Choosing to Embrace the Evil
A dilemma is present when one deliberately chooses to embrace an identity be it good, evil or a mixture of the two. This conscious decision can dictate the outline of ones life as it did for the characters in Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. In his novel, the respected and valued Dr. Jekyll struggles to overpower the temptation of succumbing to the evils of his alter ego, Mr. Hyde. Once Jekyll chooses to embrace the evil buried within him, it becomes impossible for him to find the distinction between who he once was and who he has now chosen to become.
Emily A. Bernhard Jackson, a lecturer at the University of Exeter, suggests in her essay “Twins, Twinship, and Robert Louis Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” (2013), that the characters of Jekyll and Hyde are comparable to that of parasitic twins. She argues that like parasitic twins, Jekyll and Hyde are dependent upon one another for survival and their connection is irrefutable and unavoidable (Bernhard Jackson 74). The author suggests that Stevenson is projecting his own prejudice of the Irish in his depiction of the character Hyde. When he portrays Hyde as a parasite, leeching upon its host for survival, it reflects the struggle that was present when the Irish were dependent upon the Englishmen and the Scots (Bernhard Jackson 79-81). I disagree with Bernhard Jackson’s proposal that Jekyll had no choice but to succumb to his evil self and bring Hyde forth as a dominant piece of his identity (77). I contend that destruction was brought upon Jekyll when he chose to let Hyde overcome his better self.
When Jekyll chooses to embrace the evil lurking within him, he relinquishes his former identity to that of Hyde’s: an alter-ego who allows him to express the evil found within all of mankind. For Jekyll, it is a trait “all human beings” possess as we are all “commingled out of good and evil” (Stevenson 1711). However, the difference between Jekyll and the majority of mankind is that we choose to repress the evil within us whereas Jekyll chooses to embrace it. Whether hidden behind the disguise of either Jekyll or Hyde, the identity within remains the same; for he is neither good nor evil but is a muddied combination of the two. For while he was Hyde, he could relinquish his “life of effort, virtue, and control” and succumb to the lust of being “pure evil” (Stevenson 1711). With Hyde acting as a protective mask for all of Jekyll’s misdoings, Jekyll needs not to worry of the consequences. For he can “strip off [his] lendings and spring headlong into [a] sea of liberty” (Stevenson 1712) and anonymity. This lack of accountability leads to the fusion of Jekyll and Hyde as one permanent identity, eradicating any distinction that was once present between his good and evil halves. For when he goes “to bed [as] Henry Jekyll,” it is no surprise that he “awaken[s] as Edward Hyde.” Choice no longer an option, he must now deal with the consequences of becoming a person ridden with evil.
Jekyll once possessed the power to become a manifestation of either good or evil. While he continues to play the game of alternating between his two inherent identities, his will to choose good disappears: leaving no distinction between the once separate Jekyll and Hyde. There is a Hyde within all of us that desires the opportunity to become “exercised and nourished” (Stevenson 1714). However, the will of the individual to resist the “tortured…throes and longings” (Stevenson 1715) of our evil halves will irrevocably guide us away from experiencing a strange case like that of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Works Cited
Bernhard Jackson, Emily A. “Twins, Twinship, and Robert Louis Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” Victorian Review 39.1 (2013): 70-82. University of British Columbia Library. Web. 2 February 2016.
Stevenson, Robert Louis. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. 9th ed. Vol. 2. New York and London: Norton, 2012. 1677-1719. Print.