A PHENOMENON OF STYLE
In the essay “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” Vladimir Nabokov critiques and analyzes the novel “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” written by Robert Louis Stevenson. The essay begins with Nabokov’s demand for people to abandon any preconceived, superficial understanding of Jekyll and Hyde they may have in order to appreciate the artistry that is illustrated in the novel. Nabokov argues that Jekyll and Hyde is more than the “bogey story” Stevenson exclaimed it be and it fails as the detective novel that some consider it. He emphasized instead that Stevenson’s writing of Jekyll and Hyde was “its own special enchantment if we regard it as a phenomenon of style.” Nabokov reinforces his claim by explaining the writing style of Jekyll and Hyde as closer to poetry than to fiction which is rare for a horror story written in the Victorian Era. He insists that the artistry of Stevenson’s writing distinguished Jekyll and Hyde from other Victorian literature without necessarily meaning to. To support this, he includes a quote expressing that Stevenson’s artistic purpose of Jekyll and Hyde was (to make) “a fantastic drama pass in the presence of plain and sensible men.” This quote refers to the plain and sensible people of the Victorian period. Nabokov asserts that Stevenson had to rely heavily on style to overcome the problems that may have been encountered when writing the story.
The Victorian Era attributed to the difficulties Nabokov claims Stevenson had to master to make the story realistic. These problems included making a magic potion plausible and making Jekyll’s evil a believable evil before and after his transformation. Nabokov notes that Stevenson efficiently attempted to conquer these difficulties by having two, ordinary but intelligent individuals such as Utterson and Enfield narrate the story before revealing Dr. Jekyll’s point of view. Establishing two logical observations of “Hyde” solidified the reality of a human monster. Nabokov also discussed how Stevenson setting the story in London and regularly referencing common characteristics of the city constructed a plausible environment for the fictional story to take place. Nabokov claims that the stable narration and relatable setting influenced how the story was to be interpreted as realistically frightening rather than mythical.
Nabokov states:
“The question that must be asked of the work is whether Utterson and the fog and the cabs and the pale butler are more ‘real’ than the weird experiments and unmentionable adventures of Jekyll and Hyde.”
Nabokov confidently obliterated three popular inclinations of Jekyll and Hyde. First, Nabokov believed that Dr. Jekyll as himself was not entirely good-but actually a mixture of both good and evil. Next, he states that when Jekyll consumes the potion, he does not transform into Hyde but instead Hyde emerges from Jekyll like a parasite that lives within him. Nabokov explains that this reference manifests in the physical size of Hyde being smaller than Jekyll, showing that the evil that makes up Hyde is smaller than the greater good of Jekyll. Nabokov concludes that there is a three-personality theory of Jekyll and Hyde which demonstrates how Stevenson made Jekyll’s evil apparent before and after his transformation. The three personalities of Jekyll included Jekyll, Hyde and the residue of Jekyll that exists when Hyde is active.
VICTORIAN ERA INFLUENCE
Nabokov discussed the effect that the Victorian Era had on the foundation of the story. He contemplates Stevenson refraining from describing Jekyll’s hidden desires in the first part of the book and referring to Jekyll’s home as “Black Mail House.” He questions what Stevenson’s writing would’ve included if he went further than the era allowed. Nabokov agreed with other critics such as Stephen Gwynn who also considered the Victorian Era responsible for several reasons why the story was written the way it was.
Nabokov quotes Gwynn:
“Working as he did under Victorian restrictions,’ and not wishing to bring colours into the story alien to its monkish pattern, consciously refrained from placing a painted feminine mask upon the secret pleasures in which Jekyll indulged.”
It is beneficial to understand the climate that the story of Jekyll and Hyde was written in as the story emerges in 1885, almost directly in the middle of the Victorian Era of the United Kingdom. The Victorian Era lasted around 65 years and the society was known for having strict morals regarding family, education and work ethic. The Victorian Era had a Code of Conduct which guided principles and expectations. This code reflected in the literature resulting to include traces of romanticism combined with themes of realism and hard work. This suggests that a code of conduct existing in the time and place of Dr. Jekyll may not have been a coincidence but actually inspiration. For instance, Stevenson chose for Jekyll to specifically live in SoHo, London which was known as one of the worst parts of London in the Victorian Era. A doctor living in such a grim environment generated the foundation of good verse evil that is the essence of the story.
It can’t be said for sure if a code of conduct is what inspired Stevenson but it cannot be ignored as corrupt morals seem to encourage Jekyll to create Hyde. Dr. Jekyll feels the pressure of Victorian society to behave appropriately which weighs him down. From this pressure, emerges Hyde, who allows Jekyll to blow of stem. Hyde encompasses taboo ideations of someone living in Victorian society. The story of an honorable man exerting evil impulses was captivating in a period where society was expected to behave graciously.
CREATING A MONSTER WITH STYLE
In questioning where Stevenson’s writing would have gone if it weren’t for the Victorian Era, Nabokov compares him to other Victorians such as Tolstoy, who he also believes did not go far in pushing the limits of their work. What Nabokov does not do, is compare Stevenson’s style of writing to similar literature from other eras. One obviously similar piece being “Frankenstein” which was written 70 years prior in the Regency Era by Mary Shelley. Two similar and extremely famous storylines written in two different eras is intriguing, but what is more intriguing is the stark difference in the portrayal of the two stories which Nabokov was reluctant to emphasize when analyzing the reason for Stevenson’s style of narration.
The style of narration could be considered one of the biggest differences in the two stories. Jekyll and Hyde was narrated by unbiased sources for a large portion of the book while Frankenstein was narrated by Victor, the creature’s creator for a large part. Although the narration differs, the most trusted narrator in each story is portrayed almost the same. In Jekyll and Hyde, Stevenson takes the time to describe Utterson as “tolerant” and “inclined to help rather than to prove.” This establishes a liking for Utterson and a sense of trust in his opinion. In Frankenstein, Shelley had Robert Walton’s letters narrate the beginning and end of the story. Walton contrasted the un-stability present in Victor, giving the audience a more trustworthy character to depict the events. Both, Shelley and Stevenson took their respective audience into account when choosing how to present their stories. Nabokov brought up that Stevenson was concerned about what leaves a lasting impression on an audience, and I wonder if he took note from the impact of Frankenstein. Two prominent stories written in different eras establishes the notion that as much as humans and art progress over time, the themes that stimulate society remain consistent.
Robert Louis Stevenson’s Jekyll and Hyde shows that transformation of literature may have more to do with the evolution of the audience than the art. This is where Nabokov failed to give Stevenson enough credit for creating a conflicting story in the Victorian period. Such a storyline was risky and could have been ridiculed and deemed outlandish or too racy. However, the wide acceptance of Stevenson’s chosen portrayal of Jekyll and Hyde proved that even pretentious Victorians entertained the frightening idea that they too have the power to become pure evil.
Questions:
- Is Dr. Jekyll a good man?
- If Jekyll and Hyde were written today, would it be as famous as it was in 1885?
- Does the style of narration effect how the story is interpreted?
Works Cited-
-Stevenson, Robert Louis, and Katherine Linehan. Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: an
Authoritative Text, Backgrounds and Contexts, Performance Adaptations, Criticism. Norton, 2003.
– Stevenson, Robert Louis. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Aerie Books Ltd.
-“Victorian Era Code of Conduct.” Victorian Era Life in England. Victorians Society & Daily Life
www.victorian-era.org/victorian-era-code-of-conduct.html.
12 replies on “Vladimir Nabokov on Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; “A Phenomenon of Style””
It would be difficult to judge whether Dr. Jekyll is a good man or not. On the one hand, he only acts out in such a way when he is under the influence of the potion. On the other hand he personally chose to take the potion and seems to enjoy being in his mad state. While this definitely suggests that Jekyll is immoral and evil, a further question would be whether man himself is good. It would seem that Jekyll represents the universal struggle of mankind where we all have an inner Hyde personality that we are fortunate enough to remain hidden. If mankind is also guilty of such feelings then it would seem that Jekyll cannot be considered as bad; yet, he cannot be considered good either. He can just be considered human.
This is a clear, well-organized, and engaging blog post that effectively communicates Nabokov’s main points for an audience unfamiliar with his critical essay. You are able to effectively use Nabokov’s essay as an entryway into a fuller understanding of the novella. I was particularly impressed by your flawless transition into a discussion of Victorian morality and how understanding historical context helps us make sense of the specific details of the scenery Stevenson chose. I might push back a bit against your assertion that Frankenstein and Jekyll and Hyde have more stylistic differences than similarities — after all, although Frankenstein is the “narrator” for much of the novel, his narrative is filtered through Walton’s letters. It’s interesting to me that Jekyll and Hyde similarly uses a nested narrative structure — I wonder if it is a particularly apt structure to convey the supernatural (veiling the unfamiliar beneath layers of intermediaries) or to convey psychological duality or ambiguity (forcing us to consider how even the narrative of the self is constructed from a patchwork of sources). I’m intrigued by your conclusion that “Stevenson’s chosen portrayal of Jekyll and Hyde proved that even pretentious Victorians entertained the frightening idea that they too have the power to become pure evil” — your choice to describe this as a power than a vulnerability makes me wonder how fine a line there is between power and vulnerability in this novel.
I originally assumed that Dr. Jekyll was the good guy and this was just another tale of good vs. evil until I finished the novel. Dr. Jekyll is even worse than Victor Frankenstein. Victor, at least felt overwhelming, debilitating guilt when he made the creature, while Jekyll’s first instinct was to insulate himself from any of the consequences that come with trampling little girls and other assorted malfeasance.
I liked the way this was narrated. Two people being able to corroborate the experiences they’ve had with the same person is probably something everyone can relate to. Boring, uptight, high-society types seem to emit an aura of credibility, even when there is no evidence to support that. Utterson did seem honorable since he didn’t read Lanyon’s letter prematurely and seemed genuinely concerned for Jekyll. This choice of narrator just made it seem more believable than the word of some boat captain relaying the story of a guy he found stranded in the artic.
I don’t believe that Dr. Jekyll was a purely good man, for the reason being that he’s the one who chose to create and consume the potion. He originally had control over his identity in the beginning, which means that even though he had some good in him, he wanted to have another side to him, which was violent and devilish. I don’t think that this novella would be as famous if it were written today. Back then, it was a weird and unknown trait to have dual personalities. Today, dual or multiple personalities are recognized as a mental disorder. Because of this, the novella probably wouldn’t have been as popular because there wouldn’t be too much originality to it.
If we were to purely look at Dr. Jekyll, I would say that he is a good man.He does charity work and throws dinner parties. But Dr. Jekyll has another side to him and that side is evil. After Dr. Jekyll drinks the potion, he morphs into an evil man. It’s important to note that Dr. Jekyll has a conscience and so he can differentiate between right and wrong. It is interesting because Mr. Hyde was doing questionable behaviors and yet he was not sent to an asylum. I was wondering why that was because, during the Victorian age, people were sent there if they were behaving unacceptable.
If this story were written today, I think it would still be relevant because it’s still relatable to a modern audience. The idea that people have an uncontrollable dark side is something I think applies to every generation, not just Victorians. Dr. Jekyll is a man that appears to be mild, but his uncontrollable passions are released when Mr. Hyde takes over. Passion has a big effect on our behavior, and Dr. Jekyll was unable to control his. I think it’s possible that Mr. Hyde is just an extension of Dr. Jekyll’s personality instead of a separate person altogether. He uses the Mr. Hyde persona to fulfill his urges. The language of the story would likely need to be updated into modern English in order to be successful, but other than that, I think it would still be famous today.
The style of narration definitely effects how the story is interpreted. Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde is told by a third person, Mr. Utterson (Dr, Jekyll’s lawyer). Narrating the story this way shows a limited point of view of the story and makes the story more suspenseful. Telling Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in a third person limited point of view creates more mystery and drama. The reader learns what is happening through Mr. Utterson’s experiences trying to discover what is going on with his friend, Dr. Jekyll. Mr. Utterson tries to solve the mystery of who is Mr. Hyde and how is he related to his friend, Dr. Jekyll. If Dr. Jekyll had narrated the story there would be no suspense or mystery to solve because the reader would already know what was going on from the beginning.
There is a fine line between what is considered good and what is bad, this novel blurs the line. For example, the doctor is described as respectable and charitable; he is a well-off man, and is well established in the community. While, on the other hand, Mr. Hyde is violent and cruel; other characters in the story describe him as repulsive and a juggernaut. Examining these descriptions shows us that Dr. Jekyll, who is the socially accepted half, is the “good” half, and Mr. Hyde is the “evil” half. But this brings up another question – how “good” can Dr. Jekyll be if has these evil thoughts and he acts on them? I don’t think there is a clear answer to which one of them is the good one.
The theme of good vs. evil is used throughout the novella, so with that being said it is hard to distinguish between the two when it comes to Dr. Jekyll as a character. I believe that when he is himself as Dr Jekyll he is a good man who is going through the stresses of life just like anyone else in society. He makes the potion to separate his two personalities of good and bad believing that it will allow for him to focus on his work and career without his evil coming through to distract him. The struggle to handle the two extreme sides of good and bad is what lead to his downfall. I don’t think there is an answer as to if he is good or bad I personally believe he is just a normal man who created something that went beyond the boundaries he intended it to, separating his good and evil personalities because after all they held the power over his being, like if you were to have an angel on one shoulder and the devil on the other.
The book is fictional and not actually real, so one cannot fully ascertain whether He is a good or a man that is bad. However, the story points out one of the attributes of his transformation from being evil to good. In today’s world there is little appreciation by people as per artistic work hence, little will be said about it if written today.
I would consider Dr. Jekyll to be a good man based on his establishment in the community and role in charity. However, his ambitions in finding a way to express his evil ambitions through his transformation to Mr. Hyde who is the exact opposite of Dr. Jekyll and is someone who seeks out violence. Shows the true nature of Dr. Jekyll and questions whether he can be considered a good man after all.
In terms of the consumption of media based on today’s population, specifically today’s youth, If Jekyll and Hyde were republished as a book, I would say it would be popular no doubt, however, it wouldn’t be as popular from when it was first published in 1885. The different forms of entertainment have shifted drastically from the 19th century to now.
The style of narration does affect the story and how it’s interpreted by following a third person point of view, following Mr. Utterson which is very different from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein where the narration shifted often from Walton’s letters to Victor Frankenstein’s story and so on.
In my opinion the style of narration does effect how the story is interpreted. When a story is told from multiple different perspectives aside from just one perspective a person can really understand in detail what is going on in the story. I believe Dr. Jekyll is a good man from how is perceived in his community but when influenced by the potion is another story.