What Everybody Gets Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde (2012)
tor.com
tor.com
This is one reason why the typical teaching methodology of a US high school English class typically has the effect of blunting the enjoyment of classic literature - students are not usually given the chance to read the story in its entirety before it is dissected to death, chapter by chapter.
I certainly read all of my assigned texts an din the case of classical studies several other books and plays in the cannon.
Because they're teenagers with better things to do with their time than reading old 'boring' books by a bunch of pointless dead people.
It means I read a lot of great books, for example. I used to read them and then write about them. I'd spend almost as much time writing and thinking as I did reading the books. I'd make notes, quotes, and tie things in with other literary works.
If I'd had computers and the Internet, I'd have spent that time watching porn and posting fart jokes.
That was the reasoning for my pointing out that it may sound strange.
Even as a well-grown adult, I still go outside and play, sans any compute devices at all. I often hike, snowmobile, ski, snowshoe, ride an ATV, etc and don't even bother with a GPS unit or bring a cell phone. Mentioning this sometimes nets some responses expressing everything from curiosity to suggesting that I'm recklessly endangering myself and others.
Yes, yes I have had (online) people tell me that my doing so is actively endangering others who may need to come rescue me. I'm never quite sure how to respond politely to those types of comments. I guess it is difficult for some people to understand that life existed before the ubiquity of communication devices and always-on networks. They sometimes express more dismay when I point out that, in some locations, not even cellular service is available.
Ah well... But, yeah, it sounds strange to some folks - given the responses I've had to similar commentary.
So, it's not just if a book is good or not; it's also if it finds you at the right time. I don't just mean maturity; I also mean what big ideas are swirling around your head at the time.
For example, I read One Hundred Years of Solitude in HS and hated it. I read it again several years later, having mostly forgotten it, and I loved it, thought it was a masterpiece. I recently reread it, several years passing and having mostly forgotten it again, and I couldn't finish it, just didn't resonate the same way and moved too slowly to keep my attention.
If you try reading a classic and are still hating it after 50 pages or so, I recommend just putting down and trying again later in life. Of course, that doesn't work so well for required reading when a teacher wants everyone in the class to discuss the same book.
Because not everyone has that sort of luxury. Pre-college, I never had an actual syllubus detailing such things. Sometimes we'd get told we'd start a book every x weeks or something, but we never actually knew.
Most common method of introducing books was to hand them out in class, giving a reading assignment for that night with discussion beginning the next day.
I didn't even realize the picked books might have any value until I accidentally read 1984 on a friend's recommendation, not realizing I'd have it for class the following semester.
And I still couldn't stand the class discussion of it.
So if I was going to do any reading, I had more incentive than not to avoid anything the school recommended: they'd kill anything I liked about the book anyways.
I think my worst experience was being assigned voltaire (candide iirc), and realizing no else one was laughing, not even the teacher
And then they have assignments that assume that you have not read the book and that you will fail if you have, unless you carefully disguise this fact.
I'd contend very few teenagers are really ready to enjoy Sense and Sensibility or similar texts anyway because of their different and short experience of life, but they are in a position to learn some of the techniques and vocabulary used.
Maybe, but I think the bigger reason is just that teenagers have generally not developed the kind of maturity where reading a classic work of literature is very enjoyable.
As it's described in the article, I see many parallels with today's anonymised internet culture - we can be someone else, someone who doesn't have to fear any consequences for what he says, we can lie on the internet to (try to) form other's perception of ourselves, thus being whoever we want to be.
But ultimately it's still the same person making those decisions, typing those words and decepting those other people, who may not be all that honest themselves.
Not to be compared with murder, obviously, but I feel like the same principle applies.
See also the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory" from 2004:
And in the book, the distiction is a bit different: whatever someone does in "real life", his body, face, voice... it's all the same. In small villages it's impossible to hide. In bigger cities at that time, it wasn't so big, people still know each other among his social circle. And it was easy to notice someone leaving his own circle and appearing in another.
So, what internet gives you as a basic (easy to be anonymous, in the sense that commmon people perceive it, I'm not talking about using tor and so on), Jekyll had to blame on his drink. And blaming saves his face: wasn't he blaming it, he couldn't say that the "monster" was doing things that, in the end, he was trying to.... hyde.
It's also why I found the TV series _Angel_ (the _Buffy_ spin-off) so unsatisfying. There is a truly fascinating story to be told about a vampire whose soul has been restored to him, and who is always at war with his own evil nature. But _Angel_ is not it. Instead, the eponymous character is essentially entirely good except when some supernatural agency transforms him back into Angelus, his evil form. All the conflict is externalised.
That's a particularly surprising and disappointing mis-step given _Angel_'s provenance. Joss Whedon is exactly the kind of person who I'd have expected to be interested in exploring the _inherent_ contradictions within the Angel character, and showing how they are analogous to the questions that we all face.
Of course, that character assessment essentially apes Batman/Bruce Wayne as well; Batman is Hyde, Bruce is Jekyll, but Hyde and Jekyll are the same person with the same drives and impulses.
Overall though, it's a good show with a darker theme than most current superhero fare. Though, I may be biased as the Green Arrow was my favorite comic book character as a kid.
Besides, if you want a vampire character at war with his own evil nature, surely that's basically Spike's arc?
In a lot of ways, I actually found Angel to be much deeper than Buffy, especially as Buffy progressed through later seasons. The shows were definitely dealing with two entirely different aspects of human nature, so it is difficult to compare them fairly.
To state it more clearly, even if you believe that Hyde is the evil in Jekyll's soul, and not just Jekyll acting out his fantasy, the former is a metaphor for the latter.
I also disagree with this reading because it is clearly stated that Hyde is smaller than Jekyll because such a small percent of Jekyll is evil. (Hyde is the unadulterated evil, in other words).
Given it is Jekyll himself that makes that observation, it may not be all that "clear". Jekyll is a very unreliable narrator in the book, and "I only have a little bit of evil inside, it's small really" is probably one of his lesser delusions.
It's interesting he brings up this point. I once took a leadership class at my University, and in the class my teacher once said, "do you follow the speed limit because if you don't you'll get a ticket or because it is the right thing to do?" He then followed it by saying, "If you follow it because it's the right thing you're crazy." When I heard this I was just hoping he wasn't applying it to things other than the speed limit. Sometimes I feel you have to do the right thing, because it is the right thing.
Another similar case was when I was reading my economics book which said altruism only exists due to incentives, and it wouldn't exist otherwise; I personally believe there are people who act altruistically despite incentive going either way. Although, I also find personally if I do the right thing despite incentives for me to lie or do otherwise people will often make up the difference.
Further, I'll suggest that there is something wrong with that take on altruism, simply because that's not how altruism feels.
Also, I disagree with my economics book I believe true altruism does exist. I just believe people aren't perfect, but their desires and character can make them truly altruistic.
It can be argued that altruism itself generates dividends for the whole of society, and thus acts of altruism can be seen as self-benefiting, adding a middle that isn't otherwise considered.
A good example might be: "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because I'm forced to." vs. "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it's the right thing to do." There is yet another option of "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it has economic benefits and because I don't want to personally deal with the homeless everywhere I go." The last one might sound heartless, but I think that it might appeal to more conservative members of society, and it also turns out to be true.
I feel your understanding of altruism seems to coincide with a utilitarianism standpoint of it is the right thing if it creates the greatest sum total happiness for society. I feel Utilitarianism is close to defining what is right, but if you have ever studied it Utilitarianism has some flaws (when I say this I don't mean to attack your personal standpoint on altruism/right only Utilitarianism in general.) Often these flaws can be fixed with a more rule based approach to Utilitarianism. I personally like Utilitarianism's approach, but probably take a more Aeristotelian approach which is more along the lines of it is the right thing if it makes me act in a more virtuous manner. Aeristotle believes those of truly virtuous characters wouldn't desire to do wrong things in the first place.
But, really, as a single driver, your behavior doesn't have that much influence on others.
To use a blunted instrument as a descriptor, you cause an accident and it results in complete stoppage of traffic.
However, much smaller things can actually impact the flow of traffic in a significant manner. Brake late and hard and you can watch the ripple effect for many cars behind you. It can actually cause a ripple that goes back for miles and has effects lasting for much longer than you might think - on the order of minutes to as long as a half hour in extreme situations.
All that from just braking late and hard under the right circumstances...
If you want to improve the flow of traffic, as a single individual, leave space between you and the car in front of you, allow people to merge, and strive to maintain a constant speed. You may actually reach your destination faster, though it isn't intuitive.
Edited to add: I modeled traffic. That is what my business did. I started with vehicular traffic and would later expand to model pedestrian traffic. Traffic is a fascinating subject that is chaotic in nature.
Here is a starting point:
However, with speed limits your teacher framed the question incorrectly. There is not right or wrong to a speed limit. 35 miles an hour is no more right than 38 miles an hour. The real question is why do we obey a law when there is no clear right or wrong to it? In the case of the speed limit our right/wrong choice is to obey the law or not. (And while speed has no right or wrong unsafe driving absolutely does, which could be unsafe due to the speed.)
'A man who is possessed by his shadow is always standing in his own light and falling into his own traps ... living below his own level': hence, in terms of the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, 'it must be Jekyll, the conscious personality, who integrates the shadow ... and not vice versa. Otherwise the conscious becomes the slave of the autonomous shadow'.
> Jekyll is not unaware or out of control when he’s Hyde. He does not wake up with no memory of what happened the night before. He remembers perfectly everything he does as Hyde, because he was in control the whole time.
However I suppose I did think the potion did something to release him from this, rather than being merely an excuse.