Live data from Hacker News

What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

tor.com

21–30 of 87 posts

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#21

I'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…

I would just add that internet requires some effort (great effort) to find the original person.

And in the book, the distiction is a bit different: whatever someone does in "real life", his body, face, voice... it's all the same. In small villages it's impossible to hide. In bigger cities at that time, it wasn't so big, people still know each other among his social circle. And it was easy to notice someone leaving his own circle and appearing in another.

So, what internet gives you as a basic (easy to be anonymous, in the sense that commmon people perceive it, I'm not talking about using tor and so on), Jekyll had to blame on his drink. And blaming saves his face: wasn't he blaming it, he couldn't say that the "monster" was doing things that, in the end, he was trying to.... hyde.

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#23
post #3

This 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.

Astute observation, succinctly put. I would additionally add that it also works the other way; if a story's themes and metaphors are too clear before the story is over, it can damage suspension of disbelief and hurt enjoyment.

This is one reason why the typical teaching methodology of a US high school English class typically has the effect of blunting the enjoyment of classic literature - students are not usually given the chance to read the story in its entirety before it is dissected to death, chapter by chapter.

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#27
post #7

This 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.)

Agreed that Buffy does this, like so much else, just right. It's why I had such high hopes of Angel.

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#28
Seems the only plausible explanation of the recent "Las Vegas massacre": described by friends & family as a perfect nice guy (rich even), the few records revealed so far indicate he led a possibly violent double life - culminating a self-destructive slaughter. Doctor Jekyll kept up the pure front to indulge his Hyde desires with no further ulterior motive; likewise perhaps Stephen Paddock, in an unsatisfying truth, committed horrors simply because he wanted to.

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#29

This 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…

I think a modern fictional character that would come closer to the Jekyll-and-Hyde relationship as espoused in the parent article is the CW show Arrow . Oliver Queen is a harmless playboy in the public view (and in the last season, the mayor of his city), but he puts on the hood and does things, sometimes unspeakable things like torture and murder, in order to achieve his greater goal of "saving his city" from crime…

Thanks for the tip -- I'll try Arrow.

Re: What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)

#30

This 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…

Interestingly, I feel that the character of Angel/Angelus, with his entirely black/white toggle-switch morality, is actually just acting as a foil to all of the other characters, almost becoming a supporting character in his own show! I don't think this is accidental either.
Post reply on HN