! When the story begins he is already in that terrible vortex being drawn to horrific consequences. There is no going back.

Judy

Anna,

You make good points. I can understand everything you are saying and feel the same way.

Judy,

The history about Schizoprhenia is very interesting.

I suspect that we will not wind up agreeing about this. I urge those who think they have no potential to do evil inside of them to read Gavin de Becker's The Gift of Fear some time, or Hitler's Willing Executioners.

My opinions are probably deeply clouded by my life experiences. I have been a sympathetic ear to many people who have suffered unspeakable horrors.

As a teenager I discussed literature with a group of Slavs who had survived the Nazi death camps. They did not believe that killing a million Jews to save the life of your own child was a worthwhile trade. I myself wonder what I would do under such circumstances, would I be damning my child's soul if I saved his life? Could I make this Faustian trade for another, for my child?

These are not easy questions, and it is much easier to think that I would never be guilty of doing anything evil except to save my child's life. But does that wash the blame from me, that the evil was committed to save my own child's life? I don't think it necessarily does.

I knew a man with a story so horrible from the killing fields of Cambodia that it can never be repeated. Those who committed this horror in order to save their own lives or the lives of their families are not necessarily free from the acts of evil they committed. Yes, they were not the ones ordering the killing. They did only what they had to do to save their own lives and the lives of their family members. But that they could do increased the horror for all who suffered. This was evil, no matter the reason for performing the act, the danger to the self. It was evil.

I don't think you can trade the life of another who has done you no harm for the life of your child and get a 'get out of hail free' pass.

I have also had to save my own life and my child's--I could never have imagined what I was capable of. I think I would rather believe that I am not capable of many things. I know I am sorry to have learned the truth. But I also know that I learned enough to not think I would be a better person than those who have been tested and failed. This last is not to insult those who know themselves well enough to know they are not capable of any evil, just a cautionary note about looking at what others are capable of when one has never faced the same test themselves--it's a difficult thing to weigh. And I think I might come up wanting under certain circumstances, maybe even hiding the American airmen in my cellar, the Jew in my attic.

But I'm not sure that this is something I can separate from my own personal experiences in such a way that I can transfer what I am saying, yet I think Hats comes closer to feeling the same way.

Which leads me directly around to Utterson, who is not in any danger from Hyde or Jekyll, yet allows Hyde to remain free to do harm to others. What is Utterson guilty of? Cowardice? Or merely being human like the rest of us in the face of danger?

Off to read the rest of the book.

Kleo

Most schizophrenics are not violent; a very small percentage of those who are paranoid can become violent.

I'm not sure we can ever really know what is going on in someone else's mind. We can try to walk in their shoes--feel empathy--but no matter how much we imagine, we can never feel another's pain. Sometimes, it's even difficult to know what is inside our own minds. This was part of Jekyll's problem. He thought he knew what his motives were--to free his "good" side from the temptations of evil and from the consequences of evil. However, it turned out that it was his evil side he wished to free from his conscience. When Hyde first appears, he feels lighter, younger, happier.

Socrates once asked whether anyone ever knowingly desires evil. Most criminals rationalize the evil they do, convincing themselves they are innocent of intentional evil. But Hyde revels in the evil he does, and feels nothing for his victims. He gives in to all his baser instincts. He is the uncivilized child in us which our parents and society teach us to control. As someone suggested, he is the Darwinian roots from which we evolved. We are all products of natural selection and culture. We're not truly human unless we can appreciate the consequences of our actions. If we are truly human, we want to assuage the suffering of others, not cause it.

I'm checking in after the weekend. So many interesting posts!

Scrawler mentioned how Hyde attacked "with ape-like fury." Now I feel very stupid that I didn't really notice Hyde's ape-like appearance much earlier on in the story. As the story develops, we certainly see Hyde's "ape-like" physical appearance become more predominant. This must be why he was portrayed as jumping and leaping about. I had wondered about that. Also that he was shorter than Jekyll. He would be as an ape.

RLS mseems to be equating Hyde's ape-like physical appearance, mannerisms and, apparently, violent actions with man's inner beast.

Re evil....I think RLS seems to be saying that the wish to do whatever we desire is within us all. Within us all lie hidden or semi-hidden desires, including even those considered repellent or even hideous or evil by society. If one can unfetter one's self from society's constraints or from one's own inner constraints such as guilt, one can joyfully commit acts of the utmost animal brutality.

I just love what horselover wrote - "As someone suggested, he is the Darwinian roots from which we evolved. We are all products of natural selection and culture. We're not truly human unless we can appreciate the consequences of our actions."

Hyde - the Darwinian roots....I just looked up the year Darwin's Origin of Species was published. It was in 1859, when RLS was nine. Darwin's theory created such an explosion, it must have had a great impact on RLS. Jekyll/Hyde was published in 1886, just 27 years later.

This story must be interesting for those who are also participating in the Darwin discussion.

I know it's been mentioned before, but whenever we talk about the evil in man I think of "Lord of the Flies" and "A Separate Peace."

What is "transcendental medicine?"

"...And now, you who have so long been bound to the most narrow and material views, you who have denied the virtue of transcendental medicine, you who have derided your superiors--behold!"

In my book this quote is in the chapter titled " Dr. Lanyon's Narrative."

Doctor Jekyll, to me, seems misguided. Did he have no thoughts of what would happen if "the unjust might go his way?" I suppose Dr. Jekyll was just thinking of his relief, his ability to go along in life with a free conscience.

With the making of the drug, I think of Doctor Jekyll as a chemist more than a doctor. Does that make sense?

Somehow I missed the point that Doctor Jekyll enjoyed his ability to do evil. This is a sad state of affairs. To think that someone would enjoy committing cruel acts. Or is he feeling this joy because there is a feeling he is no longer responsible for his "evil" actions?

"I knew myself, at the first breath of this new life, to be more wicked, tenfold more wicked,....and the thought, in that moment, braced and delighted me like wine."

At this point, I feel RLS is writing about a monster.

I was away yesterday and when I returned I was amazed at all these wonderful posts. As I read through them, I could not help but feel how incredible it was that such a short novel could instill the quality of thoughts contained in your posts. They make wonderful reading. Thank you for the extensive thoughts you are placing in them.

Bill H

Hats, you asked about Transcendental medicine. I found this on the web.

"Transcendental medicine is an effortless technique practiced about 15 to 20 minutes twice a day to allow a person to attain deep rest on the level of the body and the mind," Dr. Schneider explained. "It allows the mind to experience quieter and quieter states of thinking until one experiences a state of not thinking while being wide awake." He added that this ancient Indian technique must be learned from a trained practitioner who can provide feedback. You can read the complete article by following this link.

http://www.healthology.com/focus_article.asp?f=alt_medicine&b=healthology&c=alt_bloodpressure&spg=MAI

Bill H

"I have had a shock," he said, "and I shall never recover. It is a question of weeks. Well, life has been pleasant; I liked it; yes, sir, I used to like it. I sometimes think if we knew all, we should be more glad to get away." "Jekyll is ill, too," observed Utterson. "Have you seen him?" But Lanyon's face changed, and he held up a trembling hand. "I wish to see or hear no more of Dr. Jekyll," he said in a loud, unsteady voice. "I am quite done with..."

After Dr. Lanyon witnessed the transformation of Hyde into Jekyll, he knew who was responsible for all these brutal crimes. I feel Lanyon's obligation to society took precedence over his agreement to Jekyll not to divulge the horrible occurrence of what he had witnessed.

By remaining silent, I feel he made himself an accomplice to the brutal acts that had been committed and was probably obstructing justice. Surely he could surmise what might take place in the future.

We have all read or heard of witnesses to barbarous crimes and brutal beatings that did not come forward out of fear, loyalty, or not just wanting to get involved, thereby, allowing the perpetrator to continue his acts of brutality.

Lanyon's silence of this horrible learning kept pent up in his own conscience caused his death.

Was Lanyon an accomplice or the proverbial ostrich that buried his head in the sand refusing to see the truth?

Bill H

Bill H,

Thank you for the website. I am glad you are back.

In Chapt. 6 we read that Dr. Lanyon had his death warrant hand written on his face. "a look in the eye and quality of manner that seemed to testify to some deep seated terror of the mind" Then Lanyon says "I have had a great shock .I shall never recover".

I see Dr. Lanyon as another victim of J/H. He dies from shock and horror at what a person he called FRIEND has done. Lanyon couldn't go to the aythorities since no one would beleive what he said he saw. How hard is it for us to read about the transformation. If I had seen it I would also be shell shocked. Who would beleive us even today that such a thing was possible. A Dr. turning HIMSELF into a monster of his own free will? The police would thing us insane , drunk or drugged.

Judy

The Beecher-Tilton Scandal:

"This scandal is an example of a 19th century sexual scandal that did not involve murder. But it does demonstrate the "reputation" events that not a few murders where done in order to avoid the scandal.

The scandal first erupted in 1872, when Victoria Woodhull published an article accusing Henry Ward Beecher, a well known New York clergyman of adultery. It was charged that in 1860s Beecher had conducted an affair with Elizabeth Tilton, wife of Theodore Tilton. Both Tiltons were members of Beecher's Plymouth Church.

Elizabeth Tilton spent the next several years in a sea-saw effort of first confessing to the scandal and than retracting her confession. Mr. Tilton finally brought suit against Beecher and the trial of 1875 became a national sensation. But at the end of a six month trial, the jury could not agree and Beecher was acquitted.

Than in 1878 Elizabeth Tilton admitted once again to the affair, was dismissed from the Plymouth Church, and Theodore Tilton was unable to earn a living and moved to Paris. Beecher continued to be popular, but never again received the widespread adulation that had been his prior to the scandal."

I include this scandal here in order to illustrate what "scandal" or even the hint of a scandal could do to the reputation of gentlemen in the 19th century. I'm sure Utterson feared that Dr. Jekyll would have to face similar consequences.

Utterson is portrayed as being an unimaginative dry lawyer. Yet as he is going toward Mr. Hyde's residence Stevenson gives some of the most poetic descriptive phrases. "A fog has gripped London, and it swirls and eddies through the gloomy neighborhoods, making them seem "like a district of some city in a nightmare." This descriptive phrase is both poetic and horrific. Here again he describes London as: "the great chocolate-coloured pall lowered over heaven...here it would be dark like the back end of evening; and there would be a glow of a rich, lurid brown...and here...a haggard shaft of daylight would glance in between the swirling wreaths."

Why did Stevenson put these words in Utterson's mouth? We would never think of Utterson as being poetic. Such words would not come from a gentleman such as Utterson. So why did he do so now? What was different about the situation that these very "uncivilized" words would be a part of Utterson.

Perhaps it was the fact that as he rode with the police toward Mr. Hyde; that it was Hyde's presence that caused him to change. As he was moving toward Hyde, Utterson was moving toward the truth not only about Dr. Jekyll but also about himself. He was realizing even unconsciously that not going to the theatre, or drinking alone, and even creating poetry was not uncivilized but rather quite civilized.

Judy,

"I see Dr. Lanyon as another victim of J/H. He dies from shock and horror at what a person he called FRIEND has done.

Your post placed the thought in my mind that if Lanyon had confided in either Utterson or the authorities he may have received help for the mental trauma caused by this horrible experience, thereby saving his life.

But perhaps help for Doctor Lanyon may have been too late. Who's to say what cerebral damage was caused by the ghastly conclusion of knowing his friend had created Hyde through the expieriments he performed in his unpleasant labratory in the name of scientific research.

The more I learn of Dr Jekyll the more convinced I am that he was a person of unpalatable behavior, insensitive, or uncaring, of placing both his close friends in the position of keeping his covert actions a secret, regardless of the cost to their well being.

Hyde was a true reflection of Henry Jekyll.

Bill H

Bill, That is such a good point. Your comment about the callous way that Jekyll treats his friends, placing them in the position of keeping his secrets at whatever cost to their own well-being. This reminded me of the Watergate scandal when the President thought nothing of involving his closest friends and associates in illegal activities. This man, in the highest public office, watched his loyal staff ruin their lives and go to jail rather than reveal that he himself was behind the cover-up. And at present, we have the Enron trial where the CEO is claiming to know nothing about the ruinous activities of his colleagues. Maybe that is one of the things RLS is trying to say--being an accomplice to someone who has made a bargain with the Devil can send you to Hell as well.

Re "he was a person of unpalatable behavior, insensitive, or uncaring..."

I didn't feel quite like that about Dr. Jekyll. I felt that he was a very curious person and a scientist. Yes, he created his own terrible problems and he let out the monster and he ended up dragging his friends into terrible situations. Curiosity killed the cat.

I think the same characteristics that led Jekyll to his brilliant lifetime accomplishments and friendships also led him to his experimentation with the dark side and to his downfall. At the end, I think he was desperate rather than unpalatable, insensitive, and uncaring.

I think that in some ways Utterson had some of the same characteristics as Jekyll, to a lesser extent. He, too, was experimenting with people's lives when he started playing detective. He, too, struggled with himself over what to do and ended up on the wild side. Look at the risks he took following Hyde. He relished in the game of trying to figure out what was going on at the same time that he was totally repelled by it all.

Both Utterson and Jekyll are men pulled in different directions, curious, and tempted.

funny in my mind from my early reading of this story to my memory of the movie ( which I havent viewed again) there was a part of me that always felt sorry for Dr Jekyll ..But now after this discussion and really thinking about it I realized there were no redeeming features to these characters ...well the little girl perhaps and Sir Danvers Carew.. here we have supposedly intelligent gentry who have failed themselves and everyone else in the community...who look the other way when they see evil and thus become co-comspiritors to the crimes committed by someone they knew...here is a doctor who should have been looking for the good in people instead looks for the base side and revels in it. The only good thing he did was to destroy himself but that in itself was not a noble act.

Edmund Burke: All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. Burke b.1729 D 1797

Perhaps RLS read that at one time because that seems to me what he is saying in his story, If we look at history we can see that Burke's quote can be applied from the beginning of so called civilization to now. And that makes me utterly sad, anna

Anna,

May I repeat your quote by Edmund Burke?

Edmund Burke: All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. Burke b.1729 D 1797

Dear Scootz,

I refuse to do "nothing." I would like to offer you an apology. Without any explanations I would like to offer an apology for my way of describing Doctor Hyde. I can only speak for myself in any discussion. I made a wrong choice by using the pronoun "we."

For me this little classic is complicated. I fought with ideas and opinions. Then, when I read about Sir Danvers and the little girl, my opinions would change again. I use the posts of others to help me come to a better understanding of a book. I would hate to make any person sad by a wrong choice of words. Scootz, you are one of the many stars at Seniornet. You brighten up the world of books.

I didn't keep my word. I gave an explanation. Then, started running my trap. I just wanted to say "I am sorry."

I meant to write Mr. Hyde. Instead, I wrote Doctor Hyde.

Apology accepted. Perhaps in future, you could email about anything like this, ok?

Let's just let it drop.

I read a poem >>I was very young and have never forgotten the message ....I looked it up today and was surprised to see it was by Edgar Guest who wrote a poem daily for the St Louis Globe Democrat one of three newspapers my family subscribed to. I know I cut many of them out and kept them until I had to clean out my things since I had married and couldnt take everything with me...But I often repeat some of the lines in this poem because I dont want to forget them..if interested here is the link I dont know that I have been completely successful here but I know I have tried...anna

http://unix.cc.wmich.edu/~cooneys/poems/bad/Guest.Myself.html

Chapter 5: "An ivory-faced and silvery-haired old woman opened the door. She had an evil face, smoothed by hypocrisy; but her manners were excellent."

To me this is one of the most important minor characters in the novel because she represents "every man" [including every woman]. I believe that she proves my theory: that at times we all act or appear as uncivilized and civilized in our thoughts, words and deeds. "She had an evil face, smoothed by hypocrisy" [uncivilized]; "but she had manners" [civilized].

Chapter 6:

Dr. Lanyon represents "reason" in this novel. He dismisses Dr. Jekyll's experiments as pure "unscientific balderdash" and represents the rational man of science who thinks he is opposed to superstition and fantasy, but in reality by not accepting new ideas concerning life which includes science he is reverting to the superstition of the past.

"By the 19th century, great strides had been made by surgeon John Hunter in understanding the role the body's organs played in illness, while physician Edward Jenner's work enabled medical practitioners to attribute various sicknesses to their true causes, rather than to such things as "bad humors" or astrology. A vaccine against smallpox had been discovered, and at the dawn of the century medicine was on the verge of discovering two of its greatest advances: antiseptics and the use of anesthetics during surgery." ~ "Everyday Life in Regency and Victorian England"

Let us consider Dr. Lanyon "silence." What was Stevenson telling us by making Dr. Lanyon either "refuse" to tell what happened to Dr. Jekyll or "unable" to tell what happened. Perhaps Dr. Lanyon is also a representation of Victorian society which not only prized decorum and reputation above all and preferred to repress or deny the truth if that truth threatened to upset the conventional order of the world.

Than again language is both rational and logical by which we communicate with others like ourselves. Our silence is some times seen as irrational. Have you ever sat in a room full of people and said nothing; observing them from a far and listening to various conversations. After awhile those closest to you stop talking and soon everyone is staring at you as if - well as if you were an "irrational being." In "polite" society it is better to talk about "nothing" than to be found irrational.

By Stevenson portraying a reasonable man like Dr. Lanyon as silent; he was in reality telling us that he was really irrational.

Is hypocrisy uncivilized? Do the uncivilized need to pretend they're anything else? Isn't it civilization that requires us to wear two faces?

I don't think there is anything uncivilized about hypocrisy. I think it's something that rises with "civilization." Sometimes I think civilization itself is the ultimate human hypocrisy, like economies of scale.

This is one of the most telling sentences of the first five chapters, "She had an evil face, smoothed by hypocrisy; but her manners were excellent." Like Hyde, one can see the evil in the woman's face, but can't quite put their finger on it, can't quite label the disfigurement. She gets away with showing her polite face to the public, like Hyde, who is treated as a gentleman and bribed rather than thrown into jail.

Kleo

I am here. I just can't find my book.

"Hold your tongue!" Poole said to her, with a ferocity of accent that testified to his own jangled nerves; and indeed, when the girl had so suddenly raised the note of her lamentation, they had all started and turned towards the inner door with faces of dreadful expectation. "And now," continued the butler, addressing the knife-boy, "reach me a candle, and we'll get this through hands at once." And then he begged Mr. Utterson to follow him, and led the way to the back garden...

After Poole brought Mr. Utterson to Jekyll's home because he felt something was very wrong with the doctor, Mr. Utterson found the house-hold staff all assembled and waiting for Poole's return.

I posted the above excerpt from story to point out the authority an English Butler had. Please note the way he talked to the young maid and then deferred to Utterson by begging him to follow him–the Butler–to the back garden.

Perhaps RLS, in a subtle manner, showed us the characteristic of Victoria England. I can't help but wonder if this holds true even today, in the wealthy house-holds of Great Britain?

"The death of Sir Danvers was, to his way of thinking, more than paid for by the disappearance of Mr. Hyde..."

I agree Utterson's way of thinking was irrational. More like it was convoluted. How could he equate the disappearance of Hyde to any kind of process of payment for the life of a human being?

Anna, I liked that little poem.

Bill H

Yes, Bill, Utterson has a frustrating lack of morals as far as I'm concerned, bribing Hyde on behalf of the child, exchanging one life for another. He reminds me of a school shooting a few years ago where a boy who did not shoot and was not shot at forgave the shooter. Did anyone ask the dead kids' families? Nope, they were forgotten. Utterson cares about nothing but his own reputation, not those who loved Sir Danvers and lost him and had their portion of sorrow forever increased.

Blech on Utterson. He's neither an officer of the law nor a gentleman in my opinion. Blech.

Kleo

Hypocrisy wears many faces. I feel Doctor Jekyll is also a hypocrite. At one point when he is enjoying society again, Jekyll pretends not to have knowledge of a murder and almost murder of a little girl. Doctor Jekyll is up to his ears in hypocrisy.

"...reviewed relations with his friends, became once more their familiar guest and entertainer;...he was now no less distinguished for his religion.."

There is also Doctor Jekyll's religious fervor. This seems hypocritical too because he obviously is not heads over heals in love with religion in any form. He's not keeping the Golden Rule which kind of sums up a religious person's life. He took the life of a man. He is living a lie.

"Utterson was amazed to find a copy of a pious work, for which Jekyll had several times expressed a great esteem, annotated, in his own hand, with startling blasphemies. "Startling blasphemies" might mean words of disagreement shocking to the religious community. It could also mean dirty, filthy language.

During this time in England what was the main religion of England? Was it Protestantism? I think someone in one post wrote about Calvinism.

Isn't Poole the most virtuous person in the book? Doesn't he typify the hard working, honest English people? Oddly, he doesn't talk about religion he lives the part. That is, if I have interpreted his character correctly.

It bothers me that Hyde is called Mr. Hyde. I keep wondering why did RLS choose to call him Mr. Hyde instead of just Hyde? When I think of the title Mister, I think of a person deserving of the title.

When I think of the title Mister, I think of a person deserving of the title.

ME TOO < anna

Hats

ME TOO

Very good point you picked up on. RLS gave dignity to Hyde without meaning to.

But, then again, maybe the author meant to give dignity to evil. This short novel shows the complexity of Stevenson's mind.

Bill H

Found in the Comments of my edition of the novel.

HENRY JAMES

"It has the stamp of a really imaginative production, that we may take it in different ways, but I suppose it would be called the most serious of the author's tales. It deals with the relation of the baser parts of man to his nobler—of the capacity for evil that exists in the most generous natures, and it expresses these things in a fable which is a wonderfully happy invention. The subject is endlessly interesting, and rich in all sorts of provocation, and Mr. Stevenson is to be congratulated on having touched the core of it. I may do him injustice,

I posted the above comment by Henry James to follow up a little more on what Hats wrote about MR.

The first sentence in Henry James' comment

Is "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" a work of high philosophic intention, or simply the most ingenious and irresponsible of fictions?

I would like to learn more why James would even consider this novel to be an irresponsible work of fiction? DID Stevenson have a hidden message for writing this novel? Was this obscure message (if there was one) the real reason he assigned the name HYDE?

A more complex novel than first appears.

Bill H

Does society dictate what one does or does not do? Are we hypocrites because of what society expects us to be or are we hypocrites by our own choosing?

Stevenson broke away from his parents' religion which I believe was Protestantism and decided to believe in Calvinism.

It can also be questioned that the title "Doctor" should be applied to Jekyll. True he is a scientist, but how far should science be allowed to go in their experiments with living human beings? And what does the title "Doctor" imply when placed in front of a person's name?

A while back Bill you asked about the "female" characters in this novel. This novel was written in the classic form in that the female characters represent the Chorus that you would find in Greek plays. They represent "everyman".

On the one hand we have the "bemusing" maid who faints at the sight of Sir Danvers death, then you have the "evil-faced old woman," and finally the "female servants who are gathered in fear." In their reaction they not only give us an inkling of what 19th century life was all about, but move the story forward. In just a short space of time we see more through these minor characters than we would have if their thoughts were to come from long-winded descriptions from the main characters. At any rate we are closer to understanding their predicament than that of the male characters.

It is interesting that these representatives are more in touch with the reality of the situation than the main "gentlemen" characters. That especially the servants know that something terrible has happened to their master - they see the truth and the truth frightens them. A natural reaction - right - yet look at the reaction of Utterson.

"Upon seeing them gathered in fear, forsaking their "duties", Utterson reacts in the characteristic response of the 19th century gentleman that is more concerned with appearances than finding out what would cause the servants' terror. "What, what?" he burst out. "Are you all here...very irregular, very unseemly; your master would be far from pleased."

Bill H,

I think it is a very complex novel too. Thank you for writing Henry James comment. I am very interested in how today's literary critics or other authors view this work by Robert Louis Stevenson. I also wonder how the society, after its publication, viewed it. We have banned books now. Were people during that period angry about this novel, I wonder? I also wonder what did the church of England feel about this book or any part of the religious communities?

I am very honored to read the words of Henry James if no one else. Thank you.

Scrawler,

Thank you for writing about RLS's religious values. I don't know the difference between Protestantism and Calvinism. I would like to know whether RLS saw himself in either of the characters. What drove him to write this novel? I know we might never know the answer to some of these questions. Time is so short. I just bring my thoughts and questions here.

"It can also be questioned that the title "Doctor" should be applied to Jekyll. True he is a scientist, but how far should science be allowed to go in their experiments with living human beings? And what does the title "Doctor" imply when placed in front of a person's name?"

Jekyll and Lanyon are both physicians, and in the book it mentions that Dr. Jekyll is a colleague of the physician Lanyon. The title "doctor" tells us that Jekyll is a practitioner of medicine of some sort, but the comment that he is a colleague of the physician Lanyon tells us what sort.

"Mister" applied to Mr. Hyde tells us he is a gentleman. Probably this was outrageous, as it was considered at the time that only the butler was capable of crime, gentlemen were not. If Hyde were not a gentleman his nature would not have been dual. I think that RLS is being critical of the class structure of Victorian England. I entertained a tour group form Britain last week and discussed British class structure, alive and well today.

Kleo

I'm reading David McCullough's Truman and read last night that when Harry Truman was a young man, he saw Richard Mansfield perform in Missouri his roles of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Truman reportedly could barely sleep afterward.

Marni,

A few years back, I did a book discussion about McCullough's Truman. I believe you would have enjoyed it.

I learned so much about Harry Truman from that book. I'm sure you will also.

It would be grand if he was President today. I'm not sure we will ever see the likes of him again.

Bill H

Kleo,

You asked if the title "Dr." should be applied to Henry Jekyll

Please note the illustration of this edition of Jekyll/Hyde. You will see that the title Mr. was given to both Jekyll and Hyde. I pondered using this illustration in the heading. However, it was decided that the one we used would be far better. I agree.

Some of us did a bit of research as to why the title Mr. was conferred on Jekyll and we found that both England and Scotland didn't apply the title doctor to a man of medicine, instead "Mr." was used. I don't believe we ever did find a firm reason for this.

Bill H

Since it is noted in many places that Stevenson and his father strongly disagreed on the matter of Religion, I went in search of Calvinism, to which religion the Father adhered. I did not know anything about this when I began. I will give you a synopsis of what I read. The two articles are:

Who is John Calvin? by Lewis Loflin and Calvin and Calvinism from a Short History of the Modern world by R.R.Palmer.I am ,for the most part, quoting straight from the articles. I hope you find this material as interesting as I did.

Calvinist Theology can be summarised by the letters TULIP:

T = Total Depravity: Human sin has affected every aspect of the human character; thought,emotions and will.

U=Unconditional Election; God chooses some to be saved and some to be damned. Election and Damnation are based on God's will and nothing else.

L=Limited Atonement; i.e. Christ died for the sins of some (those predestined for Heaven) but not for others(those predestined for Hell).

I=Irresistable Grace; When God has bestowed his grace upon a person,because they were predestined for Heaven they cannot resist this "Grace" and not end up in Heaven. Calvinists take comfort in Gods will and assume they are among the Elect!!

P=Perseverance of the Saints. Once a saint, always a Saint.

Calvin drew heavily from the Paulist Theology of St. Augustine. Thus Calvin puts beleivers in a moral dilemma: Should they even try to be good? Whats the point?

Calvinists in all countries were militant, uncompromising perfectionists-or PURITANS-as they were called first in England and later in America.

Much more could be written on this subject but, for myself, I feel I understand what Stevenson was trying to do with his Novel. Things are not as cut and dry as his Fathers' religion purports them to be.

Judy

Actually, in GB, the title of "Mr." for physicians is strictly limited to graduates of the College of Surgeons (whatever it is properly called), as in Barber Surgeons. When an MD graduates from this he drops "doctor" and changes to "mister," and I believe this was the case in the 19th century, also.

Doctors who are not graduates of the College of Surgeons are called "doctor." Has this changed? Am I wrong about this? Did you look it up, Bill, from this perspective?

If Jekyll was a physician going by the title of "mister" he was in all probability a surgeon.

Bill, I can't find anything about the book with that title, except a few obscure sites. I will point out RLS chose not to include "the" in the the title of the book, so while this picture may be right on it being "mr jekyll" it's wrong on another point. Where is this information from, about the book being "mr jekyll?" Tell me more. How did I miss those posts? I will do a search.

Kleo

Calvinism: "Calvinism is a system of Christian theology and an approach to Christian life and thought, preached by John Calvin, a Protestant Reformer in the 16th century.

The central issue in Calvinist theology that is used to represent the whole is the system's particular doctrine of salvation, which emphasizes that man is capable of adding anything from himself to obtain salvation and that God alone pre-determines who will be saved and who will not. One person is saved while another is condemned, not because of willingness, a faith, or any other virtue in the first person, but because God sovereignly chose to have mercy on him."

"...His parents were very religious. RLS gave up the religion of his parents while studying at the University of Edinburgh, but the teaching that he received as a child continued to influence him. He took up a branch of Christianity called Calvinism as his new religion in college."

"Various influences have been suggested for Stevenson's interest in the mental condition that separates the sinful from moral self. Among them was the Biblical text of Romans (7:20 "Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."

Another influence may have been: "Deacon William Brodie, a famous Scot, who lead a double life as the respectable tradesman and daring thief is said to have been the inspiration for Robert Louis Steven's story of Dr. Jekll and Mr. Hyde."

And finally: "James Hogg's novel "The Private Memoirs and Confession of a Justified Sinner (1824), in which a young man falls under the spell of the devil."

"The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner" is a deeply disturbing book. The opening paragraph starts: "My life has been a life of trouble and turmoil of change and vicissitude; of anger and exultation; of sorrow and of vengeance. My sorrows have all been for a slighted gospel, and my vengeance has been wreaked on its adversaries. Therefore, in the might of Heaven, I will sit down and write: I will let the wicked of this world know what I have done in the faith of the promises, and justifiction by grace, that they may read and tremble, and bless their gods of silver and gold that the minister of Heaven was removed from their sphere before their blood was mingled with their sacrifices."

I can see where all of the above could have influenced RLS into writing about the "duality of man's nature." But what exactly is that "nature." Is it good and evil or as I suggested earlier civilized and uncivilized?

Various literary critics have interpreted the novel to include "religious allegory, fable, detective story, sensation fiction, science ficion, dopplganger literature, Scottish devil tales and Gothic novels."

"The manuscript was initially sold as a paperback for one shilling in the UK and one dollar in the USA. Initially stores would not stock it until a review appeared in "The Times" (Jan.25, 1886), giving it a favourable reception. Within the next six months close to forty-thousand copies were sold. By 1901 it was estimated to have sold over 250,000 copies."

Kleo,

The debate over which illustration to use for the heading did not take place in this forum. Marjorie, Pat and I made that decision in the Working on Folder of Jekyll and Hyde.

You can use this link to the on line Barnes and Noble to see the cover.

You will also notice in the illustration that I posted in # the name Jekyll is spelled Jekill. Perhaps this was the way the name was spelled in Scotland. I'm not sure about that. .

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0786277351&itm=22

Bill H

I found this at Barnes and Noble on line. I fail to see how this novel could be classified as a children's book. I place in bold letters the reference to kids.

FROM THE CRITICS

Children's Literature - Childrens Literature

"For more than one hundred years this shocking mystery has enthralled readers. Within six months of publication 40,000 copies had been sold in England. The story propelled Stevenson to national and international fame. Inspired by his dreams or rather nightmares, readers journey through the good and evil sides of one man. The story of Dr. Jekyll and his evil self is enhanced with information about the period and a profusion of illustrations. While some may find it distracting, most will relish the insights into the culture, dress and general lifestyle of the period. It makes many aspects of the story more understandable and may encourage kids to tackle more of Stevenson's books. For older students of literature, this and others in "The Whole Story" series will open the door to further research.

Bill H

Well I will say today;s children see far worse than a Jekyll and Hyde story ..and at least with the story they would have to use thier imagination to fill in the gory parts whereas with TV and games they now can be the evil person , hopefully play acting.Still I agree I would not classify this as a child;s book unless you want to give them nightmares or on the other hand laugh at what RLS thought he was sharing about the evil that men do. I am becoming so turned off of Tv with all the simulated crime scenes, If anyone wants to plan a murder etc just watch these shows.. the information is so explicit I guess since we believe this in not children's fare it shows we are really BEHIND the times...

anna

Bill, yes, I see your illustration of the book cover. However, I looked up this title and found nothing about it on the Internet. Just because one book cover lists it that way, does that mean there is some mystery going on? Is it mentioned with this spelling or "Mr." instead of "Dr." anywhere else? And what does it say about it elsewhere?

Surely if that were the original title someone besides this one publisher know it and I would get more than one hit on Google for Mr. versus 271,000 for Dr.? or more than one for the Jekill variation? or anything that says this is the original or alternate or any title of the book other than this one cover?

Also, aside from the cover, was "Mr." used as a form of address for a "Dr." at the time? A surgeon, as mentioned before would be called "mister" not "doctor." Not all surgeons, just ones from the tradition of Barber Surgeons.

I'm not sure that this one book cover has any meaning, especially if nothing else says it. It might just be a cheap print from a foreign country of a title in the public domain, something that often comes with amazing errors!

Kleo

Anna, yes, today's children are exposed to so much TV violence, and so are the rest of us. I watch very little TV. I do like the sports, news, and some favorite old time shows like Bonanza and Gun Smoke that air on one of the network cable programs. How nice these old programs used to be. I wonder what today's kids would think of them. I have no doubt that some of the crimes committed today were learned from TV.

Bill H

Tomorrow, April, 15th, will end the chapter discussion of "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." However, as you can see in the heading, I did add one more week to the discussion out of consideration for all those who observed the religious days of both Christianity and Judaism and refrained from posting because of their observance of these religious days. This past week had Passover, Good Friday, and the Easter weekend.

If you are interested in continuing the discussion, perhaps we could post our ideas about the author, or compare the movies to the written novel, or point out whatever we missed in the novel.

Bill H

Looking up background material for J/H I came across the famous Scottish case of William Brodie. Although Brodie is mentioned in the intro to the B&N Edition and Stevenson wrote a play about him in 1880 the real story is truly fascinating.

William Brodie (1741-1788) was a Cabinet maker and Deacon by day and a burgler and thief by night. He had three accomplices. He lived a totally dual (Or triple) life. He had a wife, two mistresses with five children among them, none of whom had the slightest inkling that the others existed.On top of this he was a serious gambler. In order to feed these passions he stole from banks, homes and even from the University of Edinburgh.

He did all this by making copies of keys he designed for these places and using them to enter the places at night.

After being caught and receiving the sentence of hanging, Brodie fashioned a steel collar and bribed the Hangman to ignore it. The collar didn't work and he died by hanging on a gallows that local legend says he himself designed.

It seems that this story was one of RLS's nurse Cummys favorite tales to tell the young and impressionable boy.

Judy

I don't see this novel as a children's story, but than again my own children were reading college age novels and stories while still in grade school. I think it depends on the individual. And I agree with you except for sports, news, and few "oldies but goodies" I don't care for TV that much except for the CSI shows; they at least have a "puzzle" to them. But let's face it any TV show has to show the crime and solve it in less than forty minutes [between 4/15 min. commercials] so there really can't be that much "depth". Besides I prefer to read any way.

I see this novel as a "Gothic fiction." This was the type of story popular in Europe and America in the 19th century. It was in the middle and late 1800s that such novels as: "Dracula, The Turn of the Screw, Frankenstin, and Jane Eyre" were published.

Gothic fiction can contain the supernatural theme such as we see in "Dracula" and certainly "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" has that implied supernatural about it. In chapter one Enfield says, "There is something wrong with [Hyde's] appearance...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."

Gothic fiction dwells into "secrets" such as "Jane Eyre" does. And certainly this novel has "secrets." For example in chapter 2 we learn that: "On the face of it, Jekyll's stipulation that all his property be handed over to Hyde and his later horror at the thought of Utterson "learning something of young Hyde" seem to point squarely at blackmail of some sort. Of course, Utterson never imagines the stituation that lies behind these behaviors. Similarly, the will's reference to "death or disappearance" makes Utterson immediately think of the possibly of murder. The idea that Jekyll could literally transform himself into another and thereby disappear simply does not occur to Utterson..."

Frankenstein's monster is a doppelganger for Frankenstein just as Hyde is for Jekyll. "Doppelganger" is a German term which means: "referring to people who resemble other characters in strange, disconcerting ways."

One more feature of Gothic fiction is that they almost always take place in some strange errie place from which the characters have trouble escaping. For example: Dracula's castle, the estate of Thornfield in "Jane Eyre" or the decaying homes and palaces that appear in Edgar Allan Poe's Gothic novels. "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" takes place in fog engulfed nighttime London and more specifically in the old, decayed laboratory of Dr. Jekyll.

"In early Autumn of 1885 Stevenson's thoughts turned to the idea of the duality of man's nature, and how to incorporate the interplay of good and evil into a story. One night he had a dream, and on wakening had the idea for two or three scenes that would appeare in "Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. "In the small hours of one morning," says Mrs. Stevenson, "I was awakened by cries of horror from Louis. Thinking he had a nightmare, I awakened him. He said angrily, 'Why did you wake me? I was dreaming a fine bogey tale.' I had awakened him at the first transformation scene."

So what makes a man like Stevenson write such a piece as "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?" According to "How to Write Mysteries": "To write a mystery then, a writer needs to know something of what he is. And he needs, in some measure, "the murderous spirit.

The mystery writer is, by nature, the sweetest writer of them all. The mystery writer is in touch with his killer instinct. The mystery writer acknowledges the darkness in himself without shame, so the blood runs out of it. Cleansed, it can be used. Artistically used. Creatively used. Exploited. Pure of heart, "but in touch with the sinister," we write...and write well. Evil is punished at last. The innocent are freed from their oppression and life's terrible obstacles are cleared away. Goodness triumphs when all is blackest, just as the villain's knife..."

So, what do you all think? Did Stevenson have a "darker" side to him? According to some, "Mrs. Stevenson returned the first draft to Stevenson with her comments while Stevenson was asleep. After awhile he called her back into the bedroom and pointed to a pile of ashes: he had burnt the manuscript in fear that he would try to salvage it, and in the process forcing himself to start over from scratch writing an allegorical story as she had suggested.

But some scholars debate if he really burnt his manuscript or not. Other scholars suggest her criticism was not about allegory, but about inappropriate sexual content..."

I think that whatever the case, Stevenson, in order to write such vivid scenes as those found in this novel must have allowed his darker side to flow from his pen.

Judy

Here is a bit more on RLS governess, Alice Cunningham. The following quote is an excerpt from Angus Fletcher's introduction to RLS "Treasure Island."

"...Scotland always remained an ominous land however, not least for him because as a child he had been lovingly instructed by his governess, Alice Cunningham, a dedicated soul who filled the child with the darkest tales and scariest bogies to be conjured by Calvinist fears of hell and 'damnation. Given such a beginning, one is surprised, or relieved, to find that Stevenson was destined to write one of the . great parables of the eternal battle between good and evil, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886). Even here his agnosticism played a part, for The Strange Case is made into a highly controlled detective story, as if in clear imitation of a similarly secular author Stevenson much admired, Edgar Allan Poe.

Scrawler

Perhaps the above quote my shed some light on the question you asked: "What made RLS write such a story?"

I was amazed to read that a lovingly (?) governess filled the child with the darkest tales and scariest bogies. I'm not so sure that I would want a governess filling a child withe these types of tales.

Bill H

Scrawler,

Thanks for the interesting comments.

Frankenstein is early 19th century, 1818, although it is usually read in a later version. Shelley was very much a woman of her times. Jane Eyre always feels earlier to me than it is, until I read it next to Frankenstein. Poe always feel later, unless I read a lot of his at once, then they seem older, maybe timeless.

Poe and Stevenson remind me of each other. What a group, Charlotte Bronte, RLS, Mary Shelley, Edgar Poe. Stoker's Dracula comes from an earlier book by John Polidori, a friend of the Shelleys'--The Vampyre?. People think of RLS as before his times, but when I put him in this group, I think of him as if he were from an earlier time. He would have fit in well that summer with Shelley and Polidori and their monsters.

Kleo

I think that, in addition to everthing else we have said, this is a story about the bounds of scientific research--a topic that has current application today. There has been incredible progress in biomedical research in recent years and excitement about the possibilities of curing diseases and the prospect of extended longevity. Should society be asking some crucial questions about the implications of this research? What is curing and what is enhancement? Are there any limits to the resources that are used for cures, and are there limits to the resources that should be used for enhancement? If only a small fraction of biomedical research pays off, humans are likely to live longer in the 21st century. How will society cope with an ever-increasing elderly population? What will be the effects on the environment, the economy, politics, culture and future generations. Did Dr. Jekyll bother to ask himself any of these kinds of questions before he embarked on a path of scientific research that ended with such disasterous results? What might have happened if he had succeeded?

I don't know Bill, I love horror stories - always did. I was a "sickly" child and my father used to bring home adventure and horror stories from the library. My mother never approved, but I would snatch them up and read them in a locked bathroom until someone noticed I was missing. I also used to read them under the covers at night by flashlight or listen to those old radio science fiction and mystery programs.

Kleop, wouldn't that have been something if RLS was a part of those summer evenings with Shelly and Percy. What stories those folks could have collaborated to write!

Horselover you bring up a very interesting point and a controversial one to be sure. But I have a question. Does society dictate what we do or not do? Or does our free will enter into the equation. I believe that these experiments continue even today because we allow them to do so. What is society to the individual?

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde centers upon a conception of humanity as dual in nature. How would you prove this theory? Wouldn't you have to experiment with various specimens in order to come up with a conclusion. But who would volunteer to do so. I don't see anyone but Dr. Jekyll volunteering to do this experiment.

"Jekyll asserts that "man is not truly one, but truly two," and he imagines the human soul as the battle ground for an "angel" and a "fiend," each struggling for mastery. But his potion, which he would separate and purify each element, succeeds only in bringing the dark side into being - Hyde emerges, but he has no angelic counterpart. Once unleashed, Hyde slowly takes over, until Jekyll ceases to exist. If man is half angle and half fiend, one wonders what happens to the "angel" at the end of the novel."

First, of all did Dr. Jekyll prove his theory? Do you think that man has a dual nature? And is that duality good and evil or as I have suggested civilized or uncivilized? I don't see any of us really wanting to be like Mr. Hyde. But don't we all at times feel like doing, saying, or at the very least thinking something that others might not construe as "good."

Scrawler: Everyone may have a mean side but not an EVIL side. Adults who, as children, have been treated fairly well, have not unduly suffered at the hands of others or witnesssed unmentionable horrors are usually fairly normal. The exceptions might be those suffering from a chemical inbalnce of the brain, a brain tumor or some wound to the brain.

As much as Stevensons fiction implies that man is two sided it is only FICTION. To become truly evil one must experience evil. Even then, of those children who have been seriously abused 40% identify with the perpetrator, 40% remain victims (for life unless there is a lot of therapy) and 10% walk away somehow normal. The latter are known as resilient children.

Working with children who have committed crimes teaches you that most of them have horror tales of their own, next to which most fiction pales.

Judy

Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" and Stevenson's "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" have a common bond. The written novels are completely different from the movies.
Horselover, as concerned chiefly with his experiment, and as insensitive as he was, I don't believe Henry Jekyll cared a bit what would have happened if he had succeeded.
I don't know about the rest of you but I do believe Jekyll was a selfish person. As we discussed earlier, he put his two close friends in a horrifying situation, resulting in the death of one of them. This showed me he did have a dual nature.

Bill H

Judy

"The exceptions might be those suffering from a chemical imbalance of the brain."

Then do you suppose that evil could be hereditary, even passed on to succeeding generations?

Kleo,

"What a group, Charlotte Bronte, RLS, Mary Shelley, Edgar Poe. Stoker's Dracula"

That is quite a group you named. Could any of today's horror story writers stand with them?

Bill H

Scrawler, An article published in the latest issue of "Current Directions in Psychological Science" finds that we are tied to each other-- what other people do and how they express their feelings is a contagious, strong influence. Stirring in the background of our minds are the influences of other people that affect us without our knowledge or recognition. For example, when researchers showed individuals a picture of a library and instructed them to go there after the experiment, the participants began to speak more softly, without being aware of why. Similarly, when primed to be rude, individuals interrupted a speaker, while those primed to be polite did not.

The article argues that we should not assume we are aware of most of the important influences on our behavior and judgments, and we should accept that there are influences we do not know about. Only then would one have a chance at counteracting those influences and regaining control, or "free will" as you put it.

I don't think anyone has total free will. From the time we are born, we absorb the values and customs of the society around us. I agree with you that the kind of scientific research that goes on is the sort that society will support. Although Jekyll had been a respected scientist, he had now gone beyond the bounds that were acceptable in his society. This frightened his friends and associates and caused them to withdraw their support.

Bill, I agree that Jekyll did not care what would happen if he succeeded. But we can still speculate. Suppose he developed a stable drug that would separate the good from the evil in man's nature. He might patent it and sell it to a major drug company that would produce it for the masses. Anyone who wanted to rid himself of temptation could buy some at the drug store. Of course, this would not rid the world of evildoers--unless it became mandatory to take the drug. This would effectively rid the world of evil, but also of free will. Which brings us back to Scrawler's question--"Does our free will enter into the equation?" I wonder if we can have free will without the choice between good and evil.

Horselover

You asked

"I wonder if we can have free will without the choice between good and evil. "

That is an interesting thought deserving some answers by the rest of us here. I don't think so. Perhaps my answer is due in part of how much evil in this world we have been exposed too. What do the rest you believe?

Jekyll did have one redeeming quality. He didn't slyly put the potent formula in a drink he served to Lanyon or Utterson. However, it would have been interesting to read if the moral qualities of these two men had an evil side in their being.

HorseloverAnother interesting point you brought out in your last post.

RE:

"I don't think anyone has total free will. From the time we are born, we absorb the values and customs of the society around us"

This jogged my mind of what an uncle of mine would say. "Tell me your company and I'll tell you what you are."

Yes, I agree with you that, for the most part, our environment shapes our personality.

Bill H 1.

You can tell it was a good book when people start what-iffing, as if it were a true story: "Jekyll did have one redeeming quality. He didn't slyly put the potent formula in a drink he served to Lanyon or Utterson. However, it would have been interesting to read if the moral qualities of these two men had an evil side in their being."

Bill, I don't think today's horror writers could hold a candle to those 19th centuries greats. All seems to be a copy of the classics with just more blood and gore. In fact, the current theme is gore, not horror. Jason doesn't know what horror is.

Kleo

Kleo

I agree with you said in your last post. I judge all my mystery stories on the great Sherlock Holmes tales by Doyle. But that is just my preference

All very good stories without the blood and gore. I loved they way Holmes would describe his findings to Watson.

As I write this, I can picture how the eerie moors set the mood for that story. Gothic. I think so.

Bill H

Bill H,

I really enjoyed "Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. What a wonderful classic! After all these years, this small book is so powerful and holds so many different themes. I have enjoyed reading and learning along with the group.

Hats

Thank you. I'm glad you joined us in the discussion.

As you can see in the heading, I gave another week for those who could not post because of observance of the religious holidays.

If you care to stick around and compare further notes about the book you are welcome. Maybe compare the movies to the novel.

Bill H

Thank you for the invite.

Folks,

As you can see in the heading there is another week. I added this in consideration for those who observed the religious holidays this week. However, if you would prefer to end the discussion rather than continue it for the coming week, it is OK with me.

Please let me know your intentions.

Bill H

Dear Bill H,

I have enjoyed the discussion. At this point, speaking on my part, I will end the discussion now. I really enjoyed you as a discussion leader and all of the posts. I hope to have another discussion with you soon.

Bill H,

By the way I am really enjoying the movie. Spencer Tracy was always a fine actor.

Hats

Thank you for participating in the discussion. Your posts helped make it interesting and successful.

Bill H

"Jekyll's meditations on the dual nature of man, which prompt his forays into the experiments that bring forth Hyde, point to the novel's central question about the nature of the relationship between good and evil portions of the human soul. As the embodiment of the dark side of man, Hyde is driven by passion and heedless of moral constraints...Hyde exists as distilled evil [at the begining], Jekyll remains a mixture of good and evil. Jekyll repeatedly claims that his goal was to liberate his light half from his darker impulses, yet the opposite seems to happen. His dark side is given flesh, while his better half is not. Moreover, his dark side grows ever stronger as the novel continues, until the old, half-good and half-evil Jekyll ceases to exist."

If indeed good and evil is within our souls to begin with, than when Jekyll tried to estract his evil side why did the evil side become stronger? Perhaps this was do to the fact that our good and evil sides are not equal to begin with.

"Buying a large quantity of salt as his last ingredient, he took the potion with the knowledge that he was risking his life, but he remined driven by the hopes of making a great discovery. (Isn't this pride?)...Upon first looking into a mirror after the transformation Jekyll-turned-Hyde was not repulsed by his new form; instead, he experienced "a leap of welcome." He came to delight in living as Hyde. Jekyll was becoming too old to act upon his more embarrassing impulses, but Hyde was a younger man, the personfiction of the evil side that emerged several years after Jekyll's own birth. Transforming himself into Hyde became a welcome outlet for Jekyll's passions..."

I think that last sentence is the real reason that Jekyll did his experiments. He wanted to became young again and act upon his more embarrassing impulses that old Dr. Jekyll couldn't do because it was against society's idea of how a "gentleman" should act. So the real reason wasn't to liberate his good side, but rather to allow himself to continue to have an outlet for Jekyll's real passions and impulses. If not exactly evil, this doesn't make Jekyll very uncivilzed at least in the eyes of those living in the Victorian era.

I can't help wonder if RLS with all his health problems, didn't write this novel in the hopes of regaining some of his own passions and impulses.

For a real horrific good read, I suggest that maybe sometime, if you havn't already done so, we could read:"The Turn of the Screw" by Henry James or any of Edgar Allan Poe's short stories.

I hope we will be reading Poe's short stories, his Fall of the House of Usher is up for votes in the House Discussion, and we'll be reading an author about Poe in September.

Great discussion, everyone. I think I have a few more comments but no time until Wednesday to get to them.

Kleo

The movie is so different from RLS's book. Lana Turner and Ingrid Bergman are Mr. Hyde's whole obsession. In the book, there isn't a mention of the women loved by Dr Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. I don't think Hollywood should so drastically change a classic. I am not finished the movie yet. So far there isn't any mention of the little girl or Sir Danvers. Maybe I need to finish the movie.

Spencer Tracy does a fine job. It's hard to believe he is playing Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. To me, ST looks so different as Mr. Hyde.

I think Steven King, on his good days, could hold his own with horror fiction authors of the 19th century. His books The Shining, It, The Stand....Whew!

I was curious about the use of the word "cabinet" for Dr. Jekyll's lab or office. It reminded me of "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," another of the horror genre. I had to look the word up. One definition of "cabinet" is: "Archaic. A small or private room set aside for a specific activity."

I enjoyed this discussion very much. Thank you, Bill, for guiding us along. This was fun!

Marni

Bill, Thanks for doing such a great job leading the discussion of a story we all though we knew so well at the start. Many interesting points were brought up that caused me to think again about my former simplistic view of this tale. Thanks to all the participants, too. See you all at the next mystery gathering.

Scrawler

"If indeed good and evil is within our souls to begin with, than when Jekyll tried to estract his evil side why did the evil side become stronger? Perhaps this was do to the fact that our good and evil sides are not equal to begin with."

I think it was because Henry Jekyll was not a socially pleasant person and when his inhibitions were released in the form of Hyde, his evil side knew no self restraint.

Although, Stevenson goes to great lengths to describe how small Hyde was in relation to Jekyll. He described Hyde as short of stature wearing clothes of Jekyll that was far to big for him.

Kleo

I did a Poe story a few years ago. The Murders in the Rue Morgue." were you one of the participants? Maybe I can do another come fall or winter.

Hats

If you liked the Spencer Tracy move, you'll love the Frederic March movie (I got it through the library. They follow similar lines but March does a much better job as Hyde. Although, Ingrid Berman played a far better role as Ivy Pearson than Miriam Hopkins.

The Fredric March movie showed in 1931 and he won an Oscar for his part in the movie. The Tracy movie showed in 1941.

And, no, neither movie is the same as the novel. The producers and play writes relied heavily on the sex angle, especially in the Tracy/Bergman movie.

Bill H

Marnie

I liked King also. I liked "The Shining" best of all but his "Green Mile" is a classic.

I was fortunate that the footnotes in the introduction of my edition, the writer took the time to explain "Cabinet."

Marnie, and Horselover

Thank you for participating in this discussion your interesting posts helped make it a success.

Bill H

Bill,

No I wasn't here back then. Great story, though, Murders in the Rue Morgue. I'm always up for Poe.

Kleo

Bill, You asked if Chemical inbalance is Hereditary ? Well if it is in the Gene bank of a certain family a person might pass it on to his or her children or perhaps a Grandchild or Great Grandchild. There is no way of really knowing. Often a Bi-Polar disorder (Manic-Depression) is found generationally or Schizophrenia , in certain cases is found in a family when you do a Genogram (family tree). However it" ain't neccessarily so".

In other words it might appear or it might not, like so many diseases. However there are descriptions of many of these diseases going back as far as ancient Egyptian writings, so they have always been with us and sadly. always will. In modern times numerous medications have been developed to fight these disorders and new and more efficient ones are being invented every year.

In the years that RLS wrote there were no scientific explanation or discovery around mental illness so inventing stories about them was a pastime of many writers of the day.

Personally, I don't usually read horror but this story was so well crafted that it was a great pleasure to reread it and discuss it with the group. Thank you for leading this discussion.

Judy