Did You Know?

Jekyll and Hyde was written and then completely re-written over the course of a very few days in the autumn of 1885. Stevenson and his publisher, Longman’s, had aimed to have the story in bookshops in time to cash in on the British taste for chilling tales at holiday time. (Think Dickens’s A Christmas Carol with its ghostly visitations.) By the time the shilling volume was printed, though, the bookshops had already filled their seasonal inventory. J&H had to wait until January 1886 to find its way to readers.

The book’s actual title is Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde—with no introductory “the.” Stevenson wanted to capture the form of a newspaper headline, perhaps shouted aloud by street-side hawkers. Many modern editions—and some of them from extremely reputable presses—add the initial article. None of them, as far as I know, also publish editions of Herman Melville’s The Moby Dick.

Stevenson always pronounced “Jekyll” as though it rhymed with “treacle”—a fact that likely contributed to Punch magazine putting out a parody of the novel that featured a man transformed by adulterated sweets. By 1946, though, enough readers and commentators must have sounded the name as though it rhymed with “heckle” that Paul Terry’s mischievous cartoon magpies are named, accordingly, “Heckle and Jeckle.”

The basic story of Jekyll and Hyde—one man exercising two separate identities­—is so widely known that it’s virtually impossible for a modern reader to experience the tale “cold” as Stevenson meant us to. The novel’s very first published review, in fact, neglected to include a spoiler alert and revealed that the story’s “secret” was “the double personality in every man.”

Stevenson’s novel was not the first to turn on human duality. By the time he wrote J&H, Stevenson had read Edgar Allen Poe’s “William Wilson” (1839) though not, apparently, Théophile Gautier’s earlier Le Chevalier Double (1811). For an engaging 20th-century treatment of the double motif, try Italo Calvino’s The Cloven Viscount (1952).

Not surprisingly, Jekyll and Hyde has been filmed dozens of times, with noteworthy American productions directed by John S. Robertson (1920, with John Barrymore as Jekyll/Hyde), Rouben Mamoulian (1931, starring Frederic March), and Victor Fleming (1941, with Spencer Tracy)—Fleming having directed The Wizard of Oz just two years earlier. Two of the more off-the-wall adaptations are Jerry Lewis’s The Nutty Professor (1963) and Roy Ward Baker’s Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde (1971).

The earliest dramatic adaptation of the novel was Thomas Russell Sullivan’s play Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, which opened in Boston in 1887, going on to tour the United States and Great Britain to great popular acclaim. In London, Richard Mansfield’s performance in the leading role was so convincing that he was briefly suspected of being “Jack the Ripper.” Fortunately for Mansfield, W. S. Gilbert (of Gilbert and Sullivan fame) was among the London luminaries who could provide him with exculpating alibis.

The Sullivan/Mansfield play provided Jekyll with a female love interest, resorting to a conventional romantic formula that almost every subsequent adaptation has followed. No less esteemed a reader than Henry James, though, observed that Stevenson’s original succeeded “without the aid of the ladies”: none of the novel’s named characters appear to be married. Perhaps as a result, at least one of Stevenson’s original readers, John Addington Symonds, seems to have understood the story as a veiled exploration of homosexuality.

The contemporary American novelist Valerie Martin, noting the way Stevenson slighted female principals in the original, decided to re-tell the story from the perspective of a maid in Jekyll’s household, a woman the novel describes as breaking into “hysterical whimpering” the night Jekyll dies. The result is Mary Reilly (1990), made into a film by Stephen Frears (1996, starring Julia Roberts and John Malkovich.) Martin confessed that, when her own version of the story reached “the final night,” the heroine’s trials had made her too strong and stoic to weep.

 

 

Counter Points

I don’t know whether every year I age past my days of formal math classes is pushing me back from calculus towards arithmetic, but for a number years now, I’ve been into counting things. Just adding things up. Before my wife, Dottie, and I left Pennsylvania, we would often take walks along a country road that runs parallel to I-81 and tally the big rigs as they rolled by in either direction. The numbers were staggering – often over a hundred in a seven-or-eight-minute stretch – but that’s not the point. The point is that we were counting things for recreation in ways we likely hadn’t since we were toddlers. She had a t-shirt made for  one of my birthdays: “Truck-counters Anonymous.” Our kids, in their twenties, showed more amusement than concern but, probably significantly, they never accepted our invitations to join us on the count. We kept at it until we moved to Florida and a house too far from I-75 to resume our ongoing census of eighteen-wheelers.

We’re still walking, though. We live on the south side of Sarasota, in a beautiful neighborhood, and our morning ritual now often involves weaving back and forth along the blocks north of our house until we get up to Hillview, a divided street lined with various trendy shops and delightful restaurants. Up and back totals a little over two miles, so we augment the exercise by climbing the stairways of one of Sarasota Memorial Hospital’s parking garages – a little “hill work” on Hillview, or as close as you can get in a town with no hills at all. There are two flights to every floor and six floors overall. The flights all have nine steps, except for the ones from the ground to the first level, which have eleven and ten steps respectively. But the steps aren’t really what we count. What we count are the cars on the various levels as we descend the drivable ramps of the interior to get back to ground level.

We don’t count all of them. That would likely cause our kids genuine concern, as though we’d started saving all our empty toothpaste tubes. We count, say, the number of Kia Souls versus the number Mini Coopers. Or the number of Honda CRVs versus the number of Toyota RAV4s. Or the number of white cars versus the number of silver cars (which is particularly exhausting, given we live in a state where folks are thermally savvy.) I like to think it keeps our brains alive—even though you may be thinking that the very fact that this is what we do proves that we’ve already lost the battle. I’d beg to differ, though, because, at the very least, it sometimes gets us thinking about bigger things. Toddler-like counting can, if you’re lucky, become the vehicle for what is at the very least adolescent rumination. Harken!

Just a couple of days ago, as we were casting around for the day’s comparative categories, I proposed that we count British cars versus red cars. “Whoa!” said Dottie. “We’ve never mixed up our categories.” “Life’s an adventure!” I boldly replied. “So, like, Minis, Range Rovers, and Jaguars all count as cars that aren’t red?” “Unless, of course, they are red.” “Don’t you think, somehow, focusing on country of origin will distract you from paying attention to color?” “We’ll see.”

Dottie, of course, was right—probably because she’s eleven years younger than I am and is still playing with a comparatively fresh deck. What I actually found was that, if I kept our traditional “X vs. Y” binary differential as my procedural focus (as in Volvo versus Cadillac or magenta versus puce), I could very readily twig on red cars and, conversely, on cars that were not red, but I was having a much harder time sorting out the Jaguars from the Buick sedans, or the Mini Countrymen from the old Mazda wagons. It felt a little like snapping my fingers very simply with my left hand but trying to plink out the notes of a Bach fugue with my right. Too much going on! My solution was to re-tune my brain so that my major focus (and I kind of pretended my only focus) was identifying and counting British cars, of whatever sort. Then, I said to myself, I’ll just depend on my eyes just happening to notice a red car simply because red cars are noticeable (ask anyone who’s ever driven one at speed through a highway radar trap) and then my brain can go, “Hey, by the way, there’s a red car mixed in with all these British rides I’m really working on.” And, I am delighted to say, it worked!

Here’s where the modest rumination comes in. What this said to us was that, if you’re operating in a simple binary mode of distinction, you may be very successful at sorting out Y from non-Y, but making useful sense of the subtly different non-Ys—as in Xa, Xb, Xc, or even Za, b, and c—will tend to elude you.  Your brain gets locked into one kind of patterning and it’s hard as hell to unlock it.

Dottie recalled a time when she had spent days and days proofing final reports from the cabin counselors at the camp we help run in New Hampshire. She corrected dangling modifiers, split infinitives, and faulty tenses in the kind of writing  our colleges somehow seem to be finding acceptable these days. (“It’s the ideas that count!”) She was also, though, correcting spelling: “counselor” and not “counslur,” “their clothes” and not “they’re cloths,” “dog-eat-dog world” and not “doggy-dog world.” One evening, just for fun, our son proposed a game of  phonetic Scrabble, where every word had to be spelled incorrectly—but phonetically plausibly. You know, “nighff and phorque” with “q” on the Trippel Whirred’s Core. Now Dottie is brilliant at Words with Friends. I mean Noah Webster would probably hurl his iPhone X into the butter churn if they played each other. But, after spending close to a week correcting misspellings in letter after letter, she was totally crippled by conventional standards of lexical correctness and got her “high knee” kicked by her own offspring. It’s not what she couldn’t see paint colors and still identify British cars at the same time. She couldn’t even get into the garage.

I remember when I used to play golf (which I stopped when I could still explain Pythagoras’s theorem), I used to drive home and see everything along the road as part of an extended golf course. If my ball were next to the fire hydrant, here, I’d have to use a two iron to get into that McDonald’s parking lot, over there. Or would that give me enough backspin to stay on the pavement and not bounce into the car wash/sand trap? Maybe hit a five iron and lay up next to that guy walking his Irish setter and then a pitching wedge to the right base of the golden arch. Same thing for days when I’d cut lawns for some extra cash. Every expanse of green I’d see, from the neighbor’s yard to the college soccer pitch to that fifty-acre alfalfa field, I’d think about mowing horizontally, vertically, or diagonally—from one side to the other, or from the borders to the center—bagging or mulching. Your brain just gets locked into patterns and, as I said, it’s hard as hell to break out of them—whether it’s a good idea to be breaking out of them or not.

I said in my last blog that I’m not here to be political (even though a good friend once assured me that everything is political, even Velveeta.) I do, though, think that learning how to count red versus British cars, or how to play phonetic Scrabble, or how to distinguish between your local suburb and the Old Course as St. Andrews can make you a more adaptable, and more fun, and more reality-oriented person. Pre-established mental structures and categories are just great a lot of the time, but they can also keep us from seeing the finer points, the details, the exceptions that disprove the rule—as comfortable as that rule may be for us to deploy, enforce, and extol. Maybe the best thing to say is that This and That are really, if you look at them closely enough, These and These—less uniform in their differences than unique in their individualities. Back to the old binary distinctions, there are assuredly times, historically and still in many situations,  when sorting Friend from Foe has to be instantaneous and unquestioning. Take, say, football! Or distinguishing your tube of Aquafresh from your tube of Preparation H. But there are other times when maybe not individual survival but rather the survival of the whole lot of us depends on ignoring differentiation for the sake of inclusion. Mini, Range Rover, Jaguar. They’re all of them British cars, after all, despite all of their wonderful differences.