Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

This is the Spoilers Thread for our September 2014 Old School Read. Do not read these posts if you do not wish to read specific information about the book. Spoilers will exist in this thread.

I read this a few months back. I really enjoyed the gothic feel of it. Also, if you want to read about the story behind the story there's a book about Robert Louis Stevenson and his wife, Fanny: Under the Wide and Starry Sky

What do you think about the description of Mr. Utterson? How does this set the stage for Dr. Jekyll?

And I so have got to read the book you mentioned, Kirsten. I'll read this first and see if I can locate a copy. Sounds great, and it comes out in paperback this month. So maybe I can pick it up from the library.

Kathy, if you want to hear more, Diane Rehm did an hour-long interview with the author here: http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/201...

Hey, thanks

also an excellent read when you like stevenson's story: emma tennant's two women of london, and valerie martin's mary reilly

Thanks Conny. I remember also that I read this in preparation to read Her Dark Curiosity by Megan Shepherd

Interesting, Conny. Here are the links:

Two Women of London: The Strange Case of Ms. Jekyll and Mrs. Hyde

Mary Reilly

Looks like we could have all sorts of fun related reads with this book.

they're really interesting.especially mary reilly gives a lot of information that are only mentioned shortly or in-between the lines in the original. I actually wrote my dissertation about the three books and it was amazing how much I found out about the story and its background. really worth a read

The problem with reading a classic so well known as The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is that whether you have already read the novel before or not, you know the ending and the basic premise of the story.

I am about 50% in and am wondering if I would get the subtle clues without knowing the ending already? The writing is engaging, but I think I am missing part of the enjoyment by what I think I know about the story. Haven't read it before. Any thoughts for other first time readers?

@Kathy

I think that you summed things up for me to. I think as I read (I've completed it) that I was distracted by what think I already know about the story itself.



I enjoyed it, but I think I'll try to reread it and try to notice things more.

Thanks, Andrea. I was wondering if it was just me.

Finished, and indeed a classic. It was an interesting way to narrate the story I thought. We see little of the action in the story, but rather are told it through the eyes of Utterson. Almost like we are partaking of gossip in the city, until closer to the end we actually see Mr. Hyde ourselves. Nicely done.

I agree with you Lily. Well put.

Based on your review (and Kathy's) I just ordered this book from the library (which is where I get most of my books). I'll let you know what I think after I've read it.
Thanks

I know we think we know how it ends, but what I love about the book is how we get there and the atmosphere you go through.

I really enjoyed rereading this one. I always forget how short it is. The impact the story has had, the number of adaptations and how well known the characters Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde are always makes me remember the story as being longer than it is.

I also really enjoyed Mary Reilly.

@Pigletto

I was very surprised to learn how short the story is.

I also always think of Mr Hyde as hulking when in the story he is described as being small, little and dwarfish.

@Pigletto

Same here. I always imagined Mr Hyde as a great big brute of a man. It came as a surprise to discover as I read that Mr Hyde was "dwarf-like" in size.

I really enjoyed this, and although knew the basic premise I did not know the details of the story. Like others have said, the fact Jekyll's clothes were big on Hyde as he was shrunken in stature was interesting. A short story but very well written, I'm glad it was on the list

I think Kathy is totally right about the subtle hints one maybe wouldn't notice without already knowing the ending.
I'm about halfway through and was surprised how totally different it is from the musical. The musical basically cuts out Utterson completely and adds two women protagonists.
This is another thing I've noticed; it's a story without women...

Yes, what a nice read. I thought I knew the story, but the actual details were different from what I have seen portrayed. I can imagine what a better story it would have been at its first introduction when the readers did not even know the basic premise. Great nomination.

Wondering a bit more...
Do you think we all have some inherent evil in each of us as humans? I know we all make mistakes and sometimes make bad choices, but actual evil? Dr. Jekyll was portrayed as such a nice man, but then his alter-ego Hyde was his darker side.

I didn't consider Hyde as evil. More like impulsive... and less controlled by ethics and social morays. Kind of like that episode of Star Trek (TOS) where Kirk has his transporter accident. The other Kirk wasn't evil... just aggressive.

Hmm. Good thought, but the description from Mr. Utterson on how Hyde basically made his skin crawl led me to believe that Utterson saw him as evil.

@Kirsten

If you find evil to be too strong, what about depraved?

I think depraved is better. Maybe that's to me, EVIL is a lot more spiritually based. Mr Hyde is more like an animal being judged by Victorian human society.

Thanks, Andrea. Depraved does seem to fit Hyde.

I found the atmosphere was beautifully invoked. Nor had I realised that it was a novella. Owing to R.L.'s writing, or maybe my sentimentality, I found myself having sympathy as Hyde twitched in his dying throes. Of course, this was Jekyll's ultimate demise too.

Yes, I do think that any of us is capable of the most horrible acts of evil. We only have to look at the Nazis during WWII to see how previously 'normal' people evolved into ruthless beings.

I thought this story was great! So much creepier than other types of horror that focus on details of violence and gore.

Andrea, I think "depraved" is a perfect word to describe Hyde.

As human beings, we all have "good" and "bad" impulses that perhaps counterbalance one another, along with the constraints of social norms and pressures that put additional restraint on those "bad" impulses. When the author described Hyde as "pure evil", I understood that to mean he was a person who was completely lacking in the "good" impulses, and as Bob mentioned he also didn't care about social standards for behavior. I think the panic that Hyde seemed to display after committing the murder might have resulted from an instinct for self-preservation, as he certainly seemed to realize that there would be consequences for that action, but also maybe an emotional reaction to his complete lack of self control.

Bob, your mention of chemical dependence reminded me that as I was reading the last part of the story, I thought how similar Dr. Jekyll's experience was to an addict's in that he started out taking this drug in pursuit of feelings of exhilaration and freedom from the obligations of his life, but ultimately ended up needing the drug just to maintain some semblance of normalcy, and it ultimately killed him. Lots of different angles to analyze this story from!

Really liked this short book. The story was good, the writing was fluid and easy to read, and the characters were interesting.

Here is my review - 4 stars:


A mysterious and dark tale of a mad scientist whose experiment has gone wrong. The story will keep you on the edge of your seat. The only issue I had with the novel was trying to keep track of who is Hyde and who was Jekyll.

Great review, Rachel!

Thanks Hilary!

The Revisit the Shelf book for March is The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Other Tales of Terror by Robert Louis Stevenson, This thread will contain spoilers. Please join in the conversation!

I regret that I wasn't thrilled or gripped. Perhaps, for I not a fan of Gothic stories... Still, it is a classic and I am glad that I have read it.

Mela wrote: "I regret that I wasn't thrilled or gripped. Perhaps, for I not a fan of Gothic stories... Still, it is a classic and I am glad that I have read it."

I read it when I was a teenager as a school assignment. That was quite a while ago!! I did not like it much then, so I sympathize with you. I plan on rereading because it is fun to revisit books.

I finished reading this book and was not much impressed, gave it 3stars. Now I am about to finish Frankenstein which to my surprise I like. (I am not a great reader of horror and thrillers) but here Mary Shelley has described ‘psychology ‘ of demon, so it interests me.

I also just finished the book and wasn't much impressed. But I already knew the overall story and the main "twist" in advance (although I had not read the book. You just find references to the story everywhere). I think, for someone who did not know anything about the story before going into it, the revelation (view spoiler)[ that Jeckyll and Hyde were the same person (hide spoiler)] could have been mind blowing and shocking (especially for readers in the time-period it was published.)

First-time reader here. My only experience with this book was a DuckTales episode I saw in the late 90s, and those memories are faint. We didn't study this in school either. I didn't even know that (view spoiler)[Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde were the same person OR that they died in the end (hide spoiler)] so I went into this fairly unaware. My first thought was that this book is shorter than I imagined and was a relatively easy read aside from the sometimes complex sentence structure (and if I reread this, I'm interested to see if the writing style changes based on who's the story's focus at the time).

And I agree with some of the earlier comments regarding the story's "chemical dependence" and "inherent evil in everyone." I do think as humans we're all capable of horrible misdeeds and, given the opportunity to act on those without being caught, how many people would take advantage of their Hyde? As in the novel, how difficult might it be to return to a compassionate, sensitive being when you've fed and fed the depraved side of yourself? Even if you're striving to be "good" again, it can be easy to fall back on whatever vice entertains you, especially if it doesn't hurt someone else...until it does. Lots of interesting thoughts about this one.

I have heard this story many times, often see TV shows about it, but I had never read the book. It is a narrative about the complexities of science and the duplicity of human nature. A fascinating story. I am finding the authors of the classics and the stories they tell are so warranted for the stories of today. These authors shaped the history of story-telling. I was surprised that it was so short.

I really enjoyed this and was really surprised how different it was from the movies and theater versions I have seen through the years. I do see Dr. Jekyll as a much less kind and gentle person than I believed him to be. His motives for starting these experiments were much more selfish. I always thought he was searching for a way to make men better and less evil but it seems to me that he was really trying to be able to indulge in his more unacceptable impulses and still maintain his upstanding reputation. I do agree in the end he was battling an addiction.

Bobbie wrote: "I really enjoyed this and was really surprised how different it was from the movies and theater versions I have seen through the years. I do see Dr. Jekyll as a much less kind and gentle person tha..."

I was surprised too at how short it really is. I think in the beginning Dr Jekyll does have a kind and gentle aspect to his personality. Like the old adage, what you focus on gets bigger and as Mr. Hyde's 'tastes' are focused on and prioritized he morphs into Mr. Hyde each passing day. Initially, Mr Hyde can disappear as though he never existed until at the end, he is all that we can see and it is Dr. Jekyll who has shrunk away.

I find myself pondering on the effect of context -- the times in which this was written (i.e. Victorian era). If this tale were written today, do you think the author would have chosen other/different acts or scenarios by which to vividly demonstrate Hyde's awfulness?

I recently reread this and I enjoyed it at lot. My review is here.

Michele wrote: "I find myself pondering on the effect of context -- the times in which this was written (i.e. Victorian era). If this tale were written today, do you think the author would have chosen other/differ..."

That's an interesting question and I wonder would it be an extreme Stephen King type character or more a James Bond type villain. Hyde's pursuit seems to be power above money or fame. He would probably be a megalomaniac seeking to control the stock market/banks/media or political systems of some countries.

Michele wrote: "I find myself pondering on the effect of context -- the times in which this was written (i.e. Victorian era). If this tale were written today, do you think the author would have chosen other/differ..."

The spencer tracy, ingrid bergman version (1941) reminded me a lot of American Psycho, tracy's Hyde is as much a sexual sadist as they could get away with at the time.
So yeah i'd say American Psycho is a good fit, especially since it is about the public and private sides of a person.

Fun fact, tracy's Hyde is the basis for burgess merediths Penguin from the 60's Batman. Only in mannerisms though, they left out the rapist/psychopath part ;) .
Tracy was actually offered the role of Penguin but wouldn't accept unless he was allowed to kill Batman... not sure he quite got how serialized television works :P .

Wreade1872 wrote: "Tracy was actually offered the role of Penguin but wouldn't accept unless he was allowed to kill Batman... not sure he quite got how serialized television works :P"

Wow, I so cannot picture that lol I actually didn't know he was in a version of Jekyll and Hyde -- I always think of him as a "good guy" so this would be really interesting to see.

Michele wrote: "Wow, I so cannot picture that lol I actually didn't know he was in a version of Jekyll and Hyde -- I always think of him as a "good guy" so this would be really interesting to see. "

Its well worth a look, despite Bergmans awful irish-cockney-godonlyknows accent :lol .

Also it is a period piece, i kinda assumed it would be an update but no it is actually set in the 1890s.