1st English Assignment

ENL1000 Assignment2 Student Name: Student Number: Word Count: 1730 Robert Louis Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, analyses the notion of humanity being simultaneously good and evil, and also of there being a complexity of varying layers of instinctive behaviours.

Stevenson explores these concepts in his narrative technique, amongst the midst of the aristocracy and middle class Victorian values of respectability, morality and intolerant sexual restraint. Jekyll and Hyde is a short text which is tangled with various narrative techniques, which advance the story into a ten-chapter novella. marking a new level of achievement in its, power to provide spellbinding entertainment while intimating a valuable moral. ” (Linehan xi). As an innocent Victorian tale, Jekyll and Hyde illustrates a classic benchmark of the period’s sensibilities, however “as a narrative, it is the most intricately structured of Stevenson’s stories. ” (Saposnik 716).

The actual charade at the core of Victorian society was the important elements written about in the novella. And that is the falseness of humanity, which Stevenson speaks of inextricability.Robbie BH Goh (160) comments that the core typifying codes are of shame and guilt. These were frequent elements in a period when the aristocracy (ruling class), faced questions to religious creation and class division. There was also a large dispersion of displeasure with working conditions, which were bought about through the Industrial Revolution.

This had the result of an era that was fighting to hold onto its beliefs. Walter Houghton (147) narrates how Victorians behaved in a time, where there were higher standards of behaviour. Sometimes these principles were too high for civilization.This state of society is the dilemma of the main character in the novella. That is the split personality of Henry Jekyll into Edward Hyde. The character is portrayed as two separate entities, throughout the first eight chapters; nevertheless the character is substantially one being.

However as the story finishes, the reader is to retain that, “there was still one man born and only one man buried. ” (Chesterton 184). The story of Jekyll and Hyde has been oversimplified since its initial release in 1886; it is also common for the character to be seen as “Jekyll or Hyde where one should see Jekyll-Hyde. (Saposnik 715). The idea of the two characters being polar opposites, are continual in stage and screen adaptations. This is where Jekyll is angelic, and Hyde is unkempt, animalistic and the epitome of evil.

This oversimplification I believe, takes away the key fundamentals of the two personalities which are those of Dr. Henry Jekyll and also Edward Hyde, and are therefore more complex than we are to consider. As the narrative starts, the outside element of Henry Jekyll has an, “imperious desire to carry (his) head high, and wear a more than commonly grave countenance before the public. (Stevenson 48).

As it is the justification of, the behaviour of respectability, properness and virtue. We see Jekyll is not as he portrays himself, and is a multifarious person. Jekyll dislikes his, “morbid sense of shame,” (48) and sees his attraction as, “undignified. ” (53).

Edward Hyde is a part of Jekyll, and his essence; the part which Jekyll has worked hard to hide. Hyde is simply, “Jekyll’s unrepressed spontaneous existence. ” (Miyoshi 473). The two people’s share few similarities, however they do have the same handwriting, and also share the same memories.

Jekyll’s alter-ego however advances as the narrative increases, becoming forceful and more tyrannical with each transformation. As Hyde continues in being angry, disturbed and violent, we see Jekyll becoming weaker. Jekyll’s guidance in Hyde’s escalating importance, allows the reader to visualise Hyde digesting Jekyll’s strength. Jekyll takes immense gratification from Hyde’s repulsive character, as the powder allows him to, “spring headlong into a sea of liberty. ” (Stevenson 52).

The key component to the relationship is how Jekyll is for the first time, without fear, able to welcome his hidden fantasies.This is due to the powder’s ability to transform his appearance. We see how Jekyll is able to ravel in Hyde’s evils, as well as morally separate in a schizophrenic way. Despite the narration alternating around the Jekyll/Hyde identity, Stevenson chooses to build the plot through other characters. Such as the phlegmatic lawyer Mr.

Utterson. The key method to the metanarrative operation is the attitude of Utterson and the reader, “He is our guide, our detective, our access to further discovery. ” (Currie 130). Along with Utterson there are also comprises of other characters, which include Mr.

Enfield a distant family member and man-about-town, the hearty and healthy Doctor Lanyon and Jekyll’s well dressed man servant Mr. Poole. There is also an apparent lack of females inclusive of the novella. Saposnik comments on how the Victorian era, despite having a sovereign, was male-centred. It is therefore how the story is directed, with the essence of moral behaviour, being best viewed from the male perspective. The story is therefore an anachronism being in media res, with the narration (the story of the trampled girl) in sequence to create rudiments of mystery.

While there are three main narrators, the rendition starts with an omniscient third-person story. As the narrative grows the narrator is accumulatively unaware, leaving the narrative contained in a third-person narration. Stevenson then uses the contained third-person narration of the character Mr. Utterson, for much of the novella; while he substitutes this view with four other narratives.

These are: Mr. Enfield’s first-person recall of the trampling of the small girl, Chapter One. Story of the Door, the maid’s humorous recall of the Carew murder, Chapter Four.The Carew Murder Case, Dr. Lanyon’s first-person narration, Chapter Nine. Dr.

Lanyon’s Narrative and lastly Dr. Jekyll’s omniscient revelation in Chapter Ten, Henry Jekyll’s full statement of the Case. The finished product of Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, is deeply intricate, as most of the characters contribute to the unveiling, of the doctor’s hidden alter ego.

The detached narrative voices of Enfield, Lanyon and Jekyll are, “placed in successive order so that they add increasingly rhetorical and psychological dimension to the events they describe. (Saposnik 722). Enfield’s assessment of the girl being trodden and Story of the Door, mark Stevenson’s first exercise of an embedded narrative in the novella. As Enfield acquires the behaviour of the first-person narrator, and Utterson acquires the behaviour of narratee, the reader experiences this central event, at the same time as the principal story teller. It is this separate event which evokes the first undertone of mystery, along with the first event, which indicates the principal third-person narrator is restricted, and not omniscient.The change from omniscient to restricted allows advancement beyond an ordinary contrast of good versus evil, into a mixed narrative of the chasm humanity presents.

The restricted third-person narrative accumulates the grade of confusion, which leaves the reader with a lot of unanswered questions, at the disenchanted Utterson. However it is Utterson’s inactiveness rather than his active part, which allows the plot to increase, along with the mystery and tension of the account. The third-person restricted narration, from Utterson’s view, is then substituted with the second-hand narrative of the maid, of the murder of Dr.Carew. The narrative firstly portrays Utterson as, “a man of ruggered countenance, that was never lighted by a smile; cold, scanty. ” (Stevenson 7).

The retelling of the maid’s narrative emphasises, how rigid his pose is growing, through the non-advancement of his person. That is however until the Incident of the letter. This occurrence alters the tempo of the mystery, as Utterson’s conjectures of Jekyll are stirred. After a handwriting assessment, along with a comment about said letter, made from his head clerk, Utterson changes his future behaviour (Stevenson 27).

Utterson now suspects, “Henry Jekyll (is) forge for a murderer. ” (28). The Remarkable Incident of Dr. Lanyon continues the suspense, in preventing the narrator and narratee, from learning what is written in the letter to Utterson.

Thus ensuring the mystery is upheld. The mystery therefore gains more energy with the reactions of Utterson and Enfield with regards to the Incident at the Window. Their silence is intensified with Mr. Poole’s embedded narrative in The Last Night. It is in this chapter, where the irreverent remoteness catches up, and the endurance of the plot, come together for the final scene of the story.Where it is the final chapter of the story, which is the end of Henry Jekyll and Edward Hyde’s life.

Kirsten Stirling (89) says the whole story is created around the conjecture of the twist. The twist is disclosed at the end of the story, as Stevenson’s use of survival, comes with the first-person narration of Lanyon. Henry Jekyll’s Full Statement of the Case, the final chapter, “gathers up the threads of the preceding episodes…” (Stevenson 189). Jekyll’s narrative firstly comes across to be first-person omniscient, but this is then called into question.

As it is apparently the information of events, by Dr.Jekyll which are not able to be authenticated, and which are in fact Henry Jekyll’s own conjecture. The narrative voice is at times hindered with the classification of Hyde, but yet at times refers to Hyde himself. “With transport of glee, I mauled the unresisting body, tasting delight from every blow.

” (Stevenson 56). Jekyll as the narrator sees himself in the third-person of Hyde. He also sees himself in the third-person as Jekyll, “as if the relationship between Jekyll and Hyde and the relationship between Jekyll and Jekyll as narrator and narrated are operating in parallel. (Currie 119).

As the clear omniscient first and third-person narrator, he is able to detach himself from the ethically improper actions of both the narrated Henry Jekyll and Edward Hyde. It is therefore open to discussion as to which personality in the end provides the testimonial. Hyde has demonstrated himself as proficient of imitating Jekyll when necessary, and Jekyll of being accomplished of imitating Hyde when necessary. It is therefore impossible to be familiar with Stevenson’s anticipated narrative in Henry Jekyll’s Full Statement of the Case.While the mystery is clarified, the most important narrator throughout the story is obviously nonexistent.

Stevenson therefore leaves the reader guessing at every point, even after the novella is finished. While the essence of the story is out of the ordinary, the story itself is not remarkable. It is therefore Stevenson’s superior use of narrative technique, and un-timeliness, which creates a piece of literature, for each of the Victorian and contemporary reader to enjoy. Works Cited: Chesterton, GK. “The Real Stab of the Story. ” Strange Case of Dr.

Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.New York: W. W.

Norton & Company, Inc. 2003. pp. 184 Currie, M. “True Lies: Unreliable Identities in Dr. Jekyll and Mr.

Hyde. ” Postmodern Narrative Theory. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2003. pp. 117-34 Goh, R.

“Textual Hyde and Seek: ‘Gentility,’ Narrative Play and Postscription in Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. ” Journal of Narrative Theory 29. 2 1999.

pp. 158-83 Houghton, W. “Hypocrisy. ” Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 2003. pp.

147 Linehan, K. “Preface. ” Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr.

Hyde. New York: W. W. amp; Norton & Company, Inc. 2003.

p. xi. Miyoshi, M. “Dr.

Jekyll and the Emergence of Mr. Hyde. ” College English, Vol. 27, No. 6. National Council of Teachers of English.

March 1966. pp. 470-580 http://www. jstor. org/stable/374021 Saposnik, IS.

“The Anatomy of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. ” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 11, No.

4, Nineteent Century. Rice University. Autumn 1971. pp.

715-731 http://www. jstor. org/stable/449833 Stevenson, RL. Strange Case of Dr.

Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Norton Critical Edition. Ed.

Katherine Linehan, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 2003.