to be completely random
Jun. 19th, 2006 09:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
maderr(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 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.