I am reading it these days. For several reasons- not the least of them being that i was never very fond of Stevenson's writing style- i havent read it before, and it has surprised me, although negatively.
Definately due to the story being as famous, and also due to its various presentantions on the cinema (i can remember the one with John Malcovic) i expected to read a story which was a lot more detailed, as can happen when one has first seen a movie of a story where inevitably all details are visible.
On the contrary what i have read up to now, having reached to the 2/5ths of the story, was very lacking in details.
There are many characters. The lawer, Mr. Atterson, his cousin (who first tells of Mr. Hyde), a maid who saw the murder commited by Mr. Hyde, Dr. Lanyon (a man of medicine, as Dr. Jekyll) and ofcourse Mr. Hyde himself. Then there are secondary characters, like the female servant of the house where Mr. Hyde is staying, and the male butler of Dr. Jekyll.
However none of them is described in any detail. There are sketches of what impression one can form of them (for example that they appear to be malignant, or joyfull) but the details of their forms are rarely given, and so one literary can imagine anything he wants to and definately one would be forced to rely on very general views about the appearence of different classes of people in the Victorian era. This makes the story rely too much in my opinnion to the imagination of the individual reader.
Also Mr. Hyde, who is the central character, is not described in any more detailed way either, and that when we are being told again and again that he has some type of deformity, but one which cannot be described. Other than that he is short (or dwarf-like) and evil-looking.
Although unfortunately it is impossible for me to read the story without keeping in mind what i already know about it, i could note the similarity in style between Stevenson and Mahen, the latter being one of the major writers of 'strange' literature, who used a similar formation for some of his stories, that is he used multiple characters (although not as many) who reveal parts of the plot by their own examinations, or twists of fate. However Mahen provided a lot more detailed descriptions.
Overall, up to now, my impression is that this novel is not well-written, and that it must have been the impact of the idea of the metamorphosis of Jekyll to Hyde, which had caused it to become so famous. The split of human qualities to pure good and pure evil, with some complementary variations (for example Atterson is worried that Jekyll may have had some bad deeds in his past, but those bad deeds would have been insignificant next to Hyde's consistent behaviour) seems to be the main driving force of the plot.
I will first read the rest, and then return to writing my impressions, but in the meantime you could post what you thought of the story
Definately due to the story being as famous, and also due to its various presentantions on the cinema (i can remember the one with John Malcovic) i expected to read a story which was a lot more detailed, as can happen when one has first seen a movie of a story where inevitably all details are visible.
On the contrary what i have read up to now, having reached to the 2/5ths of the story, was very lacking in details.
There are many characters. The lawer, Mr. Atterson, his cousin (who first tells of Mr. Hyde), a maid who saw the murder commited by Mr. Hyde, Dr. Lanyon (a man of medicine, as Dr. Jekyll) and ofcourse Mr. Hyde himself. Then there are secondary characters, like the female servant of the house where Mr. Hyde is staying, and the male butler of Dr. Jekyll.
However none of them is described in any detail. There are sketches of what impression one can form of them (for example that they appear to be malignant, or joyfull) but the details of their forms are rarely given, and so one literary can imagine anything he wants to and definately one would be forced to rely on very general views about the appearence of different classes of people in the Victorian era. This makes the story rely too much in my opinnion to the imagination of the individual reader.
Also Mr. Hyde, who is the central character, is not described in any more detailed way either, and that when we are being told again and again that he has some type of deformity, but one which cannot be described. Other than that he is short (or dwarf-like) and evil-looking.
Although unfortunately it is impossible for me to read the story without keeping in mind what i already know about it, i could note the similarity in style between Stevenson and Mahen, the latter being one of the major writers of 'strange' literature, who used a similar formation for some of his stories, that is he used multiple characters (although not as many) who reveal parts of the plot by their own examinations, or twists of fate. However Mahen provided a lot more detailed descriptions.
Overall, up to now, my impression is that this novel is not well-written, and that it must have been the impact of the idea of the metamorphosis of Jekyll to Hyde, which had caused it to become so famous. The split of human qualities to pure good and pure evil, with some complementary variations (for example Atterson is worried that Jekyll may have had some bad deeds in his past, but those bad deeds would have been insignificant next to Hyde's consistent behaviour) seems to be the main driving force of the plot.
I will first read the rest, and then return to writing my impressions, but in the meantime you could post what you thought of the story
