To be honest, I was considerably bored with Jekyll and Hyde until page 45 of this 61 page story. However, after page 45 I found the “mystery” more engaging. The exploration of “the two parts” presented in this book wasn’t my favorite (by far), but I do appreciate it. I’m also starting to appreciate the blogs more as well now. Thanks to Kyle’s blog, I understand the framing/narration aspect much better now having a new perspective. So I shall wait to make a decision about the book until after the lecture and seminars. Alas, here are some of the thoughts this book left me with:

Even when taking the mixture, Jekyll never “looses” or disassociates himself from Hyde completely; he always knows that Hyde exists and is still a part of him. The penman-ship of Jekyll and Hyde is an interesting aspect. Hyde has pretty much identical hand writing to Jekyll, or is it the other way around? How can you determine whose handwriting it is, if both parts were once one, but this one physical attribute appears to be one of the only remaining aspects of Jekyll’s being.  Is the cause of Jekyll’s “fall/death” because remnants of the evil that thrive in Hyde, are still present in Jekyll, so he still does not consist of “one pure and one evil” portion, but one evil and one contaminated portion?

But at the same time as Jekyll recognizes his “attachment” with Hyde, he also kind of denounces it as once being a part of him that changes to something completely other. At the beginning of his experiences as Hyde, he completely embraces both personalities and even works to remedy the conscience of the other. However, as he loses his ability of voluntary change, I understood him to recognize Hyde as Satan due to his visit with Lanyon when he says “your sight shall be blasted by a prodigy to stagger the unbelief of Satan”(p.46). This makes me wonder if Jekyll began to see  Hyde as a creature that was no longer just himself, but proof that Satan does exist. This reminds me of exorcisms and an attempt to “rid the body of the evil being residing within”. I wonder if this is story is merely a spin off of old tales of evil spirits, as an explanation for them. It is almost as if Stevenson is trying to say that we all have “Satan” already living within us, and all that is needed is a catalyst for our own form of Satan to appear.

Ah…duality; it gets me every time. Stevenson wrote this book on the basis that every human has two sides to them (Good and Evil), and it’s certainly an interesting contrast to texts from Freud, Nietzsche, Hobbes, and Rousseau (well, maybe not Rousseau). The syntax and vocabulary are okay, the pacing is horrendous, the main plot device ridiculous, and the climax is more of an anticlimax than anything. Maybe it’s because I had an idea of the plot beforehand, but I doubt that Stevenson was trying very hard to keep us from guessing the twist (the title makes it pretty obvious). So…with that said, how am I going to fill the rest of this blog? Hmm…

Society, as Freud, Hobbes, Rousseau, and probably Nietzsche says, is a restraint of natural freedoms. We allow ourselves to be constrained under laws and customs, depriving ourselves of much as a result. The two payoffs for this, however, are significant: in exchange for our freedom, we gain security and the ascetic ideal of morality. The first is a strong shelter that gives us the confidence to go about our lives in a way that would be impossible in an openly hostile environment, while the second is a source of pleasure and contentment that can only be achieved in a commonwealth. For Dr. Jekyll, however, these two benefits are not enough. He is a prominent man—strong, smart, wealthy—and has grown up in such a way that his fear of losing security has weakened. He takes pleasure in the ascetic ideal, but that pleasure is no longer enough. He needs something else, and yet, he also wants to keep what he already has. Sound selfish? It most certainly is—and he pays the price for that selfishness in the end. Putting that aside for now, though, what drives him to take such a suspicious drug? Couldn’t he just wear a trench coat or something and do his “bad” things under cover of darkness? No, he can’t…because then, he would lose his ascetic ideal. He would know that it is “him” doing the bad things, not the “other guy” who is undoubtedly also him but is not identified as him. He wants the best of both worlds without the consequences of either, and it is this denial of responsibility that ultimately leads to his downfall. Because Jekyll and Hyde are essentially the same person, it’s only natural that the boundary between them isn’t absolute (the boundary between Good and Evil is hardly absolute either). A reversal occurs in which Hyde becomes the undrugged form and Jekyll the drugged one, resulting in a fitting and cliché end to a moral tale. What’s interesting, however, is that there is an appearance of different personalities associated with the change in form. Is this true? Does the drug really create this “Hyde” persona, or does it, in fact, only facilitate a biological shift in its user? Is not “Hyde,” then, just a figment of the imagination? Does Jekyll have a split personality disorder? Who, in the end, was the one that committed suicide? 

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde has become one of those iconic works that stain the imagination of every individual. Like Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll’s chilling transformations into his malicious alter ego are so engrained in popular culture, that it is not uncommon to hear the characters’ names used in common, everyday speech. Aside from Kafka, this text was one that I was greatly looking forward to working with, simply because it is a work that stuck with me throughout my childhood.

The story delves into some very disturbing ideas regarding our own psychological traits. The complete demonization of seemingly innocent Dr. Jekyll demonstrates a certain monstrosity within each of us. Through simple experimentation, Jekyll releases a beast within him that he realizes will take on a life of its own. How horrifying is it that this beast is lurking within such a humdrum, average individual? This suggests that there is an innate evil within each one of us, just waiting to be released from the prison of our morality. As well, we can see in Jekyll the constraint society places on the individual. Societal norms and our own vanity prevent the majority of us from unleashing our own Mr. Hyde. After all, it was under the cover of secrecy that Jekyll’s Hyde committed these treacherous acts, and the doctor felt contented in knowing that no one would ever discover his dirty little secret. Despite the complaints of Rousseau regarding the negativity of society, this work demonstrates Hobbes’ theory, in that society restrains the beast as we conform to societal ideals. If we were all in a state of nature where no one cared at all about public appearance, then who’s to say that we woudn’t act like Mr. Hyde, contented by the facade we put up.

I completely loved every moment of this book. It dealt with real psychological issues regarding an innate evil within each of us, just waiting to be unleashed. It also demonstrated how, without a strong sense of self, our evil nature can possess and override all emotion, thrusting us into the pits of darkness and despair. How do we not know that our own Mr. Hyde’s are not simply waiting within, lusting after the moment when they can break free of their moral prison and fullfill the evil desires of their hearts?

Jekyll’s idea that man is not one but “two” is interesting because it is as if he took the idea of the duality of human beings and turned it into a science experiment. Humans are by nature capable of both good and evil and because of this in every one human it could appear that two different individuals could come out of one singular entity – I think that Dr. Jekyll took this idea of human duality and a little too far and instead of discovering something incredible he discovered the unnatural. The reason humans are so dual is because one individual is then capable of both good and bad and thus one individual is not left wholely on one side. If individuals were defined by good and bad and incapable of being the opposite than the world would be an incredibly difficult place to live in. There would be a large distinction between people which would result in the world itself being divided into strict good and bad people (for example good people would not be able to do anything ‘bad’ and vice versa) which means that minds could not be changed and people would not longer learn to control their bad qualities and instead would begin to believe that because they were the ‘bad’ half of the unit their actions would have no consequences because it would be in their nature to be evil.

While reading Robert Louis Stevenson’s novel my mind kept going back to the idea of Jack the Ripper, the serial killer who plagued London and walked the streets at night but was never caught. While this novel might be completely unrelated the idea of Mr. Hyde walking the streets at night and hurting first the young girl and then killing the prominent gentleman and then completely disappearing. Jack the Ripper was never found and convicted of the heinous crimes he committed he could really have been anyone. The idea that this criminal could, in the darkness, commit such crimes and yet at the same time never be found out because he could have been anyone in the daylight. This case seems familiar to that of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde where Mr. Hyde disappeared and actually was Dr. Jekyll the whole time. The idea that someone who could commit those horrible crimes could at the same time be someone with such a renowned and proper reputation.

After reading On the Genealogy of Morals, A Discourse on Inequality, and Leviathan, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde was a very welcome change! I’ve always been much more into reading novels like Frankenstein or Robinson Crusoe over philosophical texts. Despite the fact that this was my first time actually reading the original version of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, I had actually encountered the storyline before in cartoons. So no, fortunately my childhood did not suck!

I think one of the questions Stevenson asks is: Are humans naturally good or evil? Mr Hyde represents the “evil” side to humanity whereas Dr Jekyll is the “good” side. Now, over time, the identity of Mr Hyde subsumes Dr Jekyll despite the fact that the former is a great deal shorter than the latter. Dr Jekyll struggles to retain his “good” persona as he is continually tormented by his inner Mr Hyde. Is Stevenson trying to say that the evil eventually triumphs over the good because of Mr Hyde emerging as the dominant personality? He’s rather ambiguous because Dr Jekyll kills Mr Hyde by committing suicide. Dr Jekyll does “triumph” over Mr Hyde in one way, but had he gone on living, Mr Hyde becomes the alpha figure.

Another theme that occurs in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is a theme already covered in Frankenstein, where the pursuit of creating another life has fatal consequences (aka. people dying). The creation in Frankenstein kills Victor’s bride, father (indirectly), brother and friend. Mr Hyde murders a popular politician. Isn’t it odd how we’re reading such novels in university? These books practically scream at the reader: DO NOT VENTURE FURTHER IN THE PURSUIT OF KNOWLEDGE, whereas university is seen as an institution for advanced research and learning! People enrol in university courses for the sake of learning, and clearly, these books convey the message that this is a dangerous thing to do.

The “monster” in this novel is slightly harder to define than Frankenstein. In Frankenstein, it was easy to sympathize with the “monster” because he was born good but turned to crime because he was denied human understanding and companionship. Mr Hyde was “born” evil. He had Dr Jekyll’s affections but he ignored them. Is the monster Mr Hyde, who is composed of a person’s innate evilness, or is Dr Jekyll to blame for creating him? Or is the real monster curiosity, which drives us to pursue knowledge we shouldn’t have? The great thing about novels is that they’re much easier to carry a discussion with because the answers are more debatable, whereas books on philosophy (aka. Plato’s “Republic”) in a way force the reader to view things in a certain way.

After a month of philosophical texts, I was incredibly pleased to read a nice streamlined work of fiction, and not be forced to decipher cryptic meanings and struggle with my own moral opinions. I’ve read Stevenson before, and was pleased that I enjoyed the story a second time, but an unfortunate after-effect is how much I’ve grown to resent this topic we’ve been focusing on for the last 5 readings. I used to love to ponder the question of how much our natural drive effects us in our decision and actions in everyday life, or whether or not I’d be the same person or soul if I was raised by different parents in different places. But Nietzsche, Hobbes, Rousseau, and Shelley have completely exhausted my excitement and will to even talk about it anymore. No more Good vs. Evil, Man vs. Primal Man! Bad Air, Bad Air! So instead I will talk about everything in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde that doesn’t have to do our primal instincts. Too bad it’s the centre theme of the novel…

What I’ve always liked about novels like this is the choice of narration. The narrator is Utterson; a definition of blandness. He has no wife, no kids, no opinions, simple guiding emotions and little to no back story. He is you or I, anyone’s free to enter his flesh. He follows the similar traits of Nick Carraway from The Great Gatsby, or Ishmael from Moby Dick. Their only purpose is to give a restricted perspective of a much greater character central to the plot. Whether it be Jay Gatsby, Captain Ahab or Henry Jekyll, these characters are who all importance is given to, and the narrators are tossed aside as soon as their work or intended purpose is finished. Avoid this part if you want me to spoil an excellent novel, but Utterson’s own story and conflict as a lawyer is completely ignored at the death of Jekyll. The book literally ends the moment Jekyll’s memoir is read. Forget about Poole or Utterson’s legal duties, Stevenson’s job is done! This is much like Ishmael simply being cast away as the sole survivor of the Pequod in Moby Dick with no answer of his fate. Ahab was the real star of the show, who cares if Ishmael dies too?

Another idea to note is that this is our second Mystery genre we’ve read throughout Arts 1. Just like Oedipus, the detective is bound to discover something he didn’t want to find even though his nosy nature bounded him to it.  Jekyll himself pushes his boundaries by attempting to exile his passions, but just like Frankenstein his pushes moral boundaries and defies scientific law.  Similarly to the Frankenstein monster, the creature of Mr. Hyde has been misconstrued and remodeled by popular society. Popular depictions of him symbolize him as monstrous, greenish, gargantuan and incapable of speech, only outbursts of evil chuckles. If anyone like me watched Looney Tunes as a kid, you know exactly what I’m talking about. If not, your childhood must of really sucked, and I feel sorry for you. Hyde is actually short in stature, he’s hideous, but very much human. Much like the fog that always seems to follow him when he commits his heinous acts, his hideous feature is hazed. There’s no single characteristic that can be distinguished from the rest of him and called revolting. It’s just like that feeling you get when you encounter someone who just strikes you in the the wrong way but can’t determine why. This is much like how we can’t separate our primal drives from our human passions.

But looks like I have to stop here, since I promised I wouldn’t talk about any of this kind of thing. I pray we’ll move past this topic by the next reading. And my rant is done.

Yes, this is ridiculously late, and I apologize for disrupting the flow of posts on Nietzsche but I feel that it is important to get these thoughts down.

Frankenstein is such a curious tale/story, that I wonder why there aren’t more “recent” interpretations. This was my first time reading Shelly’s work, and it has left me an array of emotions, speculations and questions about the characters and oh how it is still so pertinent in our lives today. I feel as if Margret Atwood’s book “Oryx and Crake” takes an interesting spin off of the quest for knowledge and the consequences of pushing science-life boundaries too far. I say this thinking of the occasional scientific discovery that gets media attention because of controversy brought up by religious groups/the pope.
(I’m not trying to stir anything up by this statement, just trying to articulate a thought)

Science and religion have always been at odds, and I definitely felt a tension between the two in Shelly’s writing. Just as Victor survives the blinding passions that lead to his creation’s existence, the creation becomes the maker of Victor’s ruin. At times, it almost appeared as if Shelly were trying to show, not only what happens when you push the boundaries of knowledge and science, but what happens when a human plays the role of “God”.

Another thought: it was interesting how both Victor and the creation felt that life was more miserable than death, but neither of them could die peacefully without knowing that the other had also perished. But if they were so miserable living, and they wanted to continue the other’s suffering, couldn’t one have them died, knowing that then, suddenly, the other would no longer have meaning for his own life? This goes well with Nietzsche when he says “Man would rather have the will for nothing, than have nothing to will for”. With the creation’s birth and existence, Frankenstein had purpose and meaning to his life. While the creature sought happiness and acceptance but could not acquire them without Frankenstein, so when this became impossible, the creature’s existence only had meaning in the destruction of Frankenstein.

Here again, the relationship between “God” and his creation of man is replicated. In my understanding  of westernized religion, essentially, it is giving meaning to people’s lives. Without the morals and guidelines that are established within religions, there would be no “route to heaven” / no reason to be “good” people. Frankenstein and his creation don’t show this exactly, but I feel as if there are many parallels between the two.

I don’t know, let me know what you think if this sparks a reaction from you.
I hope I didn’t offend anyone.
Kailer

I’ve noticed an unsurprising trend on the blog posts for this book. It appears as though members of the class (including myself) do not take fondly to Nietzsche’s style of writing. I could write the entire post on how inconsiderate Nietzsche was in the delivery of his philosophical arguments and ideas. But I won’t do that, I’m sure you can find it scattered across the site. 

I do think that Nietzsche makes a very intriguing point in The Genealogy of Morals. He picks at and probes the concept of morality. What we take to be assumed as right and wrong in society could be completely inaccurate and merely a flawed basis of judgment. I didn’t quite follow on his argument based in grammar. I believe that “bird of prey” and strength are separate for a very simple reason. One is not the other; birds of prey may be present with strength, but strength is present in more than just birds. Strength can be used to describe many animals and characteristics of both physical and abstract. the same can be said of his analogy of lighting and flash. Nietzsche attempts to say that without the flash, there is no lighting. That is true, however, the flash is not the only distinction to be found with lighting. Lightning is a very specific act in nature, one which is composed of yes, the flash of light but also the electricity and all the other scientific stuff that I, as an arts one student, do not really understand. Therefore it’s important to realize that lightning has a flash but a flash is not necessarily lightning.

I did however, find it very interesting to see how Nietzsche went about telling the historical contexts of morality. Although I do not agree on his views of slavery (assuming I read that properly) in which slaves have falsified peaceful treatment of other humans as “good”. The stark contrast to me between the lamb and the bird of prey is that human beings enslave each other, that being of the same race. On the contrary, birds and lambs are of a separate species and are therefore not to be labelled under the same code of conduct as humans towards other humans. There is no biological tool humans possess to use in slavery. There is no requirement by mother nature to enslaved one’s fellow man, unlike hunting animals which must kill in order to survive.

Nietzsche is definitely a tough read. It’s dense, ideas flying everywhere, and a sense of anti-everything pervades the three essays in “On the Genealogy of Morals”. His ideas of the anti-foundation, and the way his writing style is one which lacks a solid foundation itself is interesting… not to use another word. It’s probably that, his writing style, which made this work so difficult to read. Modern day “essays” of most types have an extremely solid foundation. A modern essay will have a main claim (which is stated in the introduction), and then this claim will be systematically proven through a series of interrelating paragraphs all containing information relating to the original claim. Finally, this is all rounded off with a conclusion, clarifying and simplifying the information and restating the original claim. Nietzsche doesn’t do this in his essays. His essays are more like the ramblings of a madman, recalling occasional ideas, interrupting himself with different ideas, and expecting us to be able to follow his train of thought which left the tracks long ago.

Putting my dislike for his writing style aside, I also have some beef with Nietzsche’s ideas and points, but I’m going to start with what I’m in agreement with Nietzsche. His deduction of guilt and its connection to debt, which then goes on to his idea of punishment is incredibly well thought out. In fact, it’s a common truth that when one is in debt, and is unable to pay it off, one will feel guilt. And the idea of repaying your debts with punishment is one which while I don’t think applies to a lot of modern day scenarios, is fairly true (especially if you’re considering a multitude of gangster movies in which Joe Pesci helps many men repay their “debts”).

However Nietzsche is against the objectification of ones views. He (an introspective lunatic) is a strong believer in broadening your perspectives by conversing with others. He’s against the notion of objectifying your perspective, in fact, having no perspective at all, and to me this makes little sense. He says that it castrates the intellect, yet I have to disagree. Objectivity is an incredibly important aspect which cannot be underestimated. Some of the greatest works (especially philosophical ones) are achieved through the objectification of ones beliefs. While I don’t think we should be eliminating our own perspective completely, objectification is an aspect which a lot of intellectuals find very important to conceiving their work successfully.