|
This transformation occurs as Dr. Jekyll doesn't just assume a different personality, he actually becomes Mr. Jekyll involuntary transforms into Mr. Presbyterian Pastor Tim Keller has a good, brief analysis of parts of the Jekyll and Hyde story in his book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (Hardcover).
Jekyll and Hyde is commonly evoked to describe someone with a split personality. Jekyll sits "on a bench in Regents Park, thinking about all the good he has been doing, and how much better man he was, despite Edward Hyde, than the great majority of people." All this to say that Stevenson's novel goes far deeper than a psychoanalytic study of a split personality; it's about a profound spiritual struggle of the evil and good nature within a person. Hyde. Stevenson's novel is not really about a split personality, but rather a dual physical and spiritual nature struggling for control of one person.
Keller pinpoints a key point in the story, noting that it's in a moment of vainglory that Dr. In this struggle, Dr. Hyde.
Jekyll calls it his "dualtiy of purpose". Dr. The struggle of good versus evil; told in that colorful language of classics. This is a great classic. This story brings to life the battle each one of us has within ourselves.
It's at once more ambitious, yet far harder to pin down, than the cheapened versions in the mass media. Vladimir Nabokov's introductory essay states a lot that is obvious, and should be read only after the novel itself. Who Hyde is, his relationship to Jekyll, even how one becomes the other: all of these have been changed in every movie, TV, stage, and comic book adaptation ever made.For what's reputedly a horror novel, this book is remarkably unscary. It's smart yet understandable, familiar yet strange. But now, when its core idea has become part of our culture, it's more thought-provoking than frightening. Most readers may be surprised at just how coy and evasive this short novel is.
But what most people actually know is the 1936 movie starring Frederic March. On balance, Dan Chaon's afterword, about the novel's cultural impact, is probably more revelatory, and more accessible to general audiences.Remember, this book is probably not what you think you know. We get only fleeting images of the villain and his transgressions. As Stevenson hints at dribs and drabs of Freudian, Darwinian, post-colonial, and other ideas that have become common coin, remember that he wrote before any of these were popular notions.Start right in on the novel. It's the kind of book too few writers create these days. For a work that has become so well knit into our cultural standards and mores, it's perhaps remarkable how little actually goes on.You think you know the story.
Maybe in 1886, when its ideas were new, it was terrifying.
The writing was simple, direct, and to the point without being bogged down by excess descriptions or philosophical/political musings.Another plus was that the chapters were very short, so this book is a super fast read, not to mention that it's only 54 pages long. I mean, we want to know what happens, not how he was raised. Alright, so I've never read this book before (terrible I know). Of course since this is a classic, much of the plot twists are already known to the well read, so it wasn't much of a shock, but it was interesting nonetheless. (Okay, so maybe I was tired and reading this around 1:30 in the morning) It's probably because there was such a great buildup to the climax and when we get to his chapter we're stuck reading about how he grew up and blah blah blah that wasn't directly attached with the ending. It was refreshing and gave every character their equal time in the spotlight. It wasn't overstated, nor written in a dense, complex way that makes the reader pause and think a bit more harder than needed.
My mind started to wander a lot and I found myself skimming a lot of the passages. The only real section that tends to drag was the final chapter, which was from the perspective of Henry Jekyll.
It's written in 3rd omniescent, before the end where it switches over to 1st.I actually like how the story revolved around two people investigating the actual main character of the book (or rather the person the story is about) versus it just being about the person and his descent into the clutches of evil. Okay, sure perhaps the font is a wee bit too small, and there is a lot more semicolons in his sentences than any other story I've seen, but that shouldn't detract you.
My Secret Santa bought me this book, along with a bunch of others, as my present and I finally had time to read it.The plot is straightforward, starting off with a problem before gradually growing into heightened suspense that pulls and leaves hints all over the place towards the climax. I mean, if you can't sit down and read that, I don't know what else to say.
By the middle of the chapter is when the real meat of the story comes to its conclusion and I had my eyes glued to every word, even though I had contemplated sleeping a few minutes earlier.I thoroughly enjoyed this book and recommend it to anyone who likes to read, and if you wanted to try some classics out, this would probably be the easiest of them to do. The metaphor/symbolism doesn't really show itself until the very end where it blazes loud and clear with the writer's subtle metaphors, or maybe not so subtle.
The themes of this book are very skillfully played through succinct prose.
Other than that, it's just the bare text without any footnotes or annotations of any kind. This cheap Tor edition features a useless introduction by Charles Grant and an even more useless afterword by same.
|
