The Strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Short post just to point out something that is kinda confusing.
In any media you have most likly cosumed you have either gotten a story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, a refrence to it or even a short mention, but all of them kind of depict the story in the same way.
Jekyll and Hyde are like separate entities / Jekyll is all of the good, Hyde is all of the bad.
It's the same case that Jekyll drinks something that makes it so that his bad side is devided and all of his evil side does things agenst the good ones will.
It is all pretty consistent, just a few places where I have noticed this:
1.The Musical Jekyll & Hyde
2.The Looney Tunes short Hyde and Hare
3.Penny Dreadful as far as I have heard does the same
Their are likely even more but again why is this depiction this prominant. If you were to say it is becouse it is true to the original story in the novel then you would be wrong.
The people who have read the novel would be aware while that yes:
a) Jekyll drinks a potion and b) it does change his appearance, it never was the case of a split personality but the story is more of a facade or a disguise. "Facade" a song from the musical is really perfect even if the musical is technically not accurate.
To explain, Dr. does create a potion that changes his apperence but the reason he uses it is not so he can rid himself of his vices but to freely engage in them.
That is the main point of the story that is set in Victorian England. People had an image that they had to keep up and they engaged in vices behind closed doors. Jekyll did the impressive thing and found a way to do it while people see him while his reputation is still is in tact.
So what is the deal then? Why is almost all of the media portraying it the same way that is inaccurate to the story?
I am not hear to criticise it, I actually do like those stories I am just confused on how the choice was made. The sorce martial is one and everything else is doing it diffrently.
Is it possible the story was changed to be more understandable to the later audiences senseabilities. Most can not relate in the modern time of keeping an image and hiding the unsavory parts. (I think we can, so this makes it seem even more strange)
Maybe it is that, what it meant to the Victorians would not mean as much to us now. If you were exposed to the public to go against the strict moral code the people engaged in public then you would be ruined, not just feel embarrassed but you would lose everything. But then, I feel this feels very close to what we feel today so why are the stories the way that they are?
Let's engage with the stories for a bit. The consept to rid one self of or to split your vices from the parts of you that you like can be a very tempting and interesting idea. We often do not like everything about oursleves and might find some parts of our selves even evil. So the temptation to explore that in a story where we can be rid of it might be very attractive.
So maybe even if the story is not about that then the idea that we got from it has been a very intersting and fun topic to explore.
I for one enjoy both of them. The exploration of the facade and that we are hiding a part of ourselves is something I can empathise with and to have the freedom to explore with no fear of getting caught is instersting. ( Ha ha, Hyde is Hiding Jekyll). But also to be able to distill the part of ourselves we dislike and rid of ourselves of it is also a very intesting thing to explore.
Their is no conclusion, I can not with certinly say that the reason why we have these depitions is that the original story inspired it and we went a diffrent direction and is not something I can claim. That is just a thought I explored here.
The orginal book and its inspiration are all interesting and enjoyable and it's not a case where I can say, "Its not stiking to the sorce martial, BAD!". It's more that I do not understand why it is not.
(A very short post you see)
