Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Thread!!!

I've been meaning to get this up for days...wait let me correct that....for WEEKS! anyways...just had to channel my stress into a device that had no feelings....one of my favorite texts ever is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde...so I've decided to start a thread on it...
Opening ideas:As seen in Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Kingsolver’s The Poisonwood Bible, the theme of a dual nature is an imperative concept. Dr. Jekyll has learned to “recognise the thorough and primitive duality of man” (Stevenson 43). Adah as claims that as tall and straight [she] may appear[,]… she is a crooked little person trying to tell the truth” (Kingsolver 496). The mere truth that Ada, the evil side, is trying to reveal is that civilization consists of “illusion mistaken for truth” (532). One of those illusions is that there is no such thing as the dual nature of humans. However, one should not be fooled for everyone, not just Dr. Jekyll, contains “two natures that [contend] in the field of [one’s] consciousness” (Stevenson 43). One does not need travel to the Congo nor does one need to swallow a special potion to have an evil side because it is already residing within each member of the human race.
*However feel free to discuss whatever comes to mind.
:yawnb:

Good point.

Each and every person does have an evil side, but most people are lucky enough that they can control this evil. However, this doesn't mean that it's not there.

Now the question becomes how to get rid of this evil, if indeed getting rid of it is the best way to deal with it. Kingsolver and Stevenson try to show us the best way to deal with this evil in two very different ways.

Adah's personal journey becomes one of the focal points of Kingsolver's novel. When Adah's evil side is released in the Congo, it nearly grows to consume her. However, Adah recognizes this and manages to gain control of her evil when she returns to the United States. But then, she finds that her attempts to eliminate this evil leave her feeling that she has eliminated a part of herself, which is completely true. Adah concludes that evil is and always will be a part of each person, and that the only way to control evil is to balance it with good.

Dr. Jekyll's potion upsets the balance between good and evil in his soul, which ultimately destroys him. He recognizes too late that this balance must be maintained in order for a person to survive. in his final statement, he attempts to show the reader that though evil can never be cleansed from the soul, it can be balanced with good.

Both authors show that evil is an essential part of each person and that evil must be balanced with good.

Exactly. I do agree with that and to relate that back to the Crucible (the thread you started), one will always stink with the taint of original sin for it cannot be washed no matter how hard one tries...but what do u think about the duality of good and evil...do u believe that there is a duality, or do you believe that man is truly one: live evil that is tamed by societal restrictions and laws as Lord of the Flies portrayed?

I think, and this is not supported with any textual evidence or anything, the Robert Louis Stevenson was trying to show that although humans are truly two different personalities, the personalities are comingled into one person, and in a sebse, they are one. Only in the extreme case of Mr. Hyde was anyone able to seperate the evil elements of thier soul from the good. I think Stevenson showed that although humans bear the burden of having two completely different personalities, these personalities have to coexist and establish a working balance to maintain the sanity of the individual, in effect creating a single personality, much like the United States is one country, but made up of several different states.

So, I noticed that the color change in the book not only represents the change the giving of true life to Jekyll (indicated by change from red to green), but it also could symbolize the different moods of the novel.
Quote: "The mixture, which was at first of a reddish hue, began, in proportion as the crystals melted, to brighten in colour, to effervesce audibly, and to throw off small fumes of vapour. Suddenly and at the same moment, the ebullition ceased and the compound changed to a dark purple, which faded again more slowly to a watery green" (Stevenson 40). The red represents evil..bloody. This relates to the beginning of the novel because the beginning describes the incident of Hyde trampling the little girl. The white (a symbol of purity and goodness) crystals melting could represent the melting of goodness in Jekyll. The vapour and dark purple color represents the fog and the mystery (represented by the dark purple) in the novel. For those who hadn't read/ heard of the plot dealing with Jekyll being Hyde, this mystery was probably a feeling that was aroused during the middle of the novel to the mid-end. (Ex: Who is Hyde?). Then, the green foreshadows at this point that good will ultimately prevail.
just some thoughts

man, y'all need more people talking in here. yeah, i know, slightly off topic, but i'm just that cool. :banana:

~christina~

p.s.--ok, so hp4ever! is 'kita, but who is neo93? ok, thnx ^^

so, lets try relating this book to other texts that we've read...for instance, The Crucible. In both texts, we see that they have mentioned (directly/indirectly) the ideology of original sin....any thoughts as to why?

Something I find interesting about the duality aspect that you're talking about in J&H is that even after Jekyll splits, there is still a weird duality. Hyde apparently is completely evil, yet he can control himself in social situations when necessary. He's able to sit with the girl's family until morning in order to pay them, and he controls himself with Utterson--for the most part. Jekyll, on the other hand, cannot be completely good--even after Hyde has been created. There is a part of him that truly enjoys Hyde's existence; that doesn't seem good to me. So is Stevenson telling us that our duality is somehow infinitely reproducing itself so that not only are we both good and evil, but that we're all essentially schizophrenic personalities who have no control over our goodness or evil?

Can't wait to read this and take part in the discussion - on my way out this evening but will check in later or tomorrow. I just read the book last month.

hp 4ever!, If we're comparing J&H to other texts, what about Scarlet Letter? One (maybe too obvious) connection is the similarities between Hyde's appearance and Chillingworth's appearance in SL. But interestingly, it's Jekyll, not Hyde, who has the same profession as Chillingworth. Hmmm...

As far as Scarlett Letter and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, there are so many similarities between Jekyll/Hyde and Dimmesdale/Chillingworth. Jekyll and Dimmesdale are both very respected men who are HYDEING (haha.. pun) something considered evil and sinful. For Jekyll, that secret is Hyde himself and all the bad Hyde is associated with (because it is in the end Jekyll's responsibility). Although Dimmesdale and Chillingworth are not one in the same, Dimmesdale's biggest sin was associated with Chillingworth, because he had an affair with Chillingworth's wife.
Both Hyde and Chillingworth also hide something- their true identities. These two characters are the embodiment of evil, and are associated with two respected, humans who have made mistakes. Hyde and Chillingworth continue through their respected stories slowly eating away at the person they are associated with.

Jekyll and Dimmesdale can also be related in that they both were killed by their secrets. Dimmesdale's secret sin slowly ate away his soul. He tortured himself for bringing that sin upon himself and it eventually picked his soul clean. After his confession, he had to die in order to become free of his sin. In the same sense, Jekyll died in order to free himself from his evil. Jekyll's secret was the creation of Hyde. Hyde literally tortured and picked at Jekyll until Jekyll slowly lost control. In the end, Jekyll knew the only way to free himself from Hyde was suicide. Both these men had to rid and clean themselves of evil and sin by ridding themselves of their lives.

Okay, this is not exactly where the thread's going, but about J&H and PB:
One common link b/w J&H and Adah is that the entire situation & dilemma is in their heads. Adah's left side of her brain is not really "shriveled up like a prune." In fact, the left side of her brain, which controls reasoning, writing, and mathematical skills, is amazingly sharp. She's very intelligent. Her right brain, which is characterized by creativity and imagination, is also fully developed. Therefore, this whole "Woe-is-me/Leah ruined my life" has no sound basis.
As for Jekyll and Hyde... I think that self-control is the key to Jekyll's transformations. J starts automatically turning into H when he loses his resolve to be good. It's easier to let H take control and responsibility for J. J falls so low that he has himself convinced that he cannot turn back into Jekyll. It's all in state of mind.

in response to the whole Adah J&H thing, it seems to me like Adah is Hyde and Leah is Jekyll, but instead of transforming into one another, they are separate identities in two different bodies. Leah, like Jekyll, represents a regular human who seems mostly good. Adah is the darker twin, known as the sinful one in the eyes of her sisters. She is also considered disfigured, like Hyde.

I have read the book years ago and was excited at what I got there in the book, something really thrilling, the outpourings of all that we have concealing and still we do, the sinner or real part of us. And all we do now is pretentious things, and we lie to ourselves and to others. We all have more capacities for evils. We are hypocrites under the skin despite the fact that we become charismatic and cherish something or some attributes of peace ambassadors.

I like this book and still I find it really thrilling.

Although Adah seems like the darker twin, I don't think you can honestly label her like that. Both Adah and Leah change. Adah is pessimistic, but she's def not evil. Adah is extremely misunderstood. She does not conform to society's standards, and, as a consequence, is seen as a threat. Adah really cares for the the Congolese. She sees her old lifestyle as extremely lavish. (The brands of toothpaste example) She values all life--later on in the book when she quits her job as a doctor because she cannot stand the fact that people's lives in the US are being saved when there are so many deaths in Africa.

Leah actually becomes darker. When her faith in her dad is shaken, she loses faith in everything else except her love, Anatole. She gives up the idea of religion even. So, in this sense, A&L switch places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckduckgoose

in response to the whole Adah J&H thing, it seems to me like Adah is Hyde and Leah is Jekyll, but instead of transforming into one another, they are separate identities in two different bodies. Leah, like Jekyll, represents a regular human who seems mostly good. Adah is the darker twin, known as the sinful one in the eyes of her sisters. She is also considered disfigured, like Hyde.

---

duckduck,

Excellent, interesting thinking about Leah as Jekyll and Adah as Hyde. Adah certainly has the Hyde-like "deformity." But I think I might see Adah more as Jekyll than Hyde for a couple of reasons. One, I think that Adah tortures herself to do the right thing despite her handicaps or her lack of belief in God. But more importantly, in a way Adah creates Leah. Yes, I know they're sisters, so they didn't create each other, but Leah is the "enemy" to Adah only because Adah blames her taking her potential nourishment. Leah really is no one's enemy; she's a victim of her own adoration of her "Father"--both God and Nathan. Nathan has so misled her that Leah can only act based on her understanding of religion, which she dutifully tries to uphold. I think Adah creates Leah as an enemy so that she can depend on her own lack of balance, which as mzmarymack points out, really isn't that legit. She has almost ultimate balance.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this. Can I just say that I adore PB?

RLS also wrote Treasure Island, right? So why is J&H slammed with symbols and meant to influence while TI is just a children's book?

Oh, marymack, you're right that TI probably isn't as loaded as J&H, but it's far from just a children's book. There's a sophisticated adventure story with a discussion of several broader topics embedded in what seems to be a simple book. It's kind of like The Wizard of Oz--definitely more than just a children's story.

Okay.

And I agree with TOKprof. Adah does create Leah. Leah would not be the same person if Adah didn't hold her responsible for her (Adah's) disability.
Adah says, "Such childhood energy I spent on feeling betrayed. By the world in general, Leah in particular. Betrayal bent me in one direction while guilt bent her the other way. We constructed out lives around a misunderstanding, and if ever I tried to pull it out and fix it now I would fall down flat." (pg IDK)

Leah's relationship with Adah is a big part of her. Leah's guilt could have very well made her need a God to believe in, a God to beg forgiveness to. Nathan's God seems to be the outlet for Leah's guilt. If she and Adah had a healthy relationship, Leah may have never needed to lean on her father's God. Who knows what she would be like without all that guilt?

OH! I just realized this is the J&H thread. My bad haha.
So Jekyll, in creating Hyde, defines Hyde. Can I say that?
Yes, Hyde is evil. But maybe he's evil because Jekyll made him evil?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TOKprof

hp 4ever!, If we're comparing J&H to other texts, what about Scarlet Letter? One (maybe too obvious) connection is the similarities between Hyde's appearance and Chillingworth's appearance in SL. But interestingly, it's Jekyll, not Hyde, who has the same profession as Chillingworth. Hmmm...

---

Wow, I can't believe I didn't notice all of the wonderful comments made on this thread!! SO EXCITED!!
umm...However, in regards to this comment TOKprof, I believe that physical appearance is a key attribute in defining a character. In a sense, I have always believed it to be a means of foreshadowing. For instance, the quote "eyes are the window to the soul" could easily be applied here except I would replace "eyes" with "appearances." Therefore, I believe that the imperfections in the respective appearances of Hyde and Jekyll foreshadow the imperfections of their soul and morals. Furthermore, in literature those have such imperfections in their appearances also seem to have a major conflict involving revenge (e.g. Chillingworth wanted revenge on Dimmesdale. Jekyll and Hyde wanted revenge on Dr. Lanyon for ridiculing them). Perhaps this revengeful attempt demonstrates the evil internal vices and flaws. Hence, in order to exact their revenge successfully and furtively, they need to be in a position with the societal status, wealth, and physical means to ensure that the deed is executed with minimal suspicion. And I must proclaim that the job of a physician is absolutely perfect for this because they have the influence, the wealth, and the cover-up of a medical accident (since they were more common in those days) to get away with their dirty work. That maybe a bit of a stretch...but that's all I can think of to explain the correlation between the occupation and the appearance.

This definitely is not just a Jekyll and Hyde thread! Please, feel free to relate this novella to others for that in my opinion is a major component of literature! :)

So, in regards to the question posed by TOKprof about the SL and JH similarities…here are my thoughts that I briefly came up with. Oh, and my knowledge about SL is a bit shady so please correct any erroneous content (although I did receive a lot of help from fire101):

I found it intriguing that the authors shared some techniques. Firstly, the name symbolism in both novels is quite blatant. These authors provided names to characters that didn’t even exist, and didn’t even try to bring much attention to their supposed existence. Yet, interestingly enough, these names aren’t the generic “I am trying to blend in” type of names. On the contrary, they are quite unique and lugubrious. Hence, I thought this was quite ironic. But I also think that the names were provided in order to supplement the dramatic irony of the novels. For instance, when I think of “hyde” I automatically consider it to be a pun for “hide.” Therefore, I know to look out for that particular character and to expect some furtive and “chilling” action. Therefore, when we initially get the hideous actions of the characters, we’re expecting it to some extent due to the connotation of their names. Yet, we the audience are initially first in on it (Meaning, the audience is the only one that truly knows Hyde and Chillingworth along with their motives in the beginning=dramatic irony! Everything fits perfectly because hideous name=expectation of hideous action. We realize the dramatic irony right off the bat since we’re not in shock or anything..hopefully).

I don’t if that makes sense because my previous explanation that got deleted was MUCH better. What I am basically saying is that because we get the name and the additional comments on the name from various characters and/or classmates, we are able to expect the actions of the character. Hence, we aren’t surprised due to the fact that we have greater knowledge about the characters’ names and their actions than the other characters in the book. So, in a sense, the goal of dramatic irony (which is to get the audience members to know a greater amount than the other characters in the novel) is achieved initially with the introduction of the name.

Also, the authors implement a consistent feature in order to relay the suspense and mystery affiliated with particular scenes.
A common feature is the setting of literal darkness. A key scene in both of the novels has occurred under the cover of darkness (Hester, Pearl, and Dimmesdale meet. Hyde tramples people).Hence, I initially found it ironic that the gaining of knowledge took place at dark since the gaining of knowledge is often portrayed by a lighted scene to represent joy and fulfillment. Yet, once again it is also important to remember that darkness represents obscurity, which explains why the scene occurred at night. However, after examining knowledge differently from Balzac and Blake’s songs of experiences, I began to wonder as to whether the authors were portraying that knowledge was instead evil that robbed one of one’s innocence for as Balzac dictated: once you gain knowledge, you are too tainted to turn back. So, my question is..Is the knowledge in SL and JH something that causes one to lose their innocence of the world (learn about the evilness), or is it highly beneficial?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hp 4ever!

Balzac dictated: once you gain knowledge, you are too tainted to turn back. So, my question is..Is the knowledge in SL and JH something that causes one to lose their innocence of the world (learn about the evilness), or is it highly beneficial?

---

Why can it not be both?
Knowledge seems to always lead to a loss of innocence to different extents for different situations.
As we grow older, we realize the world is not how it seems. cliche, i know. however, we see this everywhere. In J&H, Dr. Landon (I believe that was his name... landen maybe?) was naive until he found jekyll's secret. this knowledge literally killed him. therefore, in this situation, knowledge was not too beneficial...

the perfect example of knowledge as the loss of innocence and knowledge as a source of hope is in The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini. When Amir learns that Hassan was his brother, he gets so angry. And with a sound reason. Amir says "Baba had been a thief. And a thief of the worst kind, because the things he'd stolen had been sacred: from me the right to know i had a brother, from Hassan his identity, and from Ali his honor" (225). He loses innocence when he learns of his father's past. However, he gains an understanding. "Baba and I were more alike than I'd ever known. We had both betrayed the people who would have given their lives for us" (226). He comes to learn about his father. It's not something one would want to deal with, but by having to face Baba's sin, Amir becomes stronger and takes a step onto "the right path." In addition, Amir gains a chance to redeem himself and his father by rescuing Hassan's son.

I realize that wasn't SL or J&H... For SL, hiding the truth did no one any good. Dimmesdale seemed to suffer the worst for it. When he told the truth, he in a way absolved himself. he broke the hold that chillingsworth had on him. yes, he did die, but i'm guessing he found more solace in death than in life. And Pearl even accepted him--she kissed him.

:banana:In addition to the duality of human nature one can find many other common themes in Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (DJMH) and Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible (PB), one being the actual physical deformity of Mr. Hyde and Ada (as Adah so fondly refers to her crooked self). In How to Read Literature Like a Professor , Thomas C. Foster says that any physical mark or imperfection in literature differentiates a character from others "thematically, metaphorically, or spiritually"(193). This idea of one being "marked for greatness" also can mean that one's deformity allows one special abilities and powers, as seen in superheros like Spiderman and all of the glorious X-men. Mr. Hyde in DJMH and Ada in PB both have physical deformities that, despite the duration of their existence, allow both characters to experience the world and become enlightened in ways unknown to their relatives and friends. In Jekyll's full statement of the case he talks about the freedom that he experiences with the transformative potion and the rush he feels at knowing that, despite all his naughty and monstrous behavior, at the intake of the draught, "Edward Hyde would pass away like the stain of breath upon the mirror"(46). Though he is enslaved by it and ultimately led to his demise, Jekyll's juice is initially a saviour to the doctor, delivering him from his world of etiquette and morals and allowing him to explore his every erotic, violent, and animalistic desire. Ada, suffering from what is later revealed as a mental disorder of sorts, is granted the gift of hemiplegia that, along with a "strong sympathy for Dr. Jekyll's dark desires and for Mr. Hyde's crooked body"(57), gives Ada a slower pace in life that often results in her being left behind. Her "slow body" rhythm allows Ada to take in the Congo culturally, politically, and spiritually more than any other member of her family. She finds that, without a quick pace to match her sister, her family, and the world around her, she discovers sights of her own that give a depth, beauty, and balance to life, things that Ada seaches for in herself. Both Mr. Hyde's and Ada's crooked bodies are what bring them to the thresholds in their quests for what Foster calls the real reason all characters go on quests: self-knowledge. It is Jekyll's experience with his juice that forms the medium in his dual nature that teaches him the truth about the duality of man and the danger in "playing God" and "deals with the devil", spiritual ailments that Foster discusses in another chapter of his book. Ada's crooked body is what causes her to be trampled in the ant attack on the village of Kilanga. As she fights in the crowd for survival, Ada realizes that her apathetic, spectator role is really a lie and that she believes she deserves to live just like all other living things, transforming her outlook on life and propelling her into a new self that takes action and lives purposefully. This comparison can be made to any of the members of the Price family, as all have physical and/or emotional scars that dramatically affect the course of their lives. Both pieces of literature show the significance that deformities give to the lives of literary characters and the greater emphasis they can make in those characters' quest for self-knowledge. :wave:

Im doing course wor on this and was wondering if anyone could give me any similiraties between hyde and jekyll...
:D
Having trouble finding some...
Please help!!!

I loved this novel- it's far more than a tale of good versus evil. It looks at questions of community, hypocritical repression, science and the depravity that lurks under respectability.

Do you believe homosexuality was represented in Mr. Hyde since he was the embodiment of sinful acts during the Victorian era?

What kind of question is that? If your just going to joke around this thread or rather this entire website isn't for you please leave and take your impaired way of thinking with you...

Let's attempt to keep this civic even if his question is not very compelling.