#jekyll and hyde rant

[shyshyaaaaaa]

Trying to design my own interpretation of Jekyll and Hyde, and toying with this silly idea that i don’t know if could work but i like:

I really like the idea of having a Hyde design that resembles Jekyll A LOT. I really love the designs where they directly contrast, but i also love the idea that Hyde is just a younger, scruffier looking Jekyll.

This, from a plot standpoint, would be a bad idea, cuz it could potentially ruin the plot twist in the original book. But, i do think that maybe it wouldn’t. Hear me out.

I think that maybe, definitely, a lot of characters already have their implied biases on a lot of eachother— ESPECIALLY Jekyll. He’s good, he’s charitable, he’s friendly. Unable to do wrong. I think that it’d be really interesting that these biases could impact the way that the characters view Hyde: like sure, he looks like Jekyll, but he isn’t. He couldn’t be. So they turn a blind eye to the idea. It would say something not only of Jekyll’s character and people like him, but would comment on the public as well and their inability to see what they don’t want to believe, even if it’s right there in their faces (like a certain someone we know.. cough Jekyll)

Even people Jekyll knows and loves dearly could fall victim to this line of thinking. Utterson, mainly. I do think that a few people would see through it and suspect more, but not a lot (Maybe Lanyon, or if we want to involve the musical, Stride. Or actually maybe NOT Lanyon because he doesn’t want to believe that Jekyll’s experiment could work anyway. I dunno, it’s whatever you wanna interpret with whatever is going on with their beef in the book). it could cause a lot of potential tension anyway between Hyde and these suspicious characters, with Hyde (and maybe even Jekyll— actually, scratch that, definitely Jekyll) having to do something to shut them up.

Again, i don’t know if it’s what I’ll actually do, but I’ve been toying with the idea and really liking it. Sorry for the yap session and if anything i said didn’t make sense, I’m js screaming in my cave.

[teethgutss]

It's kinda sad to think about the fact that everyone was probably cheering and happy that Edward Hyde was dead, except for Utterson, who knew the truth about Henry and Edward and how they were the same person, he knew how much of a damaged and broken person Henry/Edward was, how he couldn't help or save him, how he was the only one who knew him as a person and the fact that if Gabriel told the truth to the public, they would believe he's crazy.

No one mourns the wicked, except for him.

[honeysticksz]

Me when my friend casually said "They'll never separate Jekyll from Hyde, he was right. When you talk about them, you always say "Jekyll and Hyde", it's never only Jekyll or only Hyde. No one knows who they are if you don't say them together, they're nobody without each other" and I. Why would you say that to me.

Jekyll is doomed to always be known as/for the thing he regrettably created. He won't be known for his great science, but for his tragic tale. And Hyde is doomed to never be his own person, but an extension of Jekyll. As Jekyll's regrettable creation. Jekyll will never know peace in his afterlife, never be redeemed for his sins. Hyde will forever haunt him. He tried so desperately to disconnect himself from Hyde's identity, enough to kill himself, and yet years of literature + many adaptations later, he cannot escape Hyde. Cannot escape himself. And Hyde cannot break his bond with Jekyll, he's always going to have to return to that docile state. He says that he's free as Hyde, but what kind of freedom is that. They're stuck together. Forever.

Guys what if I started sobbing at Jekyll and his evilsona gone wrong. What would happen. "They're nobody without each other" you have to be kidding me. They're. hhrhrhg. Doomed by the narrative. I'm so sorry babygirls. Babygirl.

[scarperseus]

You ever wonder if Utterson went back to the lab after reading Jekyll’s version of the story and just… saw Hyde differently after he knew everything?

The small, fragile body dead on the ground was actually one of his best friends

No? Just me? Ok

[belladrawsstuff]

Life is difficult. Sometimes you just gotta mix a few chemicals together and drink 'em, subsiquently turning into a different person as you let the darkness within your soul overtake you.

[bananaeatstape]

I find it very interesting how designs and casting for classic literature characters have evolved from the earlier adaptations to the modern ones we see today.

A lot of that is definitely the target audience and how media has influenced how we see the characters.

However looking at actors and designs from 20th century retellings and comparing them to 2010’s tv shows, it just.

idk i feel like its kinda silly and fascinating to see how distanced we’ve come from the original text but not necessarily in a bad way

I mean just look:

A Christmas Carol's Ebenezer Scrooge (2009, 2022)

Edward Hyde (1931, 2015)

Sherlock Holmes (1939, 2022)

like idek dude

I guess we decided they needed to drink the yassification juice after a couple of decades and i kinda love it yet at the same time question mark ???

edit: also someone mentioned that TGS isn't a show and i sincerely apologize for not putting that in here my brain was lagging bad but i meant to refer to different types of media and it ended up looking out of place ;-;

anyways i just hope yall get my point lmao

[spacexlover34]

New hyperfixation wonder what that could be

Anyway I read the entirety of the strange case of Dr jekyll and Mr hyde in two days(slow I know I don't have much time) and am now rereading it and I'm going to watch the movies because I want to see how accurate they are

And I'm also now reading the glass scientists because it came up a lot when I looked for Jekyll and Hyde on this app.

I'm having a great time doing a tism

[n3cr0m-nc3r]

just saying this now before I genuinely get buried in a hole for liking glass scientists

since I'm interested in way more than one adaptation of j&h (MazM, the Original book, The Glass Scientists, J&HTGMT, and currently going onto others..) I definitely separate each adaptation of different characters. Hyde and Utterson being very high favorites of mine (I do not support Hyde's actions.) helps with this general topic. The only adaptation of Utterson and Hyde that I absolutely DESPISE would be the musical. (I'm ranting at this point) I do not like how Hyde is portrayed as a woman-chasing, sex-raging, maniac. Utterson is . interesting there. what person thinks to take his recently engaged friend to a prostitute palace? much less for a bachelor's party. The two could've gone out drinking, gone to a restaurant!

it truly does boggle my mind. speaking about the engagement, Jekyll is NOT engaged to anyone? (not in the book, but in things said outside) It's heavily implied that Jekyll was written as a homosexual. I'm really confused on why the musical writers decided to give Henry a fiance, much less why they decided to attempt to give Hyde a love interest as well. see, this just reminds me of one panel from tgs. (random input)

truly was COMPLETELY unnecessary. even Stevenson thought so.

(images from my dear friend Victor)

[luminol-of-the-stars]

I remember when the G3 season 1 finale came out and I was tweaking out at how the human talisman looks like Jackson/Holt's color scheme (mostly Jackson but the blue could be for Holt);

I'm pretty sure this wasn't intentional but it reminds me of them so much

[25rats]

Uhhhghhhh I’m uh. Drawing/doodle requests!! Pretty please :3

It could be for Jekyll and Hyde, Utmv, cccc, or an oc of urs or mine (send a ref though) and it’s probably gonna be drawn traditionally

Also no ships. I would make an exception for Lanyde and Jekyon but Lanyon is really annoying to draw and I can never do it right :(

[shyshyaaaaaa]

i need help gang.

trying to figure out the specific dynamics between the characters rn in my jekyll and hyde au, and… ive found myself a roadblock.

idk whether or not to make these freaks gay.

BECAUSE, HOLD ON. theyre all very queer coded, lets get that straight (pun intended). but i dont know whether i should make some of the characters like… canonically gay in my version.

because, i do have ideas for what i could do with that, but i feel like there’s already a lot going on qnd i dont wanna js make a big mess of a story.

although, maybe it would make for some interesting drama in the end??? idk.

there’s already a lot of stuff that Jekyll does in this version, and so far, surprisingly, ive given Hyde like… nothing to do. so maybe he could do some gay shit that would make the ending i have in my head rn more interesting?? and also him being gay makes sense in my head. i think Jekyll’s a little queer too, but Hyde is the only one that openly expresses it. i think that would make the most sense in my version and for the themes ive already been cooking up so far. but idk. i need yalls help 😭😭

anyway sorry if that ramble didnt make any sense, im js trying to throw things at a wall to see what sticks. thx for reading!!

[kaityeliza]

yk who pisses me off every time I see her on screen? frankie stien like girl. a new man EVERY SINGLE MOVIE like you don’t need one for each person your made of and like not to mention she was dating two guys (one? jackson and holt are separate people to me) AT THE SAME TIME like this girl such a pick me “I’m only sixteen days old” so???you need a man for every day of your life?? EVERY SINGLE ONE

[ohowthemightyhavefallen]

I'm quite upset

Soon I just wanted to rant on here because I don't see any other discourse abt this-

I don't know if you've heard of Mazm games, but they're a company that's released some really impressive games based off of history and classic literature on Google Play and Steam.

Anyways, after Phantom of the Opera and (Thy Creature I think?) I hadn't seen any more new releases from them. Then Metamorphosis came out. I thought the art looked great at the time, but when I played the game, it was GOD AWFUL.

There's no game.

It's just a visual novel that gives you a false sense of choice. That's not to say that the other games like Jekyll and Hyde or POTO didn't have that either, but they brought more to the table. They had those little chibi missions where you could complete minigames and collect items- THAT WAS THE GAME ASPECT.

I didn't even get to find out if Kafka has that because you have to watch like 5 ads to get to the next chapter and there's no saves. Like what???

They introduced a new subscription system- which won't work if you giving your subscribers mediocre content, in my personal opinion.

Then they released Black Cat- same issue, they didn't even try with that one. They're releasing Romeo and Juliet next.

What worries me is the change of artstyle and the lack of passion and theming. That's what drew me to those games in the first place, and I'm sure that's what attracted others too. The original Mazm games took everything into account- music, font, the homescreens, the loading screens, inventory, pausing screens, you name it. Overall UI was great. But now, it's just a list of chapters in like Arial font with these new games.

AND THE ARTSTYLE OH GOD THE BEAUTIFUL ARTSTYLE

Now it's just slowly devolving into generic anime artstyle # 3

LIKE LOOK AT THIS

WHAT DID THEY DO

Like, I understand cutting back a bit, especially because these games are for a certain niche, and may not bring in a lot of money but this IS NOT IT

If they cut back on character design they could at least keep the chibi minigames so it would still be a game????

I hate this. I honestly hate this. They're alienating their target demographic- people who like classic literature and art, as well as puzzle games.

They really had something going, and this new direction is making me really sad.

Because I ADORE classic literature. POTO and Jekyll and Hyde were great games- I loved them because it was rare for me to come across content for books like that. Sure, they had their bugs, but you could tell that there was genuine thought and passion put into them. There's none of that in these new releases.

[belladrawsstuff]

Ever since I was little I wanted to be a scientist that did little expiraments in their room with little to no regard for the safety of themselves

[magiefish]

Something I've kind of noticed about a lot of the academic scholarship I've read about Frankenstein / Dracula / Jekyll & Hyde is that everyone just seems to completely dismiss/ignore the characters as actual characters most of the time unless they're the Main Guys. Like, they'll go really in depth about Victor or the Creature's motivations and backstory and spend ages talking about Jekyll's relationship to Hyde and stuff, but the second it comes to characters like Enfield and Elizabeth or Lanyon and Clerval or frankly the Entire Rest of the Cast of Dracula, they just immediately seem uninterested. They'll just sort of vaguely gesture in their direction and go 'Oh yeah X and X thing happens to this character and here's a one sentence summary of their personality which doesn't really matter because this entire cast is interchangeable, anyway, onto the next theme' and half the time their One Sentence is just textually incorrect (looking at the New Woman/Traditional Woman descriptions of Lucy and Mina). And the reason I find this so baffling is because with other analysis I've read (e.g. Great Gatsby stuff) people seem to actually slow down and consider the characterisation and motivations of the cast as a whole with like. Nuance. Like they sit down and treat the characters as multifaceted and complex and having actual relationships with one another, and then you get to these books specifically and no one seems to care? Like they'll go really in depth with various interpretations and historical context for the Big Guys, and then never apply the same sort of examination to anyone else, and if they do, very rarely and probably only for one other character e.g. (Utterson or Mina).

If I had to posit an explanation, I would say its a combination of the archetypal nature of the title characters and the admittedly patchy writing of these books (which arguably lends to their archetypal status). I think academics kind of assume that the primary draw of these books are The Big Guys and the expansive themes and ideas they cover and that everyone else is just a pawn there to enable the narrative around the Big Guys, and the propensity for film adaptations to scrap or rewrite characters probably compounded this impression. And while I think this is at least partly true, the thing is, these characters were not always archetypal Big Guys. They originated in stories alongside *these* other characters *specifically* and it is worth asking what it is about the rest of the cast that makes the story interesting as well. Because, let's be real, if there was approximately no interest in the fucking *narrators* of Dracula, the best friends of Henry Jekyll, or the victims of the Creature, the original readers would have been completely bored out of their minds for most of these novels and public interest in them would not have been as great as it was. All of these novels were stories before they were myths, and academics should not be letting pop culture eclipse them unless they're specifically talking about the relationship between the two.

Overall, I just feel like academics are not only shooting themselves in the foot, but also doing a disservice to these stories by not bothering to investigate the other characters because frankly. It's lazy. It's lazy to dismiss an entire cast and basically skim read any sections involving them just because it's easy to focus on The One Guy. If you people really cared about themes, you'd understand that characters are inextricable from them. Like shit dude I see more care given to characters in essays about Greek tragedies, you guys are waaaay fucking behind

[spacexlover34]

isn't it interesting how a ton of stuff on Jekyll and Hyde connects Mr Hyde to Jack the Ripper and says that Hyde is based on him?

The strange case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde was published in 1886. Jack the Rippers killings were in 1888.

I can get how the two can be seen as similar(but really not much since they are very very different apart from the night stuff and being very brutal with the one(s) they killed. So two similarities that I can think of) but I don't get where the Mr Hyde being based on the Ripper came from.

Is there something I'm missing or is it just some weird thing everyone has kind of decided on? Even in my English literature class the teacher has said over and over how Hyde is based on Jack.

Any information I have missed that explains this would be appreciated. I'm confused. Might be wrong. I don't know anymore. This is just something that has been on my mind recently.