Talk:Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde

Louis Vivet

The paragraph in the "Inspiration and Writing" section about Louis Vivet refers to him by his first name, which is confusing given that it's also the Author's middle name. It also seems that it is used to refer to the Author at least once, as is evidenced by the part where it says "[...]Louis was writing it as a story", which sows some confusion as to which of the two each other individual instance of the name refers. Because of this, whoever rewords it probably needs to be at least somewhat familiar with the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.6.230.49 (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikisource version

There is now a Wikisource version The Annotated Strange Case Of Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde that contains text annotations (footnotes and wikilinks). Just like Wikipedia, it is open to anyone who would like to add additional annotations. If your at all interested in the work please check it out. It is also the first annotated project completed at Wikisource.-- Stbalbach 18:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler

Thanks a lot to you pseudo-intellectuals putting in too much information and spoiling the plot. It seems I can't read about any movies or novels on wikipedia without someone thinking it's encyclopaedic to spoil the plot. Just say a sentence or two about the characters and leave it at that, don't write Dr Jekyll's whole life story there thinking you're doing people a favour - you're not. I've added in a spoiler alert warning to his character description where I feel enough has been said. Someone may even wish to delete the rest of it. Owen214 (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think anybody who picks up the novel nowadays already knows what "Jeckyll and Hyde" means, since it is part of pop culture. It was only a mystery to the original readers. There is nothing for the article to spoil. 2001:558:6011:1:11B7:55ED:94CC:AC2C (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I know its been over a year, but seriously? Its an encyclopedia. All relevent information is posted, INCLUDING the identity of characters. If this concept is to much to grasp, don't read the articles, because they all contain such spoilers if they regard stories. 206.174.103.243 (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I am furious with nearly all the plots of novels, films and TV episodes on wikipedia because they read more like a coy TV guide than an encyclopedia. In an encyclopedia, you tell people how it came out. You hide nothing. You don't just say 'David finds a strange object in his car, which leads to staggering adventures in fairyland.' You say 'David finds a talking toilet roll in his car. The toilet roll, struggling with a bottom obsession, takes David to a gay nightclub, where David finds love with Bernardo, a goat from Argentina. They all die when greenpeace bomb the place.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.4.247 (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Good and Evil

I don't think the description " In this case, the two personalities in Dr Jekyll are apparently good and evil, with completely opposite levels of morality. " in the article describes the text well. Good vs.evil is a far too simple label for that story. The whole point of the story is that Jekyll is good as well as evil, and Hyde is only evil. p. 89: That night I had come to the fatal cross-roads. Had I approached my discovery in a more noble spirit, had I risked the experiment while under the empire of generous or pious aspirations, all must have been otherwise, and from these agonies of death and birth, I had come forth an angel instead of a fiend. The whole story only works because Jekyll is evil too, and Hyde is the dissociated evil in Jekyll. Comments? Hanspi (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The entirety of the story seems to be about two things. The first is the, at the time, inconceivability of someone being so dastardly on the inside while a gentleman on the out (hence the girl in the first chapter). The second is literally a good versus evil. I agree with you that the description is flawed because it's not about good vs evil in that context because Jekyll himself is both good and evil (9/10ths good I think was his number?). "Good" never really comes into it for him which is why other characters like Utterson who were pointedly one dimensional(and thus without an inner evil) were able to overcome Hyde.--134.153.3.107 (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Misc

Since when did Mr. Hyde become Mr. Makarov? I think someone's been having a little fun editing. But they missed quite a few of the Hyde's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.15.230.129 (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The relationship of Ergot to Stevenson I don't doubt, but LSD wasn't invented yet, nor is it synonymous with Ergot. (Ergot is still used in some cases to treat migraines.) Anyone with pharmacological insights? User:Marta.Paczynska

See ergot and LSD. But yes, the claim as written in the article was false. I've rephrased it. Andrewa 06:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please could someone write the author's suggested pronunciation in IPA or some other pronunciation scheme. As it stands, it is unhelpful - is the "g" hard or soft? Which syllable carries the stress? — Paul G 17:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's (UR-gaht). Applejuicefool 13:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Or (UR-guht) (more correctly, (UR-gət).Applejuicefool 14:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed text:

"This familiarity with the concept has resulted in a severe spoiler, as the twist ending is no longer surprising, although reading the novel gives a sense of satisfaction instead of the original shock it produced."

POV, nn: We're not here to recommend the book and guarantee that it will satisfy the reader. I also don't think it's necessary to mention that most people know the ending, especially when we're talking about classic literature. Brymc210 (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

He decided to commit suicide as Utterson and the butler entered the lab.

I don't think that is actually in the original plot. Utterson and the butler (Poole) have no way of knowing Hyde's last thoughts; The last communication they have from Jekyll is of course the letter written under the influence of what he knew to be his last effective dose of the antidote, written some time before. Andrewa 02:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although Hyde was represented as a much younger man than Jekyll In the discussion concerning stage and film adapations, the play adapted in the 1990's that was stated as being a faithful adaptation? Whilst correct, it's superfluous to say ALTHOUGH Hyde was a much younger man, as Hyde actually was quite a bit younger than Jekyll in the novella, who was a respected 'older' gentleman, ie late forties, early fifties.

Stevenson was being treated with the fungus ergot at a local hospital.

Local to where? London? Edinburgh? --Chips Critic 18:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Utterson's first name?

Why is Utterson's first name given as Charles here? In the book, his full name is Gabriel John Utterson. - User:john

Vagueness

"It is currently believed that Stevenson wrote this novel in six days while on a cocaine binge. It has also been suggested that this book was written under the influence of a psychedelic drug."

Could these claims be firmed up with sources? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I modified the trivia section, posting information about the cocaine binge, complete with citation. However, I did not modify the main article. Stevensons behavior during the writing of the book was obviously that of someone on cocaine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.247.156 (talk • contribs) . 21:00 27 February 2006

This is not the first time I've heard this, it's also mentioned in the book review here, but without knowing where this information comes from, it very well could be speculation, and not based on factual evidence. The life of RLS has entered mythic proportions with 100s of biographies and just about every angle has been explored; if this is standard history, or gossipy sensationalism, I'm not sure. The standard history, according to the accounts of his wife and son (and himself) who were there, say he was bed ridden and sick while writing it. -- Stbalbach 05:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There is another rumor in the trivia section that he was using ergot and/or LSD while writing the book. I suppose he could have been supposed to have been drinking wine since we know he died a few years later while opening a bottle. So ergot, LSD, cocaine and wine -- anything else, morphine and opium and ether ? -- Stbalbach 05:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Cocaine? Ergot? Opium? This is all awfully fanciful stuff—more fanciful than the book, really. The book reads more or less like an episode of Law & Order. Hyde tramples a little girl, has undescribed adventures carousing, beats an MP to death in the street with his cane, creeps around a bit, and writes dirty words in the margins of book on religion. There is only one extended transformation scene, presented as a description in a letter after Hyde is dead. It's all very well written and creepy, but it's hardly the ravings of a coked-up lunatic. --Tysto 16:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In our present culture, we want to glamorize drugs at every occasion. Especially, we want to persuade young people to become addicts. Therefore, our zeitgeist requires that we consider this imaginative novella to be a laudable product of drug use, preferably multiple kinds of drugs at one time. We only regret that we couldn't attribute Stevenson's ability also to the consumption of alcohol and tobacco.Lestrade (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

Jack The Ripper

The Jack the Ripper murders took place within two years of the publication of the book and days of the play release in london at the time and the murders stopped just before the play closed, and some thought Jack had been inspired by it. Does anyone else know if it is true, and if so, could they add it to the article? Ryubread 16:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

similarity to the matrix

I would like to add In The Matrix, Neo is offered the choice between a red pill and a blue pill, to see "how far the rabbit hole goes". This scene bears strong resemblence to the final meeting between Dr. Lanyon and Mr. Hyde, where Mr. Hyde offers Dr. Lanyon a way out.

Stbalbach pointed out ("the rabbit hole" is an obvious reference to Alices Adventures in Wonderland)

I will try to clarity: the similarity is the choice between gaining powerful/dangerous knowledge and backing out to preserve an "ordinary world" viewpoint. My point was not the "rabit hole" allusion.

In The Matrix, Neo was offered a red pill- the choice to extend his knowledge beyond normal bounds, and a blue pill- a way to back out. This scene bears strong resemblence to the final meeting between Dr. Lanyon and Mr. Hyde, where Mr. Hyde offers to show Dr. Lanyon the results of his secret experiment, as well as the option to leave without any gain in knowledge.

does this sound better? Turidoth 01:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont disagree that the analogy could work, but honestly it sounds like original research. Is there any factual evidence that the authors of the Matrix were intentionally influenced by Jekyll and Hyde in that scene? If there is, it belongs in this article, to show how J&H has influenced other works. If not, it's literary criticism about the Matrix, and that belongs in the Matrix article. -- Stbalbach 03:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Psychology

Is Dr. Jekyll's loss of control over Mr. Hyde a result of his own denial of being Mr. Hyde (and the shock caused by his own actions as Mr. Hyde) and the tranformation itsself more of psychological than physical nature? Maybe Mr. Hydes actions in the first place are more a result of the repression of drives retained in Dr. Jekyll's psyche and a silent impulse drives him to do things which he could not possibly do with his appearance as Dr. Jekyll without fearing the consequences? Or am i way off?

---

Yes. It could be that he is reacting to the rigidity of Victorian society. At the time, there were lots of new cultures being discovered, what with the British Empire at its peak, and people may have secretly wanted to go wild a bit. However, that was stricly against the unwritten rules of the middle class. 62.253.142.61 17:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Well, not really. He lost control over his own body because of Edward Hyde, who was trying to take over him. See, the point of Dr. Jekyll's "experiment" was to take out the sin nature of a human so that only the "goodness" would remain, but it backfired. Instead of removing the the "badness," it caused "him" to surface and take over Jekyll's body. Mr Hyde, being sin,(or "badness") did enjoy killing, drinking, and just being completely imoral, so he would "take-over" Jekyll's body and go do those things. Remember, when Mr Hyde took over Jekyll, Jekyll was not himself, and it was Hyde who was having all the "fun," not Jekyll. So in a sense, your both right and wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunkymoomoo (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Do we have a source for Note #2, on the JEEK-ull versus JEK-ull pronounciation? It seems like a rather bold claim to make without any source.OkamiItto 06:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed the "Stevenson insisted" part, sounds pretentious. If that's true than there is more to the story that needs to be discussed (why did he insist, and insist of who?). -- Stbalbach 12:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The insistance was based off of the name importance. As Utterson utters out the story, and Hastie Lanyon, is hasty in his action, Dr.Jekyll proclaims with his name that he kills. "Je" is french for "I" completing the loop of "I kill and hide" or, "Jekyll and Hyde" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.104.8 (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Title

What about the periods after Dr and Mr?24.144.116.147 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Restored the definite article to the title (The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde) in the text: the fact that it was first published without "The" is adequately footnoted; however, the form with "The" is the one now most used, sentences read oddly without it, and it corresponds to the page title. -- Picapica 10:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The correct title is without the "the" - most scholars believe he did that for a reason, so that it does read "oddly" - this is in the spirit of the of the work, which is stylistically like that (Richard Drury recently wrote an annotated version that points out all the odd grammar and words and meanings). The title has the definitive because we are supposed to use a title that most people are familiar with, but I don't see why we can't stick with what he intended in the text. -- Stbalbach 12:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not sure why -- due note having been taken (as it has) of the difference between the original title and the one now most commonly used -- we cannot respect the Wp naming convention in the body of the text too. (To be scrupulously accurate, the work was not first published, in any case, as "Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde", but as "Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". Stevenson did not publish it either: that was done by Longmans, Green in London and Scribners in New York.)

I would prefer the article to begin:
The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (originally entitled Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde) <reference> ...

Have restored the "and" to the first sentence: R. L. Stevenson was not first published in 1886; his novella was. -- Picapica 09:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I guess it comes down to respecting and honoring the wishes and intention of the author, or that of an arbitrary and generic Wikipedia guideline which is not set in stone and open to interpretation on a per case basis. Also there are some in-print editions currently that don't use "The" -- generally the more professional and serious editions drop the definitive. I don't see why we can't aim for that level also. -- Stbalbach 13:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that accurate titles are more important than Wikipedia convention? Band names do this (See the page on the Ramones; not The Ramones), and literature certainly should. The title is Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Wikipedia convention should not compel anyone to place the article under an incorrect name. --Switch 13:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. Although there was at least one editor not in support of the new name, it wasn't because of any virtue of the old name, which was just incorrect, so this move is an improvement, whether or not it's now perfect. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde → Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde — This is the actual original published title of the novella; the definite article is superfluous and not in line with wikipedia guidelines, so there is no reason for it to be included; similarly, regarding the periods following the characters' titles, this respects the original publication title and (I think) British English standards, as opposed to converting the title of a Scottish author's novella to fit into American punctuation conventions. Switch ^t 06:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support. It is, strange but true, the correct title of the book. -- Stbalbach 06:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as above. -Switch ^t 07:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support If RLS didn't want a "The", who are we force it on him. Not sure about the "."s though. -- Beardo 07:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• None of the above. I think it should be moved to "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." My interpretation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) is that the most familiar, most likely to be searched for title should be used, and I believe that to be it. --Groggy Dice T|C 19:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• It is unclear what the most likely or familiar name would be. Some people may use dots, some may not. Some may include "strange", some may not. Some may have "the", some may not. In cases where it is ambiguous, the guideline says this: "For these books, try to determine, for the in the English-speaking world widely spread versions of the book, which of them was the most authoritative original". -- Stbalbach 21:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• To me, that passage seems to be talking about foreign titles translated into English, not native English works. --Groggy Dice T|C 02:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• See link for the full passage. It's not about foreign titles, although it could be (thus the "English" qualifier). -- Stbalbach 14:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have read the full context, I just have a different interpretation of it. The preceding section is about translated foreign titles, and the following paragraph is an example citing a work first published in French. --Groggy Dice T|C 03:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yesm but it is in a different section than "Title translations", not a subsection of it. It clearly applies to all titles, not just those translated, or it would be a subsection in "translations", not its own section. It simply follows up the loose ends previously; I see no reason to think it can only be applied to translated titles. -Switch ^t 06:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• In most cases, it is convention to use the most well-known title. That is hard to determine in this case - Is it Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde? Or Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde? Or just Jekyll and Hyde? I have heard all of these used to describe the general story or its concept in some form, but referring to the actual novella, people generally seem to include the "Strange Case". Regardless of that, in cases that can be confusing, it is recommended to use the "authoritative original" publication's title. In this case, that would be Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. That an be applied to originally foreign-language works, but it is also to be applied to English language works. The qualifier regarding the English-speaking world is to keep people from giving articles obscure, foreign-language titles. -Switch ^t 16:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, in view of the to me startling evidence from Stbalbach in Discussion below. Andrewa 13:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• The Dots. I have a facsimile of the first edition title page and there are no dots. I don't think there should be dots. I can scan and upload if it would help. -- Stbalbach 15:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Okay. We'll have it moved to Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde then, no periods. Thanks for pointing that out. We'll get the page moved to the actual title sooner or later! -Switch ^t 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• I think a scan of the fascimile of the first edition title page would be a good addition to the Notes section. Andrewa 13:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• OK. -- Stbalbach 19:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• I had to replace the Penguin fair use image as I believe Fair Use only counts if a free version is unavailable and since there is now a free version it might be hard to justify. I'll let someone write up a fair use rationale for the Penguin cover if they want to restore it to the article and in the mean time tag it as orphan and notify the original uploader. -- Stbalbach 21:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

beeep beeep huh huh huh

Alcoholism: Why no mention of the Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as a metaphor for alcoholism? I thought this was a common interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.200.225.2 (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Uncited Material

There is a ginormous amount of uncited material in the is article, and that needs to change rather quickly. Rather than place uncited tags all over the place, I am going to allow folk to begin citing material. If I see no decisive effort to accomplish with in a week, I will begin purgin the article of uncited statements myself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)`

As promised, I am removing uncited info. Some of it will be placed here, pending citation, and some that is simply not notable enough will be purged altogether as cruft. Please do not re-add the examples without proper, reliable and verifiable citations.

(In popular culture)

• Direct examples
• Jekyll and Hyde are sometimes included in groups with famous movie monsters, such as The Ghost Busters and the film Mad Monster Party?.
  • Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is often parodied in the Looney Tunes cartoons, such as "Dr. Jerkyl's Hide", "Hyde and Hare", and "Hyde And Go Tweet" (all 1950s cartoons directed by Friz Freleng).
  • A Marvel Comics supervillain was named after and based on Mr Hyde (see Mister Hyde (comics)).
  • The character(s) of Jekyll and Hyde appear in Alan Moore's comic book, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and the film based on it. Bearing a stronger resemblance to Marvel comics' The Hulk than Stevenson's version, Hyde - stronger than ever, and with the Jekyll Persona buried in case it gets him killed - dies aiding the saving of earth from the Martians of The War of the Worlds. Curiously, neither are ever referred to by the names from the original book's title; Hyde is always called 'Hyde' or 'Edward' by other characters, but never 'Mr. Hyde'.
  • The character(s) of Jekyll and Hyde play a minor role in the film Van Helsing, as well as a substantially larger role in the animated prequel Van Helsing: The London Assignment.
  • The Who make a reference to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in the song Doctor Jimmy, from their famous rock-opera Quadrophenia, singing about "Doctor Jimmy and Mister Jim".
  • The Who also have a song titled "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" that was composed by bass player John Entwistle and is considered a rarity, although it can be found on Magic Bus: The Who On Tour.
  • The song "Jekyll & Hyde" from the TV show Arthur, where Alan "The Brain" Powers envisions himself as Dr Jekyll (and, thus, Mr Hyde as well).
  • A R. L. Stine book Jekyll and Heidi depicts a young girl (named Heidi) moving to live with her reclusive uncle, only to discover he is the direct descendant of the original Dr Jekyll, and is carrying on his work.
  • In RuneScape, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde are a random event. Dr Jekyll asks for a certain herb, and if the player does not talk to him for a certain amount of time, Jekyll will transform into Mr Hyde and attack the player.
  • The animated movie Mad Monster Party? features Jekyll and Hyde as guest(s) at Dr Frankenstein's monster ball.
  • In the movie The Pagemaster, Jekyll is shown transforming into Hyde.
  • The heavy metal band Iced Earth wrote a song called "Jeckyl & Hyde" on the 2001 album Horror Show.
  • Jacqueline Hyde is a softcore film from 2005 in which the eponymous character inherits the family home. There she discovers a potion her uncle had been working on which allows her to transform her body in a variety of ways.
  • There is a DuckTales episode entitled Dr. Jekyll & Mr. McDuck, in which Scrooge McDuck gets sprayed with Dr. Jekyll's "Moneybags Formula", causing him to lose his mind and throw his money around.
  • In the Alvin and the Chipmunks episode "Dr Simon and Mr Heartthrob", Simon invents a hair growth formula but it mixed with a different liquid that turns him into a suave ladies man.
  • An episode of VeggieTales (A Snoodle's Tale) morphs the story into "The Strange Case of Dr. Jiggle and Mr. Sly" to instruct children about self-worth. Dr. Jiggle is a gourd who only aspiration is to dance, but is afraid to do so because he is so "jiggly," and thinks everyone will laugh at him. Hence, he creates another persona, a disco-dancing "fiend" named Mr. Sly. Mr. Sly is eventually "outed," and Dr. Jiggle learns that people like both him and his dancing, jiggle and all.
  • An episode of Garfield and Friends (Sumo of the Opera) morphs the story into "The Strange Case of Dr. Jahhmf and Mr. Tmz" to insturct children about selfishness. Dr. Jahhmf is a French pea who only aspiration is to dance, but is afraid to do so becuase he is too "jiggly," and thinks everyone else will laugh at him. Hence, he creates another persona, a disco-dancing "fiend" named Mr. Tmz. Mr. Tmz is eventually "outed", and Dr. Jahhmf learns that people like both him and his dancing, jiggle and all.
  • An episode of SpongeBob SquarePants (Princess and the Pie War) morphs the story into "God Made Dr. Jerk Special!".
• An episode of Wonder Pets (Minnesota Cuke) morphs the story into "God Loves Mr. Hye Very Much!".
  • The 1997 Backstreet Boy's music video for "Everybody (Backstreet's Back) features singer Kevin Richardson as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He appears with the two personas both reflected on his face.
  • Darren Hayes (former singer of the pop duo Savage Garden)mentions "my Jekyll and Hyde" in his song "Hero."
  • Jekyll & Hyde and Dr. Henry Jekyll are playable collectable figures in the Horrorclix game produced by Wizkids Games.
  • Ozzy Osbourne wrote a song called "My Jekyll Doesn't Hide" on his album Ozzmosis
  • The BBC programme Jekyll focuses on Tom Jackman, a modern-day man suffering from the same condition. The book is frequently mentioned within the show; the show has also been described by producers as a follow-up or sequel to the original story.
  • The backstory for 1986 Dungeons & Dragons adventure Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill has the Alchemist Strahd Von Zarovich create a machine to separate his evil half from his good half. It backfires when the evil comes to unlife in the form of the Vampire who starred in the original Ravenloft adventure.Graham1973 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual

Jess Nevins's notes to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen attribute the theory that Mr Hyde is Jekyll's gay side to Elaine Showalter: "a fable of fin-de-siècle homosexual panic, the discovery and resistance of the homosexual self." --Error 20:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nifty. Not being familiar with Jess Nevins' prior works, the link appears to be to a blog, which doesn't meet the RS standard for the Project. Can you find a stronger source that comments similarly? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

While I see no reason to believe that Hyde was Jekyll's 'gay side', surely Utterson suspects a homosexual relationship between Jekyll and Hyde when he sees the terms of Jekyll's will, and also when he discusses Hyde's ambivalent place in the Jekyll household with the butler (he has a key to the back entrance, but is never invited to dinner). He fears that Jekyll was after the 'rough trade'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6F:8B26:E639:4547:7EB1:F6BA:CC8A (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hyde has a key to the back entrance. A "backdoor invitation"? Interesting. I never saw it that way. But on the other hand, people seem to be obsessed by sexual interpretations. When I'm holding a pen in my fist it may be that I'm holding my or some other guy's dick in my hand. Or maybe I'm just holding a pen. --87.184.136.234 (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

When Utterson connects that Jekyll added Hyde to his will, gave him a key to the house, and told the servants to treat him like a master of the house, Utterson worries that Hyde and Jekyll have an embarrassing relationship and Hyde is blackmailing Jekyll, which is a trope of homosexual scandal at the time. — Subvisser5 (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Influences

• Around the time of writing the book, Stevenson was being treated with the fungus ergot at a local hospital. While ergot has been known to induce psychoactive experiences, it is not widely accepted that ergot was an influence on Stevenson or the book, but some such as Robert Winston believe it was the case. Winston points to a letter, dated “end of August, early September 1885”, which Stevenson’s wife wrote to William Henley, her husband’s friend and literary agent saying: “Louis’s mad behaviour . . . I think it must be the ergotine that affects his brain at such time.”
• Stevenson's book may have influenced detectives investigating the Jack the Ripper murders three years later. Theories of the killer being a "mad doctor" may have sprung from the storyline.
• Stevenson's death in 1894, eight years after finishing the story, happened while he was straining to open a bottle of wine in his kitchen. He suddenly exclaimed that his face had changed appearance. Collapsing on the ground, he was dead within six hours of a burst blood vessel in the brain. It remains a curious thematical link between the last episode in Stevenson's life and the transformations he wrote about in his book.
• According to Paul M. Gahlinger, M.D., Ph.D., "Robert Louis Stevenson used cocaine for inspiration, and is said to have written The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in a single six-day and night binge" (Gahlinger, 2001). Whether this is based on factual evidence, or is merely speculation, is unclear.
• At Makar's Court in Edinburgh there is a museum dedicated to Stevenson, Robert Burns, and Walter Scott. Among the exhibits is a large chest of drawers, one of the few surviving pieces known to have been made by the notorious Deacon Brodie, a famous citizen of Edinburgh who led a double life as a cabinetmaker by day and a house-breaker by night. This chest was in Stevenson's room when he was young, and bears a strong resemblance to the press in Doctor Jekyll's cabinet.
• According to Wendy Moore, author of The Knife Man, Dr Jekyll's house was modelled on that of the famous eighteenth-century anatomist and surgeon John Hunter. Hunter, always in need of cadavers for his research, was deeply involved in the Resurrectionist business, employing body-snatchers to dig up graves (often entire graveyards) in search of corpses. His house was designed to receive high society at the front and stolen bodies at the back, reflected in the dualist nature of Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde and his surroundings.
• According to BBC documentary "Ian Rankin Investigates: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde", Stevenson was influenced by his nanny telling him tales of a local man, Major Thomas Weir, who was executed along side his sister as a warlock. Weir was an apparently upstanding preacher, who confessed to practicing sexual acts such as incest and bestiality.

• Motif examples
  • This is a motif which is often applied, for example in the following BBC news report Shadowing the Conservative leader in which the analogy with Jekyll and Hyde is clearly meant "Over the course of our filming we sometimes felt that Michael Howard seemed unsure of the image he wants to project of himself and his party. At times it was the new, touchy-feely Tories, at others – as with immigration and asylum – it was hard-line stuff. A kind of Dr Jekyll and Mr Howard."
  • A Marvel Comics supervillain called the Lizard. He is Dr. Curt Connors who transforms into the lizard after an experiment goes wrong. (see Lizard (comics)).
  • The Hulk, the powerful and brutishly emotional alter ego of an emotionally repressed scientist who comes forth whenever he experiences extreme emotional stress like anger or fear, is an example of the Jekyll and Hyde motif. While the Hulk often proves vital to saving the day, seeking usually to protect, his terrifying nature drives Bruce Banner into isolation, much like Jekyll, fearing discovery.
  • The book was the inspiration behind Two-Face, a supervillain Bob Kane created in 1941 to battle Batman. An upstanding citizen and DA, Harvey Dent was horribly scarred and traumatized. This caused his formerly repressed Hyde to emerge. The two personalities come into direct conflict often and make decisions they are split on using the outside moderator of a flipped coin. Submerged in the underworld, it appears that the darker side of Dent finally replaced the better side.
  • In the Disney cartoon short, Motor Mania, Goofy takes on a Jekyll and Hyde-type split personality when he gets behind the wheel and becomes a demon driver and a menace at the wheel.
  • Fight Club, the novel and movie, share numerous elements, with the protagonist and antagonist revealed to be the result of a split personality. Tyler Durden embodies the wild, violent, destructive side of the unnamed narrator, who appears an average office employee with severe insomnia. Unlike Jekyll, the narrator cannot control when he becomes Tyler Durden, but as in the novella he begins to overpower the meeker half and wreck havoc.
  • Jekyll & Hyde Club, a themed restaurant in New York City.
  • Matthew Amerling's The Midknight (novel) features a character (Jesse Sands) who obtains enhanced abilities after bullies force him to drink a top secret government serum. One of the side effects is that his emotions often turn him into a "being of rage" whose violent tendecies surface more easily and help him to become a ruthless vigilante.
  • The Australian band Men at Work scored a pop music hit in 1983 with "Dr. Heckyll and Mr. Jive", the lyrics of which briefly tell of a scientist who developed a potion allowing him to "slip easily into conversation" and making him "cool in every way".
  • See also DID/MPD in fiction.
  • A mention of Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde occurs in the thriller 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' in which, as a part of the League, Dr. Jekyll frequently transforms himself into Mr Hyde in order to gain strength and power.

Again, do not re-add any of these "motif examples" without reliably sourced citations. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you've gone too far. Most of these are junk, but one entry clearly cites "Ian Rankin Investigates: Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" and another includes an external link to a BBC article with an explicit J&H reference. And we don't need an outside citation to tell us that the Jekyll & Hyde Club—which has its own article—is a reference to the subject of this article. Wikipedia is not The Lancet.--Tysto 18:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

References

introductory paragraph.

the intro paragraph makes the following claims:

The work is known for its vivid portrayal of the psychopathology of a split personality; in mainstream culture the very phrase "Jekyll and Hyde" has come to signify wild or bipolar behavior.

from a psychological, historical, and contemporary perspective, these claims are somewhat problematic. at the time of the novella "split personality" was a muddled psychological concept, though not out of the purview of physicians. although it later came to be called multiple personality disorder and dissociative identity disorder, and codified in the DSM, it was relatively rare and hence poorly defined at the time. it is also possible these latter diagnoses are related but not contiguous with "split personality." another issue that is raised is that the main contributing factor for the development of DID, as we now know, is trauma, not drug use (Jekyll' potions of his own design); one could claim drug use as a contributing factor for Jekyll's transformations. Finally, popular conception can be wrong, where behavior has come to signify "wild or bipolar behavior" (see misconceptions about MPD and schizophrenia, for example). I'm cautious about the psychologized language ("bipolar") in this conext, as it can misdirect a reader into confusion of MPD with bipolar disorder and perpatuate a similar, albeit technical, error as in MPD and schiz.

in short, i think the claims overattempt at psychologizing the behavior and miscontrue the diagnoses that stand for the behavior so described. if necessary to retain the general content, i suggest the following:

The work has come to be known in popular culture as a portrayal of "split personality;" the very phrase "Jekyll and Hyde" has come to mean a person who may show a distinctly different character or profoundly different behavior from one situation to the next, as if almost another person.

the focus for the change is to reflect the popular conception (not psychiatric/psychological) of the claim. i'll leave this open for comment.Platypusjones 03:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

oh, i just noticed that "bipolar" is linked to a wiki page for bipolar disorder. i am certain that this should be removed.Platypusjones 03:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Italic textAbout the Author

Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-94), was born and educated in edinburgh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.149.54 (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Copright infringement?

Have you noticed this is a direct copy from SparkNotes? 98.219.50.232 (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

installments

I thought the original story was first introduced in installments in a London newspaper, is this is true can someone tell me which one? 78.145.183.87 (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Parody

Should Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, a 1953 horror comedy film starring the comedy team of Abbott and Costello, be in the list of adaptations? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. There's enough to support a new section. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sexual content

There is no sexual content in the book. The whoe idea of Hyde being a sexual predator derrives from Jack the Ripper just two years after - see where people could have made the connection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.61.190 (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It actually derives more from the theatrical stage version, which predates media coverage of Jack the Ripper. DreamGuy (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It didn't even need that. There's a famous letter from Gerard Manley Hopkins in which he speculates that Hyde's trampling of the girl in the first chapter was a metaphor for sexual assault, used intentionally by Stevenson since he would have known there was no way to get an actual sex crime into print. Cynwulf (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Parallel with Edinburgh

This is a very common interpretation of the book. From The Guardian:

The most popular allegorical reading in our own day suggests that, although the action is set in Soho, the atmosphere is really that of Edinburgh, capital of Scotland and RLS's birthplace. In this view, the moral focus of the story is the Scottish character, burdened by dual nationality (Scottish and British), caught between two tongues (Scots and English), its instinctive spontaneity repressed by a Calvinistic church - the very church that once came between Stevenson and his father, and caused a split in the family. Edinburgh is a city starkly divided into two: the foggy old town up on the hill, once the site of colourful crimes such as bodysnatching and of public hangings in the Grassmarket; and the splendid New Town to the north, on the other side of the then newly laid railway tracks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Der Dritte Mann (talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

New section - plot?

can someone who has read the book put in a basic story plot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clonecommander (talk • contribs) 01:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

the current plot is not only horribly written but incredibly inaccurate. can somebody fix it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollywally (talk • contribs) 06:26, 15 April 2010

Digging through the article history, it looks like the original plot section was deleted entirely in 2008 by User:DreamGuy because "Wikipedia is not Cliff Notes.... entire point by point summaries of works are not encyclopedic. Someone wants to write a brief summary, fine, but this whole thing is pointless" during a number of cleanup edits - presumably nobody noticed it being removed. I don't remember the details of the story well enough to comment on accuracy, but the deleted plot summary from 2008 at least seems better written - I've restored it and flagged it for cleanup with a {{plot}} tag. If someone who knows the story wants to cut it down to a more appropriate summary, please do. --McGeddon (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde poster edit2.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde poster edit2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 5, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-01-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 21:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

An 1880s poster for Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, a novella by Robert Louis Stevenson known for its vivid portrayal of a split personality, wherein within the same person there is both an apparently good and an evil personality, quite distinct from each other. It was a huge success, with over 40,000 copies sold in the first six months after publication.Poster: National Prtg. & Engr. Co.; Restoration: PLW

Lamentable Undoes

The following sentence can be read in the article: "The novella's impact is such that it has become a part of the language…." I changed the word "impact" to "effect" in order to purify the article of early twenty–first century media–driven slang. That was the least that I could do in homage to Stevenson, a perfect master of the English language. It wasn't long before User 124.169.149.138 undid my change, the justification being that "the use of the word 'impact' in that manner is common usage and may be found in a dictionary definition 'influence; effect'." The impact of User 124.169.149.138's authority was so impactful that I decline to enter into a skirmish by undoing the undo.

The same user, 124.169.149.138, disagreed with my change of adjective regarding Hyde's character. The article had claimed Mr. Hyde to be "misanthropic." In reading the story, I had never come across this attribute in relation to Hyde. However, Stevenson had very often used the predicate "evil" in describing Mr. Hyde. As a result, I thought that it would be proper to replace "misanthropic" with "evil" in accordance with the author's own characterization. User 124.169.149.138, on the other hand, claimed that "misanthropic is a better description…." My change then underwent an "undo" and we are left with a merely misanthropic Hyde, a person whose major defect is simply that he hates or mistrusts humans, not an evil Hyde whose unbridled egoism resulted in callous violence.Lestrade (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

Agreed. Someone doesn't know how to use the word misanthropic. MarkinBoston (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(Purposeful) lack of punctuation

I was just curious if someone can tell me why there are no periods following abbreviations regarding this writing. For instance, "Dr Jekyll" as opposed to "Dr. Jekyll." Thanks. G90025 (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Because it's a British novel, and writers in the UK generally don't use periods that way, killy mcgee (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sad that I'm a son of two English teachers, right? G90025 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why the term "period" for a dot instead of "full stop"? 5 August 2012

It's American English.--87.184.136.234 (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Why did the British change their word for the punctuation mark from "period" to "full stop"? (for they used to call them periods as well) Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Not quite true Firejuggler86 - as explained at Full stop#Medieval Latin and modern English period, they used to be two separate punctuation marks, it seems that when they merged, the preference in the UK was "full stop", and the preference in the US was "period". - Arjayay (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Stevenson's source for the name Jekyll

The wiki article Gertrude Jekyll states that Gertrude's younger brother, Reverend Walter Jekyll, was a friend of Stevenson, who borrowed the family name for his novella. 5 August 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.177.116 (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The "good" Dr Henry Jekyll has a friend named Hyde and the "good" Rev Walter Jekyll has a friend named Stevenson! 09 August 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.177.116 (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

Moving this here from the article:

• The most well-known adaptation is the musical stage version, known as Jekyll & Hyde. The musical is quite different than the original novella, as it introduces two romantic interests of Jekyll. However, there have been no major adaptations to date that remain faithful to Stevenson's original. Most omit the figure of Utterson, telling the story from Jekyll's and Hyde's viewpoint (as well as using the same actor for both roles) — thus eliminating entirely the mystery aspect of the true identity of Hyde, which was the story's twist ending and not the basic premise that it is today. In addition, almost all adaptations introduce a romantic element which does not exist in the original story.

My reason for moving this is threefold:

1. Improper formatting. A list cannot consist of a single item. It is not clear why this was formatted as a list item.
2. Bold and unsupported claim. The statement "The most well-known adaptation is the musical stage version..." requires a citation that it does not have (see below). Certainly, when all the adaptations are considered, the "most well-known" versions would be the ones starring Spencer Tracy, Frederic March, possibly James Nesbitt and Christopher Lee, and even the American TV version starring Jack Palance. One might also place the Hammer Films reimagining in this short list. It is a dubious claim that, in the face of all these versions, the musical would be at the top of the list of notables.
3. Misquoting the source. The paragraph does have a source citation, but this source does not mention the musical at all. The source summarizes a few adaptations over the decades, but the rest of this paragraph is original research unsupported by the source, not a summary of the source.

Thus, the editor who placed this cited a random source related to the article, and cherry-picked details from it to construct an OR essay that does not support his bold opening statement. Normally I would have simply deleted the paragraph, but I'm getting tired of being accused of vandalism for valid edits. 67.162.236.230 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

sorcerer's apprentice

An aspect that seems to have been completely overlooked is that of the 'sorcerer's apprentice'. Jekyll seeks to use 'magic' in the form of a chemical potion, but it has unintended consequences, because Hyde eventually becomes the default character, and the potion is no longer effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6F:8B26:E639:4547:7EB1:F6BA:CC8A (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The motifs of Jekyll

Jekylls motif for calling forth his own evil self(= Hyde)Seems actually to be only that he wants a waterproof disguise when he goes to brothel! It is never directly said what these "special pleasures" that he did engage in already as a young student and that do Not become a respectable middle- aged doctor really are. This very silence änd the prissyness of victorianism however leads ones thoughts in a special direction! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.31.203 (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup and Expansion

This article is underdeveloped and undersourced which, considering its significance, is depressing. The character section needs to be redone as it's poorly developed and unsourced. The plot section is too long and needs to be trimmed down to a more appropriate length in order to fit Wikipiedia's guidelines. The inspiration and writing section needs to be expanded and more citations given for its information, this section should also be renamed Development. The reception section is way too short and needs to be expanded with more reviews from notable critics. This section should also have sub-sections detailing the novel's establishment as a classic as well as a brief addressing of the significance of the Jekyll and Hyde character. The analysis section should be given more detail with more critics analysis on the novel. The adaptions section could be combined into an adaptions and legacy section, with the former being given a brief overview. Also in this section information on the novel's legacy including references in popular culture should be added. All of these changes and additions need to occur in order for this article to meet Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards of a well developed and properly sourced article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde book cover.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde book cover.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Original American pricing

I have some doubts about the following excerpt:

The book was initially sold as a paperback for one shilling in the U.K. and for one penny in the U.S. These books were called "shilling shockers" or penny dreadfuls.

As the article on penny dreadfuls makes clear, a shilling shocker and a penny dreadful are very different things; the former is a cheap book, the latter a serial booklet in which longer stories were published in installments. Both were unique to British publishing.

The closest American equivalent to the shilling shocker was the "dime novel". Since the exchange rate in 1886 was about $4.80 for one pound sterling, a shilling was worth about 24 cents; thus a dime novel sold for about 42% of its price in the UK. That a book might be sold for one cent, 4.2% of the UK price, is not plausible. 2601:C6:4100:F980:7128:5B0D:2D13:B496 (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I have modified the text. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Relevance of Country England

The introduction box highlights a country, but does not define what it means. Where the novel was first published, where it is set (City: London being more appropriate, as England is far too vague) or some other reason. If it refers to the author, then obviously the country is Scotland. S2mhunter (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Request to add connection to other article

Hi, I've been working on editing the Gothic double article for the past few months. It is still classified as a stub so I'm looking to divert some more traffic to the article in order for its classification to go up. I have a section on how the motif is used in Jekyll and Hyde, and was wondering if I could please add a sentence or two in this article mentioning the use of the motif, and with a hyperlink to my own article? Please let me know. Thank you so much! Snowdrop Fairy (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The Nutty Professor

I’m surprised the various Nutty Professor movies aren’t referenced anywhere, given that they are so clearly drawn from this work. 2601:408:4200:1E00:809A:6D77:787A:1546 (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sir Danvers Carew

What is the source for Carew being 70 and an MP? Neither of these are stated in the text eh_oh9 (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)