#so much room for interpretation and playing with the implications and aaaahhhh

[nik-the-bik]

One thing I love about this book is that you're allowed to sit there and question literally everything Stevenson presents us.

We know Jekyll is not a reliable narrator when we finally start to get his side of the story. But how much blind faith can we put in Lanyon's perspective?

Not to say I don't trust Lanyon! His tale is presented like an accurate assessment of what happened the night Jekyll revealed the truth to Lanyon. He transcribes Jekyll's letter, notes his own opinions and actions, and provides detailed observations of his first impressions of Hyde.

But then, once the truth is revealed, once Lanyon finally puts to paper the truth of Jekyll & Hyde so that Utterson may one day know, he cuts his narrative off.

In the last paragraph, he refuses to tell us what was discussed with Jekyll following the transformation. Maybe from trauma, maybe from some protective urge towards his old colleague, or maybe to spare poor, unsuspecting Utterson from any further horrors.

Stevenson purposely leaves this all unsaid, and we move on to Jekyll's attempt to defend himself.

But how much of his story did Lanyon leave out?

And how damning would the full truth be towards Jekyll?