Scan barcode
A review by wolfiegrrrl
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson
dark
mysterious
fast-paced
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.5
The story is told to us through other characters' exposition rather than shown to us through much action. This is supposed to lend the story an element of mystery and the readers are supposed to question/doubt the reliability of the narrators of each version of the events being told. This can be an effective method of storytelling if the narrators are interesting characters that make us want to follow them on this journey, but I unfortunately did not find them to be very engaging.
The introductory essay by Vladimir Nabokov in this Signet Classic suggests that the characters whose eyes we see Jekyll's story through are written specifically to be the common everyman so that the readers would think it possible that such an unreal story could be true - if an everyman could believe it in the story, then surely it shouldn't sound so farfetched! - but the effect this technique had on me was underwhelming. No matter how hard I tried, I could not bring myself to think Utterson was anything other than dull and that may have spoiled some of the story's punch for me even if I could easily see how he came to the conclusions he did with the information he was given.
I did find Jekyll's letter at the end of the story to be an interesting character study. It is tempting to portray the doctor as a martyr who sacrifices himself for the greater good of mankind in an ultimately failed experiment, as many adaptations do, but to come into this story with that mindset does the character much injustice. He is a flawed human, just as we all are, who ultimately embarks on a selfish adventure and his entire journey becomes an object lesson in how unavoidable (and undeniable) the duality of man truly is. Once you give in to the temptation of being a malicious person and make a habit of it, "turning back" becomes harder and harder to do.
That aside, I must add that I enjoyed Dan Chaon's afterword at the end of this book far more than Nabokov's essay at the beginning. Perhaps that is in part due to the fact that these two sections were written decades apart by two different personalities, but mostly I found the essay to be pretentious, condescending, and boring. In all fairness, it was originally taken from Nabokov's Lectures on Literature and it definitely felt like I was back in a college literature course with a teacher who clearly thinks he's "not like other professors" just because he doesn't like detective stories and prefers staged theatre over motion pictures. There were some interesting nuggets of analysis in the lecture between the back-patting and the heavy quoting from the text, but it droned on and on in monotony and was the most difficult part of the book for me to finish.
Conversely, Dan Chaon's afterward is a curious speculative piece that discusses adaptation and allegory, and their effect on how we understand the classic story of Jekyll and Hyde. In that sense, it complements Nabokov's analytical lecture rather well and is a breath of fresh air after Nabokov started off this publication by condemning adaptation for ruining the true nature of Stevenson's "most wonderful book." Analysis and adaptation go hand in hand, and both are equally valid ways of consuming a piece of media. For such a story about duality, it is perfectly fitting that it should be bookended by such complementary yet differing perspectives.
The introductory essay by Vladimir Nabokov in this Signet Classic suggests that the characters whose eyes we see Jekyll's story through are written specifically to be the common everyman so that the readers would think it possible that such an unreal story could be true - if an everyman could believe it in the story, then surely it shouldn't sound so farfetched! - but the effect this technique had on me was underwhelming. No matter how hard I tried, I could not bring myself to think Utterson was anything other than dull and that may have spoiled some of the story's punch for me even if I could easily see how he came to the conclusions he did with the information he was given.
I did find Jekyll's letter at the end of the story to be an interesting character study. It is tempting to portray the doctor as a martyr who sacrifices himself for the greater good of mankind in an ultimately failed experiment, as many adaptations do, but to come into this story with that mindset does the character much injustice. He is a flawed human, just as we all are, who ultimately embarks on a selfish adventure and his entire journey becomes an object lesson in how unavoidable (and undeniable) the duality of man truly is. Once you give in to the temptation of being a malicious person and make a habit of it, "turning back" becomes harder and harder to do.
That aside, I must add that I enjoyed Dan Chaon's afterword at the end of this book far more than Nabokov's essay at the beginning. Perhaps that is in part due to the fact that these two sections were written decades apart by two different personalities, but mostly I found the essay to be pretentious, condescending, and boring. In all fairness, it was originally taken from Nabokov's Lectures on Literature and it definitely felt like I was back in a college literature course with a teacher who clearly thinks he's "not like other professors" just because he doesn't like detective stories and prefers staged theatre over motion pictures. There were some interesting nuggets of analysis in the lecture between the back-patting and the heavy quoting from the text, but it droned on and on in monotony and was the most difficult part of the book for me to finish.
Conversely, Dan Chaon's afterward is a curious speculative piece that discusses adaptation and allegory, and their effect on how we understand the classic story of Jekyll and Hyde. In that sense, it complements Nabokov's analytical lecture rather well and is a breath of fresh air after Nabokov started off this publication by condemning adaptation for ruining the true nature of Stevenson's "most wonderful book." Analysis and adaptation go hand in hand, and both are equally valid ways of consuming a piece of media. For such a story about duality, it is perfectly fitting that it should be bookended by such complementary yet differing perspectives.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Death and Violence
Minor: Suicide