The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Robert Louis Stevenson. 1886. 54 pages. [Source: Bought]
First sentence: Mr. Utterson the lawyer was a man of a rugged countenance that was never lighted by a smile; cold, scanty and embarrassed in discourse; backward in sentiment; lean, long, dusty, dreary and yet somehow lovable. At friendly meetings, and when the wine was to his taste, something eminently human beaconed from his eye; something indeed which never found its way into his talk, but which spoke not only in these silent symbols of the after-dinner face, but more often and loudly in the acts of his life. He was austere with himself; drank gin when he was alone, to mortify a taste for vintages; and though he enjoyed the theatre, had not crossed the doors of one for twenty years. But he had an approved tolerance for others; sometimes wondering, almost with envy, at the high pressure of spirits involved in their misdeeds; and in any extremity inclined to help rather than to reprove. “I incline to Cain’s heresy,” he used to say quaintly: “I let my brother go to the devil in his own way.” In this character, it was frequently his fortune to be the last reputable acquaintance and the last good influence in the lives of downgoing men.
Premise/plot: Mr. Utterson is our primary narrator. He is the lawyer who has dealings first with Dr. Henry Jekyll and to a certain extent Mr. Edward Hyde. [He is the lawyer who has helped Jekyll prepare his will.] The novella is a suspenseful mystery--of sorts. Readers learn of a "wicked" Mr. Hyde that is unpleasant--at best--and a murderer--at worst. Whether he is a true "terror" or just a ghastly unpleasant fellow that just gives off super-creepy-vibes Mr. Utterson is at first not prepared to say. [At first being the key word.] He is a lawyer who seems so proud of his I-don't-judge-others persona; his live-and-let-live or you-do-you vibes. But Mr. Hyde does creep him out more than most of the other fellows in his acquaintance. (We get to know several with whom he has to do.)
Mr. Utterson is a curious fellow. He is determined to figure out the relationship between the "good" Dr. Jekyll, his client, and the "creepy" Mr. Hyde. WHY is Dr. Jekyll prepared to leave his whole estate to Mr. Hyde? HOW do they know one another? WHAT is Jekyll thinking in risking his own reputation? Mr. Hyde is mentioned in his will. Mr. Hyde has a key to his place. He obviously either a) genuinely likes him and accepts him or b) he is being coerced or blackmailed by Hyde. Mr. Utterson, for the longest time, is inclined to think just that. Surely the good Dr. Jekyll is being blackmailed. And though Mr. Utterson usually is NOT his brother's keeper, he tries to "help" in this instance. He starts investigating or snooping. He'll follow clues about Dr. Jekyll's life...he'll follow clues about Mr. Hyde's life....he'll just keep searching any and every clue until he has the answers he's looking for.
And that leads him to a better acquaintance with Dr. Lanyon. Dr. Lanyon is/was a friend of Dr. Jekyll. And, yes, that is awkward but factual. They were friends--once upon a time. At one point they are mere civil acquaintances--close friends no more. Dr. Jekyll does, at one point, reach out to him--a plea calling upon their past [close] friendship. Dr. Lanyon, for better or worse, does respond to that cry for help--that plea. And because he does so, well, he acts as the catalyst of the story. He supplies almost all the missing puzzle pieces that Mr. Utterson, the lawyer, needs to see the big picture. Utterson would have not connected all the dots without knowing Dr. Lanyon.
I said for better or worse for a reason. It is to the readers' gain that Dr. Lanyon does answer his friend's cry for help. For the sake of the story, Dr. Lanyon doing what he does, going where he goes, seeing what he sees...and living long enough to set it down on paper and make arrangements that his narrative is given to Mr. Utterson...well, it benefits the mystery/suspense angle of the novella. There is no big reveal without Dr. Lanyon.
Yes, this is fiction. I never really suspended my disbelief for a second in this horror/thriller/mystery. But let's say, for a second, this was "real," by saying yes to his friend, Dr. Lanyon is making a big mistake--in terms of what is best for his own self interests. Being there for his friend in this moment of great need directly leads to Dr. Lanyon's death.
Now, don't ask me WHY Dr. Lanyon HAD to die. Just don't. Because I think the answer is more related to *using* the character as a plot device. The character's death means that a) Mr. Utterson can read this narrative and have his curiosity satisfied. There were two documents--Dr. Lanyon's narrative and Henry Jekyll's narrative--that were dependent on their deaths. Mr. Utterson can only get all the answers if both are dead. Both documents are conditional. If Mr. Utterson isn't allowed the answers, the readers aren't allowed the answers either. The whole book would be pointless.
Sometimes authors just kill off characters because they think it makes poetic sense, almost. [Like I'll never understand WHY Victor Hugo killed off Jean Valjean. In a million years I'll never have the answer. There was no "need" coming from within the story itself. But that is neither here nor there.] Here readers are asked to suspend their disbelief. So you witness something super traumatic. You don't die of "shock" then and there in the moment. But you go home and suddenly know that you've only got a few more weeks to live??? Like the shock of living with the aftermath of the trauma is literally going to kill you? Like goodbye world, I'll just sit here getting weaker and weaker. I mean it's just silly. Still, I suppose it's all about getting the information into the hands of Mr. Utterson--and subsequently the readers. Therefore Dr. Lanyon had to die or the book would be too short. [I am jesting a little.]
My thoughts: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde contains a plot twist that almost ALL readers will know in advance. Almost all. Many if not most. It does make me curious HOW the original audience--those reading the novella in the first year or two--would have read the story. Would it have been shocking? Would it have been thrilling? Would it have kept them guessing? What would they have thought going into the last few chapters? Would they have suspected the two men were one in the same? Or would they have thought like Mr. Utterson that it was a case of blackmail? Would they have felt disgusted by both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? Would they have felt any pity? Does knowing the *big* plot twist in advance change the way the novella is read and understood? What have we lost? What have we gained?
I do think that the moral implications would probably have been greater felt or appreciated by the original audience of this one. I think modern/contemporary audiences would see it merely as spooky/supernatural/horror.
Sin always takes you further than you intended to go, keeps you longer
than you intended to stay, and costs you more than you intended to pay.
(Erwin Lutzer, How You Can Be Sure You Will Spend Eternity with God, 38)
Our sins are often as dear to us as our children! We love them, hug
them, cleave to them and delight in them! To part with them, is as hard
as cutting off a right hand or plucking out a right eye! But it must be
done. The parting must come. J.C. Ryle, Holiness
We would often be sorry if our wishes were gratified. John Milton.
© 2022 Becky Laney of Becky's Book Reviews
