The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

So I am realizing how much I enjoy these classic gothic horror/suspense novels. That said, this particular one is a bit lacking. It’s partly the pacing, and partly the rather blunt ways that Stevenson obscures the twist. As a reader, you’re not given those tantalizing glimpses that make these stories so compelling. At least, not enough of them, and they’re not as well executed as they could be. You never feel like you’re on the verge of being drawn into Jekyll’s (or Hyde’s!) point of view, until the very last chapter. So what you’re left with is a pretty opaque mystery with a lengthy, philosophical reveal that doesn’t really feel like it was earned.

A pity most readers go into this book already knowing the twist. Simple but striking.

Saw a tagline proclaiming it had "lost none of its ability to terrify" which is definitely not true. The 150 years weighs heavily on its shoulders and a far more jaded reading audience.

I’m surprised by the average rating here as this book is masterfully written for its time. It came out in 1886 and it appears to have been quite revolutionary for the day. Even today it’s great, but for 1886 I’m astounded. Not only does he weave a great tale of mystery and suspense, he is able to intertwine a metaphor for the inner lives of humans and explore the human condition to make the readers think about ourselves and how our minds function.

The introduction in my version has this to say, “Longmans published it in January, 1886...At first its fate was doubtful...Then The Times praised it at length, on 25th January. The Academy declared that ‘it is many years since English fiction has been enriched by any work at once so weirdly imaginative in conception and so faultlessly ingenious in construction.’ ‘In the next six months close on forty thousand copies were sold in this country alone,’ said Charles Longman.”

Countless stories and pop culture references stem from this one book simply because the story is just that good. I like to assess and rate books/movies/music based on the time frame that they were written and for me, this is absolutely a 5 star read.

Pretty underwhelming. Even during the "big reveal" he tells the whole story from his current perspective which kind of ruins any ability to do something interesting with the narrator.

This novella was very different from what I had expected it to be. I must admit that reading it was a bit laborious to me because well, like most people I already knew the solution to the mystery (although I only knew the barest facts), and the story is a little slow, so I basically waited for something interesting to happen. In spite of that, the actual solution - in its details - did surprise me, and I found the ending to be very chilling. It actually gave me the creeps, and I did not expect that from this story. It was worth the read for the last one or two pages alone.

I don't know if I enjoyed reading this book or not.

What was going on in the 1880s to produce not only The Strange Case but also Dorian Gray? Victorian repression?

This gets an extra * because it’s a Classic that has inspired lots of films, but it made for a dull read - because I knew the mystery, and largely because it is told rather than shown, and the characters are so sketchily drawn that I wasn’t engaged. The story is mostly related by a Mr Utterson, who is concerned about his friend Dr Jekyll. Off stage a child is attacked and a man murdered. Then eventually Utterson breaks into Jeykll’s laboratory & reads Jeykll’s own account of what he had been experimenting with. Jeykll made a potion that could separate his good character from his bad: he could plod with respectability then dive into a sea of freedom, conscience free.

For me, the most moving part of the novel was a throwaway sentence, setting the scene, of ragged children huddling in doorways, so much for Victorian respectability.

A reread for me, but it had been long enough that I was ready to revisit it while Charlie read it for the first time for his ELA class. It's funny how so many of these kinds of classic stories, when appropriated for movies and TV, take on a completely different life and end up looking not much at all like their originals. But it's not at all surprising is that it's the stories with such potential for carrying higher truths that get this treatment - this is what myths do (function as vehicles for every new teller's message), and in that way stories like Jekyll and Hyde are very close to belonging to a kind of mythology. So, although I like Treasure Island loads more, I still appreciate the qualities inherent in this one.

I can't imagine why it's taken me until now to read this novel, but it has.

Obviously I'd been missing something wonderful.

Can't say what I'd expected before starting—likely a somewhat trashy pulp type novel. Instead, I got a gorgeously written introspective story of a highly tortured protagonist. Fantastic stuff.

As a side note, after reading this, it becomes very clear where Stan Lee came to borrow ideas for the Hulk character.

This struck me as less about the conflict of good and evil in a person's soul, and more about Victorian bourgeois hypocrisy.

Prior to Jekyll's transformation, he uses the shield of medical respectability to indulge his unnamed, and therefore probably sexual, vices (the other main vices of Victorian England, gambling and alcohol, not being unnameable), and had already been leading a double life.

His potion, Jekyll says, has the potential to emphasise either the "good" or "evil" traits of the personality, in his Case unleashing Hyde due to his preexisting affinity for wickedness. Before the transformation, Jekyll had to hide this part of his life; as Hyde he is both more concealed and more visible to "polite society", which is more concerned with appearances than substance. Although we don't get to follow Jekyll or Hyde into the world of their indulgences, it is likely that the people of that echelon of society better knew the quality of Henry Jekyll, and were of old acquainted with the qualities, if not the figure, of Edward Hyde.

A short book. At first it does not reveal the connection between Jekyill & Hyde. It is only revealed near the end. Very well done classic.

"Here then, as I lay down the pen and proceed to seal up my confession, I bring the life of that unhappy Henry Jekyll to an end."

I think my first exposure of the story “The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde” might have been via Bugs Bunny. Look it up; it’s called “Hyde and Hare”. ^_^

This novella is fairly straight forward and its tale well known. Even so, I had not known or considered several tidbits prior to reading it which buttoned up the story nicely. Some are:

- The story is told in the third person, from the view point of a friend and lawyer named Gabriel John Utterson who was initially puzzled by the strange occurrences and later actively investigated the strange occurrences associated with Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

- Becoming Hyde was a “high” for Jekyll. (I can’t tell if a pun is intended here by Stevenson.) Despite the disfigurement, Hyde was youthful. Hyde’s lack of restraints became a drug and turned Jekyll into an addict, an addiction of the physical and mental freedoms that Hyde represented and provided. Like any addiction, it’s difficult to quit. (The line “I wish I could quit you” entered my mind.)

- The timeline is over many years though the focus is one to two years. Jekyll’s initial optimism led him to spend part of his time planning for Hyde replacing himself including updating his will, so he can extend his life in the new youthful form, that is until he realizes Hyde is violent as well as eventually losing control of his alternate self.

- No one, absolutely no one connected Jekyll and Hyde as one. The revelation was thusly shocking!

Many books used father and son as a relationship comparison. Stevenson did also. This passage explains well the relationship between the two using father and son terms. “…My two natures had memory in common, but all other faculties were most unequally shared between them. Jekyll (who was composite) now with the most sensitive apprehensions, now with a greedy gusto, projected and shared in the pleasures and adventures of Hyde; but Hyde was indifferent to Jekyll, or but remembered him as the mountain bandit remembers the cavern in which he conceals himself from pursuit. Jekyll had more than a father’s interest; Hyde had more than a son’s indifference…”

One aspect that somewhat irked me (or perhaps to say it didn’t age well), is the stereotype that ‘good’ people are good looking, and evil people are grotesque. This physicality difference is part of Stevenson’s explanation on the duality of men and the irony that the good covets the pleasures of his dark side. I know, I know, it’s the evil within oneself, blah, blah. I thought it was heavy handed. “…it came about that Edward Hyde was so much smaller, slighter, and younger than Henry Jekyll. Even as good shone upon the countenance of the one, evil was written broadly and plainly on the face of the other. Evil besides (which I must still believe to be the lethal side of man) had left on that body an imprint of deformity and decay. And yet when I looked upon that ugly idol in the glass, I was conscious of no repugnance, rather of a leap of welcome. This, too was myself. It seemed natural and human. In my eyes it bore a livelier image of the spirit, it seemed more express and single, than the imperfect and divided countenance I had been hitherto accustomed to call mine…” I object to it in the sense that society today still rewards those who are better looking, taller, muscular, sometimes over the talented or of lesser physicality, even though all are capable of evil.

Talk about having one hell of a midlife crisis, LOL.

This story is absolutely fantastic! I loved the structure of it, built as a mystery slowly unfolding, sucking all of our characters into the strange world of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the climax, and the denouement that explains all. It's interesting, suspenseful, and thought-provoking. I gobbed it up in one sitting.

I've grown up with the pop culture variations on the theme so was well aware of the basic story, but I like all of the original elements - like how Mr. Hyde is a dwarfish, ugly little creature instead of a huge monster, and how the drug that Jekyll was taking was actually impure, and that was the magical ingredient, though he discovered it too late. Mr. Hyde was basically pure id let loose; too bad Dr. Jekyll's id was pure evil. He indulged it to the ultimate breaking point, to his detriment when he was suddenly turning into Mr. Hyde without the help of the drugs, and had to use the drugs to get back to his original self. Mr. Hyde murders a high-ranking MP, and when Dr. Jekyll can't return to his original form, he kills himself under the guise of Mr. Hyde.

The questions of 'two selves' and the battle between good and evil, not to mention aging and regret, are all touched upon here. There's a lot packed into this little story and it is a lot of fun.

[The Strange case of Dr Jekyll and Mister Hyde] - Robert Louis Stevenson
First published in 1886 as a penny dreadful and subsequently filmed many times Stevenson's Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde will be familiar to many readers. The idea of a dual personality: one inherently good and one inherently evil inhabiting one body and the battle between the two certainly fired the publics imagination and it was an immediate success. I came to read as part of my progress through victorian novels that contain the seeds of science fiction. This book does more than contain the seeds it gave vent to a sub-genre all of its own; the crazy scientist working in secret on a potion that will enhance his life in some drastic faction, but has unfortunate side effects. Jules Verne's Doctor Ox published in 1872 had a comparable theme and Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Doran Grey published in 1891 arguably developed the idea, but these both had elements of humour to lighten the reading: Stevenson's book has about as much humour as Scottish bagpipes. It is dark and gothic in a way that gives a nod to the literature of Edgar Allan Poe.

It is a novella in length with the final third being epistolary in form and although it is Victorian and gothic there is a tightness to the writing. The mystery moves smartly forward with Stevensons characterisation's adding to the feeling of unease that the author generates. It is a story revelling in its maleness, the only female character in an unnamed maid who witnesses a murder. It is written as a mystery and so the insights into the characters of Jekyll and Hyde are only revealed in the fairly long denouement. Mr Utterson the protagonist is by his own admission dull, but trustworthy and he is aided by his cousin Richard Enfield said to be a man about town but gives little evidence of it. The focus of the story is on the mystery of Jekyll and Hyde and I think this is why it succeeds so well along with its exploration into the murky dualities of Victorian men.

It is little more than an afternoons read and it might surprise people who have only seen the movie versions. I enjoyed it and so 4 stars.

I was not a fan of this book.

Dry, boring, focused on details that aren't directly relevant and... it was dull. Lifeless. When the main bad guy becomes hunted, he just disappears. Poof. No thrills, just... consternation. Yawn.

This isn't a bashing of classics. I've enjoyed many pre-20th century novels and stories. Some didn't work on me, while others did. This one didn't.

Everyone knows the outline of the story, so I'll bypass that. As with "Frankenstein" the novel is less horror and more philosophical than all the various film versions that have been made. Stevenson speculates that all people have both good and evil within them, and we all have a base nature that would secretly like to release the evil side, our more carnal desires, if only we could release that side with impunity, and without losing our good side. But, in releasing our baser instincts we automatically lose our more admirable traits, making it a slippery slope, when we give in to what we know is wrong, but desire all the same.
The first two thirds of the book were moderately entertaining as a novel. The final third, the resolution, was pretty much pure philosophical pondering.

The Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde reference is so common in our culture that I thought I knew the story. The story is so much more than I expected.

Did not pick up this book until well in my 30s, despite its place in popular culture for over a century. A fantastic short read - took me a minute to connect the dots of who was who and how they knew each other but would highly recommend this classic to anyone looking for an interesting piece of sci-fi written before the 20th century.

Short but powerful story. Everyone has their darker side, Dr. Jekyll chose to indulge it by turning himself into another person, ultimately to his detriment. He was unable to withdraw himself from his evil twin even when he didn't take the drug that transforms him. This is a sobering reminder of what may happen if we do not control our own darker side.

I read this using my Serial reader app and I was really happy with it!

I knew it was a classic, and, much like classics, it was a book that I'd always meant to read, or intended to read but never actually read.

I loved the atmosphere that Stevenson created. His somehow empty, foggy, cacophonous London was brought to life. I didn't find the language too hard or difficult to follow at all, which surprised me. I liked the tension for the majority of the novel -- Stevenson crafted tension through letters, confessionals and those late-night walks around London where all sorts of horrors happen.

I didn't care too much for the characters, but I definitely admired the author's writing, his language and how accessible the book is after all this time.

Even though I knew the ending, I still found it readable and hope you do too. c:

Elegantly told and suspenseful, this classic story certainly stands the test of time. I read the Keynotes Classics edition. I especially appreciated the introductory key written by Michelle M. White. She provides interesting information about the author and offers valuable suggestions about what to look for in the story. As a result, I believe I got much more from this reading than I did when I first read it. Highly recommended.

I am watching the new season of Penny Dreadful and they are featuring Dr. Jekyll this year. I realized I have never read this book, so I decided to pick it up in preparation for the show.

The writing feels very dense, and the pacing is slow. The reader slowly gets a feeling of dread, rather than outright scares. This is common with many of the horror stories of the period that I have read.

The story is interesting, with much musing on the nature of good and evil. It was a bit slower paced than I like, but this is a short book and easy to read in a day.

Along with FRANKENSTEIN and DRACULA, this short novel makes up the holy triumvirate of early horror. It asks the question: What is the nature of man's soul? The answer is that we all have a dark side, a side without a conscience, that lives only for its own pleasure without regard for anyone else. This is the Mr. Hyde that emerges when Jekyll drinks his magic potion, and he repulses everyone he meets. As Jekyll discovers, if we give free reign to the Hyde imprisoned within us, he grows stronger and asserts himself more and more, until he threatens to take over entirely.

Despite being afflicted by the usual Victorian floridness of language (some skimming required), DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE is a highly readable, if rather circuitous, story. I would recommend it to anyone interested in the evolution of the horror genre.

Bet this was a blitz before everyone and their kid knew the secret twist. A fine gothic novella, proceeding on railroad towards the ending you already knew was coming.

It's not called a classic without good reason. It's an almost perfectly plotted short novel, all the parts complementing each other, all serving to build tension and anticipation. The good doctor is suitably tragic, Hyde is suitably degenerate and, despite having seen the multitude of adaptations over the years, it still feels remarkably fresh and modern. All of Stevenson's stylistic flourishes are on show, as well as his rarely bettered storytelling ability. I'd give it six stars if I could.

“... that man is not truly one, but truly two.”

The idea that we all have a dark side? Well, certainly the main character of this story does! Dr. Henry Jekyll meets/creates/releases Edward Hyde, “The evil side of my nature,...”, and is not the same for it! It's a quick read, well except for the last chapter that draaaaags on, and an important story in the history of "horror" literature, so I'm glad I read it! Not scary by today's standards, but still a freaky idea and one that has been repeated often! I wonder which of my two halves would be the dominant one? Or do I have more than two? Hmm...

This is a re-read of this classic 19th century novella which has been the inspiration behind so many spin-offs since. It is a taut and atmospheric piece of writing, and the conclusion that Jekyll and Hyde are one and the same, two sides of the same being, only becomes evident near the end - it is hard for us to understand how this would have shocked and thrilled the reader in 1886, so familiar has the Jekyll and Hyde motif become.

interesting... not what I remember from 15 yrs ago. that's what happens with memory and Hollywood influence.

I love the story. However, since nearly 98% of the population is familiar with this story, it is kind of a drag to read this since you know how everything unfolds. I also didn't find the way in which the story was told very captivating. It is such a thin book, and I had a terrible time getting through it. I actually skipped parts in this book because they were so dreadfully boring.