
What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde	(2012) - Tomte
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/06/what-everybody-gets-wrong-about-jekyll-and-hyde
======
scandox
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.

~~~
dTal
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.

~~~
lostboys67
Why would you not read the book in it entirety first as home work or in the
holiday before you are due to cover the book in class?

I certainly read all of my assigned texts an din the case of classical studies
several other books and plays in the cannon.

~~~
dagw
_Why would you not read the book in it entirety first as home work or in the
holiday before you are due to cover the book in class?_

Because they're teenagers with better things to do with their time than
reading old 'boring' books by a bunch of pointless dead people.

~~~
emodendroket
Well, the irony is they really don't have better things to do and someday
they'll regret not putting the time into such things when it was available to
them. But you know the old saw -- youth is wasted on the young.

~~~
khedoros1
There were some required reading books that I enjoyed and learned from, and
some that I _still_ don't see the point of. On the other hand, some things
that I did in my own time in high school laid the foundations for my career
and current interests. I can't see that as completely wasted time.

~~~
emodendroket
Well, I had more free time than I'll probably ever have again and I frittered
away a lot of it on bad TV, lame forums, etc.

~~~
KGIII
This may sound strange, but I'm sometimes grateful that, when I was a wee lad,
Internet wasn't invented and computers took up whole rooms. I think I'd have
wasted even more time than I did.

It means I read a lot of great books, for example. I used to read them and
then write about them. I'd spend almost as much time writing and thinking as I
did reading the books. I'd make notes, quotes, and tie things in with other
literary works.

If I'd had computers and the Internet, I'd have spent that time watching porn
and posting fart jokes.

~~~
emodendroket
It doesn't sound strange. Even as an adult I feel like it's a mixed bag
sometimes.

~~~
KGIII
Some of the comments from people whom I infer are significantly younger than
I, seem aghast at the idea of having enjoyed the non-connected life as a
youth. They are similarly quizzical when they learn that I seldom carry a cell
phone and still maintain a landline.

That was the reasoning for my pointing out that it may sound strange.

Even as a well-grown adult, I still go outside and play, sans any compute
devices at all. I often hike, snowmobile, ski, snowshoe, ride an ATV, etc and
don't even bother with a GPS unit or bring a cell phone. Mentioning this
sometimes nets some responses expressing everything from curiosity to
suggesting that I'm recklessly endangering myself and others.

Yes, yes I have had (online) people tell me that my doing so is actively
endangering others who may need to come rescue me. I'm never quite sure how to
respond _politely_ to those types of comments. I guess it is difficult for
some people to understand that life existed before the ubiquity of
communication devices and always-on networks. They sometimes express more
dismay when I point out that, in some locations, not even cellular service is
available.

Ah well... But, yeah, it sounds strange to some folks - given the responses
I've had to similar commentary.

------
bananicorn
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, 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.

~~~
lostboys67
Arguably its about the hypocrisy of Victorian England

~~~
icebraining
Yeah, same as the Picture of Dorian Gray, which has similar themes.

------
MikeTaylor
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 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.

~~~
morganvachon
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 while leaving his public persona
untarnished. He struggles with the notion that perhaps the Green Arrow persona
is his true nature rather than the one he presents to the public.

Of course, that character assessment essentially apes Batman/Bruce Wayne as
well; Batman is Hyde, Bruce is Jekyll, but Hyde and Jekyll are the same person
with the same drives and impulses.

~~~
MikeTaylor
Thanks for the tip -- I'll try _Arrow_.

~~~
jacobush
Dunno why watching one or two episodes of Arrow almost killed me with boredom?

~~~
morganvachon
It's a struggle sometimes, and I wonder if it's down to who is writing and/or
directing a specific episode. There was an episode last season that dealt with
gun control in a 80s style "very special episode" way. It was clumsy, awkward,
and did very little for the overall story arc.

Overall though, it's a good show with a darker theme than most current
superhero fare. Though, I may be biased as the Green Arrow was my favorite
comic book character as a kid.

------
ctdonath
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.

------
projectramo
It is worth pointing out that, in one sense, the "misreading" and the "proper
reading" are the same. One is just metaphorical and the other is literal.

To state it more clearly, even if you believe that Hyde is the evil in
Jekyll's soul, and not just Jekyll acting out his fantasy, the former is a
metaphor for the latter.

I also disagree with this reading because it is clearly stated that Hyde is
smaller than Jekyll because such a small percent of Jekyll is evil. (Hyde is
the unadulterated evil, in other words).

~~~
WorldMaker
> I also disagree with this reading because it is clearly stated that Hyde is
> smaller than Jekyll because such a small percent of Jekyll is evil.

Given it is Jekyll himself that makes that observation, it may not be all that
"clear". Jekyll is a very unreliable narrator in the book, and "I only have a
little bit of evil inside, it's small really" is probably one of his lesser
delusions.

------
johnsonjo
"Are we good because we want to be good, or are we good because we just don’t
want to be punished?"

It's interesting he brings up this point. I once took a leadership class at my
University, and in the class my teacher once said, "do you follow the speed
limit because if you don't you'll get a ticket or because it is the right
thing to do?" He then followed it by saying, "If you follow it because it's
the right thing you're crazy." When I heard this I was just hoping he wasn't
applying it to things other than the speed limit. Sometimes I feel you have to
do the right thing, because it is the right thing.

Another similar case was when I was reading my economics book which said
altruism only exists due to incentives, and it wouldn't exist otherwise; I
personally believe there are people who act altruistically despite incentive
going either way. Although, I also find personally if I do the right thing
despite incentives for me to lie or do otherwise people will often make up the
difference.

~~~
moosey
There is an alternative to "I don't speed because I might get ticketed" and "I
don't speed because it's the right thing to do", and it's "I don't speed
because it benefits me when everyone drives carefully."

It can be argued that altruism itself generates dividends for the whole of
society, and thus acts of altruism can be seen as self-benefiting, adding a
middle that isn't otherwise considered.

A good example might be: "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because I'm
forced to." vs. "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it's the right
thing to do." There is yet another option of "I pay taxes to help welfare
recipients because it has economic benefits and because I don't want to
personally deal with the homeless everywhere I go." The last one might sound
heartless, but I think that it might appeal to more conservative members of
society, and it also turns out to be true.

~~~
johnsonjo
Good argument. To me the reason for not speeding due to it being a net benefit
to society is just a specific case of speeding due to it being the right thing
to do. One point I got from your argument (though not directly stated) is that
it's often important to clarify why the thing you are saying is the right
thing to do is in fact right.

I feel your understanding of altruism seems to coincide with a utilitarianism
standpoint of it is the right thing if it creates the greatest sum total
happiness for society. I feel Utilitarianism is close to defining what is
right, but if you have ever studied it Utilitarianism has some flaws (when I
say this I don't mean to attack your personal standpoint on altruism/right
only Utilitarianism in general.) Often these flaws can be fixed with a more
rule based approach to Utilitarianism. I personally like Utilitarianism's
approach, but probably take a more Aeristotelian approach which is more along
the lines of it is the right thing if it makes me act in a more virtuous
manner. Aeristotle believes those of truly virtuous characters wouldn't desire
to do wrong things in the first place.

~~~
Jach
If you taboo the words "virtue" and "virtuous", what are you left with? Seems
like it can be reduced to utilitarianism. If utilitarianism is "what is right
is that which maximizes utility according to this utility function", this idea
of virtue maximizing can be restated as "what is right is that which maximizes
utility according to this utility function, which states its highest utility
is that which makes me act more virtuously, with these comparison heuristics
to determine 'more' or 'less' virtuous". My own criticism of utilitarianism is
that utility functions aren't always objective, and for different people or
different contexts can output different values. If you can agree on a function
it can be a useful tool in moral reasoning (and especially uncovering
inconsistencies if you've agreed to a few functions then find a contradiction
with intuition and what the calculations say) but typically we want to know
how we should agree on a function in the first place.

------
emodendroket
I mean I'm guessing one crucial reason is that far more people are familiar
with the story than have ever actually read it.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
As always, there's a relevant XKCD (alt text for relevance).

[https://xkcd.com/1687/](https://xkcd.com/1687/)

------
1023bytes
I expected this to be about the static site generators :D

~~~
willholloway
Me too.

------
FearNotDaniel
Well of course in Stevenson's time many more readers would have reached the
same understanding of the text, because the Christian faith acknowledges just
that: we all have a “sin nature“ (Mr Hyde) in us, tempted towards selfish and
evil behaviour, at least sometimes longing to act out without consequences.
Unfortunately so many Christian teachers have failed to pass on the rest of
the message - that this does not make any one of us more inherently “evil“
than any other, and that there is a clear and effective path to liberation
from these desires - that the faith itself is just as universally
musunderstood as this marvellous book.

------
snissn
I thought that it was about a doctor with a drinking problem

------
leephillips
Somewhat similar points were made, decades ago, by Nabokov in his essay on
this story in his _Lectures on Literature_. Of course Nabokov goes, as well,
in much deeper and subtler directions.

------
digi_owl
I have at times wondered if age do not bring better behavior, just an improved
ability to hide the bad behavior.

~~~
scandox
Being good is 99% not being bad. I've definitely just ironed out my evil
behaviours. So I can be your sample of 1.

------
popee
Isn't Hyde actually Shadow archetype from Jungian psychology?

~~~
adam-a
Carl Jung was 11 when the book was published, so perhaps it's the other way
around?

~~~
popee
I didn't say that book is based on Jung, just that Hyde is maybe
personification of Shadow archetype. What's your opinion, could that be true?

~~~
philee
I would think so. A direct comparison has been written about in literature
long after both the story/concept were introduced [1]:

'A man who is possessed by his shadow is always standing in his own light and
falling into his own traps ... living below his own level': hence, in terms of
the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 'it must be Jekyll, the conscious
personality, who integrates the shadow ... and not vice versa. Otherwise the
conscious becomes the slave of the autonomous shadow'.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_\(psychology\))

------
optimuspaul
Mr. Robot comes to mind when thinking about this. I don't know that Elliot
wants Mr. Robot, but maybe in the beginning he did. He certainly needed him.

~~~
4ndr3vv
I'd argue this is exactly what the author is saying jeckyll and Hyde _isnt_.

 _> Jekyll is not unaware or out of control when he’s Hyde. He does not wake
up with no memory of what happened the night before. He remembers perfectly
everything he does as Hyde, because he was in control the whole time._

------
Nursie
It's a good two decades since last I read the book but... I always read it as
an allegory for repression and a potion which let Hyde live out his own
desires and drives without the mores of society or upbringing holding sway,
without guilt etc. etc.

However I suppose I did think the potion did something to release him from
this, rather than being merely an excuse.

------
d--b
I always thought that the story was pretty much about getting drunk. It's
basically "what if people could not recognize my face while I'm plastered?"

------
keymone
and then the plot twist - Jekyll never existed in the first place. reminds me
of Primal Fear movie.

