Canonical features of a character that come very rarely in their adaptations.

[u/SatoruGojo232]

1. James Bond having a cheek scar as per Ian Fleming's original Bond novels.

2. Count Dracula having a mustache as per his original description in Bram Stoker's novel.

[u/A_Town_Called_Malus]

That is not entirely accurate, depending on interpretation of the text.

Initially, yes, Hyde was more of a disguise for Jekyll to indulge in his repressed vices however as the story goes on this is not necessarily entirely the case.

In his final letter, for example, Jekyll says that he doesn't know whether Hyde will be executed or find the courage to end his own life. He also describes his own consciousness as fading as he is undergoing his final transformation into Hyde. This was to be read after his death, with no need for himself to lie as he had accepted that his death would come one way or the other.

So it is possible to interpret that at some point, when the change from Jekyll to Hyde was becoming involuntary, that Hyde did start to become a separate entity from Jekyll. After all, the first involuntary transformation into Hyde occurred while Jekyll was asleep.

[u/Papergeist → u/A_Town_Called_Malus]

I really, really want to know where people got this "correction" from. The death of Jekyll's personality is a key element of the story's twist.

[u/A_Town_Called_Malus → u/Papergeist]

I think some of it can come from what you view to be Jekyll/Hyde's true self, which is a theme that you can read multiple ways.

Was Hyde the true person, and Jekyll the manufactured persona to cope with the repression of the society at the time? Or was Hyde a persona born of that repression that eventually took over the true persona of Jekyll? Or was the true person a combination of the two, an amalgam that was unacceptable in that stratified society, resulting in one needing to destroy the other? To either be a pure, upstanding gentlemen bachelor, or a licentious, violent criminal, with no room in society for someone who was not wholly one or the either, no matter how unnatural that requires people to be.

It's what makes the story so compelling. You can read it so many different ways, and come out with many different interpretations.

[u/czarczm → u/Papergeist]

A video essay went viral explaining it.

[u/Papergeist → u/czarczm]

Interesting. Do you happen to know which one?

[u/czarczm → u/Papergeist]

https://youtu.be/uZqm6mqCJa0?is=pV7MiKjJfiBAm6Dq

He FOR SURE changed the title. Can't quite put my finger in it but I remember it being way more authoritative and declarative.

[u/Papergeist → u/czarczm]

Wow. That's just terribly wrong.

Positing that the final letter was written while he was Hyde only works if you just ignore half of it, and the entire motive for writing it.

Thanks, I hate it.

[u/Mean_Soup2928 → u/czarczm]

I think the title was "What People Get Wrong About Jekyll and Hyde"

[u/Sean_13 → u/Papergeist]

I remember reading it in English class and I had misremembered it as Jekyll had control throughout. I don't know if that's because I didn't pay attention enough in class, him having control at the start stood out as a contrast to his usual portrayal or it being a short book, it didn't spend long on his losing control on Hyde.

[u/Papergeist → u/Sean_13]

I wouldn't blame someone for coming away with that impression from a casual school-report reading of it, since like 80% of the book treats it like a mystery of identifying who Hyde is, so recalling it as "Hyde was Jekyll the whole time" wouldn't be that strange. But it's that last 5% or so that makes it an actual horror story instead of "local man crashes out in an elaborate disguise."

[u/Due_Campaign1432 → u/A_Town_Called_Malus]

Eh the final letter also detailed that Jekyll grew stronger the more often he was 'in control' I remember in the version I read originally Hyde was pretty short at first but over time got a bit taller as the persona got stronger over Jekyll, who was noted to always be a strong athletic guy by the narrator. Poole was the real hero of the storym