to be completely random
Jun. 19th, 2006 09:31 pm(and if you're curious how I got to this point, I was researching absinthe, which made me feel like looking up laudanum (it makes sense, I swear) and that wiki mentioned Edward Hyde which lead me to see what wiki said about one of my fav books).
It always makes me sad that no one in the entertainment biz gets it right. Kinda like Scarlet Pimpernel. They take an easy out and don't tell the real story, and that's depressing.
I mean, Jekyll is always portrayed as some sniveling, spineless scientist. And what bloody fucking sense does that make, really? He's always timid and shit, which is just depressing. Jekyll was a popular, well-respected guy. I mean the story starts out with a couple of guys who are trouble by his recent behavior. He was cool. He also felt that he shouldn't like certain things, which led him, in typical science geek fashion, to create a potion that would seperate man's good and bad sides.
Here's where it gets cool.
He didn't really succeed, which is a subtly the hollywood-instructed miss, I think. Jekyll wanted a clean split - Jekyll = Good, Hyde = Bad. What he got was Hyde = Bad, Jekyll = Still the same. So Hyde was all evil and poor Jekyll was still a conflicted, now doubly screwed, man.
Also. Hollywood. HYDE IS SMALLER THAN JEKYLL. HE IS NOT SOME LUMBERING BRUTE WHO LIKES TO BREAK THINGS.
And point in fact, not once does Stephenson explicity state what Jekyll likes/does that makes him feel so guilty. Given the era, he probably just liked sex, but theories range. If you wanted to slash it, that's a viable option. Not knowing is partly what made it fun though, and something else the movies and plays (and the fsking musical I will NEVER see) screw up. They alway go from the J/H POV. The book is told from the POV of someone else, which is what made the book a mystery once upon a time. I mean poor Utterson is going WTF, Mate? through the whole thing, and then poor Lanyon basically dies of fright. Always left out. If there's a good movie out there, I'd love to see it.
Ah, well. This fangirl will be silent now.
P.S. You should be grateful I didn't get started on Frankenstein.
It always makes me sad that no one in the entertainment biz gets it right. Kinda like Scarlet Pimpernel. They take an easy out and don't tell the real story, and that's depressing.
I mean, Jekyll is always portrayed as some sniveling, spineless scientist. And what bloody fucking sense does that make, really? He's always timid and shit, which is just depressing. Jekyll was a popular, well-respected guy. I mean the story starts out with a couple of guys who are trouble by his recent behavior. He was cool. He also felt that he shouldn't like certain things, which led him, in typical science geek fashion, to create a potion that would seperate man's good and bad sides.
Here's where it gets cool.
He didn't really succeed, which is a subtly the hollywood-instructed miss, I think. Jekyll wanted a clean split - Jekyll = Good, Hyde = Bad. What he got was Hyde = Bad, Jekyll = Still the same. So Hyde was all evil and poor Jekyll was still a conflicted, now doubly screwed, man.
Also. Hollywood. HYDE IS SMALLER THAN JEKYLL. HE IS NOT SOME LUMBERING BRUTE WHO LIKES TO BREAK THINGS.
And point in fact, not once does Stephenson explicity state what Jekyll likes/does that makes him feel so guilty. Given the era, he probably just liked sex, but theories range. If you wanted to slash it, that's a viable option. Not knowing is partly what made it fun though, and something else the movies and plays (and the fsking musical I will NEVER see) screw up. They alway go from the J/H POV. The book is told from the POV of someone else, which is what made the book a mystery once upon a time. I mean poor Utterson is going WTF, Mate? through the whole thing, and then poor Lanyon basically dies of fright. Always left out. If there's a good movie out there, I'd love to see it.
Ah, well. This fangirl will be silent now.
P.S. You should be grateful I didn't get started on Frankenstein.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 01:50 am (UTC)(And it is a-MA-zing and P.S. I want to have sex with Jekyll's singing voice.)
no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 01:55 am (UTC)That is rather toward the creepy, I must say.
(if I had sensibiities, that musical would offend them. My sensibilities would be Most Offended)
no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 02:20 am (UTC)And Jekyll is not a wimpy jerk! He has two delectable ladies drooling over him. One is even a whore--BONUS! Hyde is very deliciously evil, with an Oops-I've-Just-Come-In-My-Pants gravelly singing voice. No, no, don't thank me. I will include all the songs I have on your next cd.
Here's one of them, which I think illustrates very well Jekyll's deadly curiosity: I Need to Know
(I am totally using this book and its modern pop-culture incarnations as part of my eventual thesis on the evolution of the byronic hero into the modern anti-hero and its replacement of the traditional golden hero. It's a perfect example, like the Phantom. To popularize a character and generate more sympathy, you make him hot! And that eventually starts to translate to tragic or evil equals hot equals deserves your pity or empathy equals secretly redeemable equals why, he's the real hero, has been all along! [Helloooo, Lucifer] w00t! I hereby claim your brain to pick on that happy day in the future.)
no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 02:24 am (UTC)You've mentioned that thesis before, and it sounds positively sexy. I will cry into my pillow at night if you don't let me read the masterpiece when it is finished.
DAMN IT. >_> His voice is not unappealing. I hate you.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 02:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 02:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 02:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 02:44 am (UTC)Me too.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 04:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 02:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 02:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 02:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 02:09 am (UTC)*end rant*
no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 02:12 am (UTC)I love the Phantom novel. It's hella creepy. I am always saddened they leave out 90% of the story in the musical. I generally pretend they're two completely different stories.
I should read that again. *goes to find*
no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 02:17 am (UTC)It's been at least 10 years since I read the novel... it's one of those one-shot deals in my mad little literary world.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 02:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 02:37 am (UTC)I don't think that's quite the word I wanted. Something like simpering, but with more cowering and less fluttering of the lashes. Fretting?
Bed time? I keep meaning to actually do that...
no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 02:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-20 02:40 am (UTC)