#some people stick to Jekyll's final statement while others think he's unreliable

[mooshorange]

I've been thinking about making a post discussing various interpretations of Hyde for a while now, but I thought I'd first go into some depth about a very relevant topic: Jekyll's reliability as a narrator. Most of the book happens around Jekyll and he isn't in very much of it, but we do get to hear from him in the final chapter. The first assumption is that the account he gives is entirely accurate and conveys most of the relevant information (minus what he actually wants and gets up to). It is possible that this is true, but it's also entirely possible that he skipped over some details or lied about things and I'd like to talk about both possibilities.

I'll start off with the idea of him being entirely reliable. This does make sense. This is Jekyll's final explanation for everything to his closest friend. It makes sense that he would want to get everything out, to finally tell his friend exactly what he's been hiding from him and remove all the secrets. He would want to give Utterson some closure and it also gives him a chance to get everything off his chest. He has been quite literally living a double life for a very long time. He has also been struggling with his unacceptable desires for so much of his life. That's got to be a great weight on a person. It would probably be a relief to finally let that out somewhere. He knows he can trust Utterson and, even if he couldn't, he doesn't care what happens to him anymore. He has essentially resigned himself to death so his reputation really doesn't matter anymore. He allows Utterson to do whatever he wants with the statement so he has clearly given up. It makes sense for him to be honest. It makes sense for him to finally stop hiding and find some small relief in coming clean. These are essentially his final words to anyone ever. It makes sense for your last words to be completely true and honest, especially if they are to the person you trust most in the world.

Yet, what if he isn't? We know he doesn't reveal everything. He doesn't say at any point what his actual aim was in creating Hyde. He doesn't say what he wanted and he doesn't reveal much about Hyde's actions that Utterson didn't already know. Jekyll does still conceal things, so perhaps there is more he is hiding. As much as it makes sense for him to tell the truth, it also makes sense for him to lie. He has been so obsessed with his reputation for decades. He has kept up this illusion of perfection and went to all the trouble of splitting his soul and creating an alter ego to prevent anyone from finding out about what he really wants to do. He lied to his best friends to keep elements of himself hidden. Would he really be able to give that up now? Yes, he has accepted his fate and he allows Utterson to know that he and Hyde were the same person, but it would be difficult to actually let everything out after all this time. Jekyll thinks very highly of Utterson and he wants Utterson to like him. He wants everyone to like him, but the opinion of his close friend would be especially important. He has to tell him something, but perhaps he doesn't want to tell him everything. He refers to Hyde like another person, but perhaps he just wants Utteraon to continue to view them as separate. He talks about how bad he felt about everything and about how Hyde was truly the evil one, but perhaps that's just the way he wishes he felt. Imagine having a secret which you have never shared with anyone out of shame and fear. Could you really just switch all of that off and share it with the person whose opinion matters most? I'm not sure that I could, so I'm not sure if Jekyll could either. He also leaves it to Utterson as a letter which he could share with anyone, if he chose. Of course, he probably thinks that Utterson would keep it to himself, but he has the freedom to do what he wants with it. Reputation is everything to Jekyll and he might not be able to hand everything over to potentially destroy it.

A lot of the book is left open to interpretation. That's one of the things I love about it. I've seen people treat Jekyll's statement as the full truth of the matter, as I usually do. It is called his 'Full Statement of the Case', after all. However, I've also seen people talk about it as only partially true, an attempt to clean what little of his reputation remains. Both interpretations make complete sense with the narrative. Really, Jekyll is as reliable or unreliable as you say he is. It's fun to think about the different angles of it, what he may or may not be thinking and feeling as he writes his last words to Utterson. As I said, the things left unclear are what make the book as effective as it is and keep people talking about it so many years later.