What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)
1–10 of 87 posts
Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)
#2I've never even read that book, but I probably should.
As it's described in the article, I see many parallels with today's anonymised internet culture - we can be someone else, someone who doesn't have to fear any consequences for what he says, we can lie on the internet to (try to) form other's perception of ourselves, thus being whoever we want to be.
But ultimately it's still the same person making those decisions, typing those words and decepting those other people, who may not be all that honest themselves.
Not to be compared with murder, obviously, but I feel like the same principle applies.
Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)
#3This is all absolutely correct, but what I feel it misses is that the mythic power of the story lies in our enjoying it, reading it naively. In other words we deliberately read it ourselves in repressed mode. If we read it the first time with the kind of clarity suggested here then we don't actually feel its power: we are merely interested - rather than complicit.
Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)
#4This is dead on target.
It's also why I found the TV series _Angel_ (the _Buffy_ spin-off) so unsatisfying. There is a truly fascinating story to be told about a vampire whose soul has been restored to him, and who is always at war with his own evil nature. But _Angel_ is not it. Instead, the eponymous character is essentially entirely good except when some supernatural agency transforms him back into Angelus, his evil form. All the conflict is externalised.
That's a particularly surprising and disappointing mis-step given _Angel_'s provenance. Joss Whedon is exactly the kind of person who I'd have expected to be interested in exploring the _inherent_ contradictions within the Angel character, and showing how they are analogous to the questions that we all face.
Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)
#5The 2010's version of this is a well-educated, well-raised, mild-mannered, socially-liberal, employed, tech-savvy millennial who starts on 4chan, moves on to /r/redpill and /r/mensrights, graduates to trolling and doxxing women on twitter, all for the LULZ.
Eventually his freedom to "act as he can't in real life" leads to electing Donald Trump and a full on embracement of the alt-right agenda.
Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)
#6I've never even read that book, but I probably should. As it's described in the article, I see many parallels with today's anonymised internet culture - we can be someone else, someone who doesn't have to fear any consequences for what he says, we can lie on the internet to (try to) form other's perception of ourselves, thus being whoever we want to be. But ultimately it's still the same person making those decisions…
Dr Jeckyll and Mr Troll?
Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)
#7This is dead on target. It's also why I found the TV series _Angel_ (the _Buffy_ spin-off) so unsatisfying. There is a truly fascinating story to be told about a vampire whose soul has been restored to him, and who is always at war with his own evil nature. But _Angel_ is not it. Instead, the eponymous character is essentially entirely good except when some supernatural agency transforms him back into Angelus, his ev…
Thanks - I just thought of Angel, the series "boring". I think that is why. (And Buffy, the series, excellent, btw.)
Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)
#8This is all absolutely correct, but what I feel it misses is that the mythic power of the story lies in our enjoying it, reading it naively. In other words we deliberately read it ourselves in repressed mode. If we read it the first time with the kind of clarity suggested here then we don't actually feel its power: we are merely interested - rather than complicit.
Deep, and good!
Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)
#9I've never even read that book, but I probably should. As it's described in the article, I see many parallels with today's anonymised internet culture - we can be someone else, someone who doesn't have to fear any consequences for what he says, we can lie on the internet to (try to) form other's perception of ourselves, thus being whoever we want to be. But ultimately it's still the same person making those decisions…
> As it's described in the article, I see many parallels with today's anonymised internet culture - we can be someone else, someone who doesn't have to fear any consequences for what he says, we can lie on the internet to (try to) form other's perception of ourselves, thus being whoever we want to be.
See also the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory" from 2004:
Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)
#10I have at times wondered if age do not bring better behavior, just an improved ability to hide the bad behavior.