Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson will be our second book of the month since Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne is rather long. You can find the discussion of it here:
/topic/show/...

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is in the public domain & well known so there are free versions available. You can download it in multiple formats from Gutenberg.org here:

Archive.org has the book here:

and the 1931 movie starring Fredric March here:


There are multiple audiobook versions free on Librivox:
Narrated by Bob Neufeld:

Narrated by Phil Chenevert:

Narrated by Kristin Hughes:

Narrated by David Barnes:

There's even a dramatic reading:


Whew! There are a lot of free ways to experience this classic. I look forward to the discussion.

I read this long ago and I’m looking forward to rereading it with the group.

I listened to this not too long ago & liked it. I'm going to read the ebook this time I got from Gutenberg.

In most of the movies, Hyde is monstrous looking, but he really isn't. Creepy, though.
"He is not easy to describe. There is something wrong with his
appearance; something displeasing, something downright
detestable. I never saw a man I so disliked, and yet I scarce
know why. He must be deformed somewhere; he gives a
strong feeling of deformity, although I couldn't specify the point.
He's an extraordinary-looking man, and yet I really can name
nothing out of the way. No, sir; I can make no hand of it; I
can't describe him. And it's not want of memory; for I declare
I can see him this moment."

I haven't gotten into this as I'm busy with other books, but want to. Is anyone else reading it?

I read this a couple of years ago and liked the atmosphere that Stevenson created in his descriptions of London.

I read it last year and I remember best the exact thing you point out, that Hyde is more subtly 'off' than obviously monstrous. I also remember not particularly liking it. Ah, my review... .

Read for a group. The concept is wondrous. Some film versions may be, too.. The story, as told by RLS, is surprisingly tedious imo.

A few years after this, Oscar Wilde published The Picture of Dorian Gray. And a few years after that, Sigmund Freud published The Interpretation of Dreams, about our hidden thoughts, and also, remember, he popularized the idea of Id & Ego. I wonder if RLS influenced the others, or if there was something, some sort of meme, going around.

Darwin's works had been around for awhile, but I suppose we could give some credit to Descent of Man, 1871, and The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, 1872, if we consider that Dorian's portrait, Mr. Hyde, + our Ids are all expressions of a bestial nature. (Notwithstanding that would be a misinterpretation of Darwin's thesis.)

I dunno. I don't know enough history to know what would likely have influenced RLS. Do any of you?

The Picture of Dorian Gray
The Interpretation of Dreams
The Descent of Man
The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals

Of course, what I was going after was the idea of the complexity or our nature, our inner duality... and I guess that idea has been around, in a way, since we invented religions. Maybe the fiction writers were exploring the ideas with the scientists in a more analytic way?

Cheryl wrote: "...Maybe the fiction writers were exploring the ideas with the scientists in a more analytic way?"

That's the way I see it. Science is able to distill man into component parts; better for study, worse for the world.

That's a good list of books, too. I wouldn't have thought of Darwin's work, but now that you did, it makes sense.

I see that you only gave it two stars. Why?

Cheryl wrote: "I see that you only gave it two stars. Why?"

What's currently showing is my review of a BBC dramatization & it wasn't great. Here's my review which explains.
/review/show...

Gotcha.

I'm having difficulty finding time to read this in text, so I might just get an audio edition, but not the BBC OTR program this time. I normally like those.

I'm going to start listening to a Librivox recording of this today. They have at least 5 versions, but all are around 3 hours long, so quite short. The edition I'm listening to is read by Phil Chenevert & can be found here:

I listened to this yesterday as I had quite a bit of time. It was one of those evenings. Anyway, I can't say I really liked it all that much, but it has a lot to recommend it. I don't care for the writing style, but found the structure intriguing & it was short enough that it wasn't tough to get through. I gave it a 4 star review here:
/review/show...

Ah, still only two stars from you. Yeah, I agree that the idea is better than the book... but still, just like A Christmas Carol and other short classics, we avid readers should make the time to investigate the origin of the 'meme.' Imo. I know that I'm glad I did (in both cases).

Cheryl wrote: "Ah, still only two stars from you...."

What? I rated it with 4 stars, as I said in my last msg & it shows that if you read the review I linked. I liked it a lot more than the BBC thing.

The main thing that makes it for me is the way Jekyll becomes addicted to being Hyde. As I wrote in my review, I wonder if Bill W. didn't swipe some of the last chapter for the AA Big Book. I see this book far less as SF & more of an apocryphal story of drug addiction.

I see those four stars now. Huh, some brief glitch or something. Sorry.

Your interpretation of addiction is insightful. I thought of it more as simple obsession, but I appreciate the value of the addiction lens... it gives the reader a lot more to look at.

I loved this book. It's one of the great classics. Apparently Stevenson got the idea from a nightmare.

A nice companion is the book Hyde by Daniel Levine

I generally like the idea of retellings from the monster's or bad guy's pov, making that villain a more sympathetic character... but I'm not sure that Stevenson allowed any wriggle room for Levine to work with. Did Levine have to "break canon" to make his story work?

Cheryl wrote: "I generally like the idea of retellings from the monster's or bad guy's pov, making that villain a more sympathetic character... but I'm not sure that Stevenson allowed any wriggle room for Levine ..."

Not really. Most of his stuff fits in the breaks of Stevenson's work. I really enjoyed it and reread J&H afterwards.

Cool. Good to know, ty!

Cheryl wrote: "...I appreciate the value of the addiction lens... it gives the reader a lot more to look at."

Glad the glitch is gone. As for the addiction - it fits amazingly well. Many refer to people who are addicted as Dr. J & H since it changes their personality so much. I somehow never caught it before that Dr. J likes being Hyde. That coupled with the stronger draughts needed & the eventual death is so much like alcoholism/drug addiction.

I'm not sure, but opium dens were a thing then. Opium caused a lot of problems, including a war. What was created from it was often supposed to cure the addictive properties, but never did. I think most of those came after this book was written, though. Not sure when laudanum was known as a problem & it was seen more as a feminine vice, I think. 2 of my great aunts died from it. (There is a long tradition of alcoholism/addiction in my family. To the best of my knowledge, only my uncle & I ever got clean & sober. Most died, including my father at only 35 years old.)

Interesting. (And sad.)

Some of that in my male family members, too. All on my mothers side of the family. Most of which I didn't know growing up.

Anyhow.... There was a anti-alcohol temperance movement in Britain at the time. The book was written in something like 3 to 6 days while Stevenson was ill with tuberculosis. It is speculated that he was on cocaine while writing it. He is definitely known to have liked cocaine.

Interesting.

That is interesting. Cocaine would certainly fit his description of how Dr. J felt as Hyde.

I have more than once observed that, in my second character, my faculties seemed sharpened to a point and my spirits more tensely elastic; thus it came about that, where Jekyll perhaps might have succumbed, Hyde rose to the importance of the moment.

Here's the first article I stumbled across about how cocaine makes people feel. Scroll down a bit & just look for the headers. I think they match up really well with Dr. J's description, except perhaps for the sociability part.

I loved Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. My review is here.

Jim wrote: "I somehow never caught it before that Dr. J likes being Hyde. ..."

Hyde is free from moral scruples, so he can fully enjoy his debauchery (whatever it may be). As Jekyll, he has the same appetites, but he suffers the pangs of conscience when he indulges himself.

Hyde is pure evil, but Jekyll is not pure good. Jekyll is a mixture of good and evil ~ like the rest of us. I think Hyde is what we would be if we could shed our conscience.

I started reading a French version I had lying on a shelf.

I'm surprised it was written so close to the Whitechapel murder committed by Jack the Ripper, but preceded the murders by two years (it was published in 1886 and Jack the Ripper killed in 1888).

I wonder if those kinds of murders were more common than thought at the time, but Jack's spree was made famous because of the media.

Maybe Stevenson = Jack the Ripper. He was getting his ideas ready.

Ed. No.
But there may well have been more unhinged violent people roaming around. I think Jack the Ripper got more famous because of the pattern he followed? Others may have been more random?

Ed wrote: "Maybe Stevenson = Jack the Ripper. He was getting his ideas ready."

No one ever saw Stevenson and Jack the Ripper at the same time. Coincidence? I don't think so.

LOL! Good one, Rafael.
:)

While I didn't get around to reading it this time, I did watch a which was pretty interesting. The first point in the video is that in this story, like many classic horror stories, the original story is very much different from the way the story is remembered and used in later pop culture.

Apparently, Hyde was a sort of way of Jekyll letting out the parts of himself that were suppressed by Victorian society. Exactly what those parts were is unclear, but Victorians suppressed pretty much everything, so there is lots to choose from.

Yup!

I've read and finished it. Hyde was seeing prostitutes, and it was a mix of sex and torture (S&M). Jekyll was a an old celibate man. What other urges did he repress? He had access to booze and food. He had friends and he could have used drugs since he was a doctor.

On tor.com there is a analysis of the story:

²Ñ²¹°ù³¦-´¡²Ô»å°ùé wrote: " What other urges did he repress? ..."

Could be anything. Victorian society was so repressive. Just the ability to hang out with and talk to people from a different social class was taboo. Even though he had access to drugs and alcohol wouldn't mean using them would be socially acceptable.

Thanks for that TOR article!