Moreover, the book reveals that underneath the superficial disguise of all people, there lies a latent evil within all of us, as illustrated by Hyde. The only difference between other people and Jekyll is that this inner nature may or may not emerge. The fact that all of humanity has a dual nature goes to show how potentially frightening this inherent evil may be. By reading The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, there is a realization of the importance that society plays in keeping order, and if this structure collapses, our world may be on the same “dreadful shipwreck” that Jekyll and Hyde faced.
Good vs. evil is the novella’s biggest theme. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are easily viewed as a metaphor about the good and evil that exist in all people and about our struggle with these two sides of the human personality. “I learned to recognize the thorough and primitive duality of man . . .
Although he fights Hyde consistently throughout the novel, this one moment of weakness, when jekyll Affirmates that Hyde, his evil side, is indeed appreciated proves conclusively that Dr jekyll and mr Hyde shows good and evil as linked in human nature. Works Cited Charyn, Jerome. "Who Is Hyde?" Afterword: The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Bantam Books.
Therefore the assumption of a dual human nature only after having witnessed all of the events of the book, including Hyde’s crimes and his ultimate overshadow of Jekyll. Mr Hyde is evil, deformed brings out the worst in people therefore he is showing a part of a dark side of human nature in the way he makes you feel bad to look upon him and his violence RLS shows in the story that there are some moral messages which relate to Mr Hyde by there is two sides to everybody good/evil and evil only held in check through rules, expected behaviour, and drug addiction. Dr. Jekyll believes good and evil exist in everyone. Experiments reveal his evil side, named Hyde. Experience teaches him how evil Hyde can be: he kills Ivy who earlier expressed interest in Jekyll and Sir Charles, Jekyll's fiancé’s father.
After reading Robert Louis Stevenson’s “Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I find Hyde to be lost in the world. Throughout the story Hyde causes chaos and seems to only react to the world around him with violence. As Jekyll and Hyde are technically the same person, Hyde brings out an entirely different personality that Jekyll would have never shown to the world or even found out that he had, without turning himself into Hyde. Throughout the book Hyde is seen as this criminal who is only known for being evil and causing harm to others. In my opinion, there is more to Hyde than others may see, which in an article about Hyde, Jane v. Rago wrote, she has some similar thoughts about Hyde’s character.
One notable example is present in the character Dr. Jekyll in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jekyll, a kind and social man continuously turns himself into Hyde to commit crimes and be evil every once and a while. Towards the end of the book, Jekyll describes his obsession, “I began to be tortured with throes and longings, as pf Hyde struggling after freedom,” (Stevenson 82). Jekyll’s desire and instinct to do evil things crosses his mind often and he can no longer hold it in. Hyde is his evil conscience that has always existed in him, but now, he is allowing it to escape in horrible manners that bring trouble among others.
“The poor ego has a still harder time of it; it has to serve three harsh masters, and it has to do its best to reconcile the claims and demands of all three… The three tyrants are the external world, the superego, and the id.” The quote was said by Sigmund Freud. Every human is born evil but is kept under control by the society’s rules. In William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, Golding uses Jack, a young savage, to initiate the trend of evil which then spreads to the rest of the inhabitants on the island. The id consists of all the biological components of personality, including instincts and unconscious behavior. In Lord of the Flies, Jack represents the id.
As he investigates further into the life of Dr. Jekyll he uncovers a story so horrific, so terrifying, that he can hardly believe it. Robert Louis Stevenson’s novel is the simple portrayal of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and takes the view that each person is born with a combination of the two, good and evil, and that people tip the balance by their actions, showing them to society as either ‘good’ or ‘evil’. His characters, Jekyll and Hyde, are stereotypes of people who are ‘good’ and ‘evil’. The good is the upstanding, friendly doctor (the caring profession) and the evil is the hunchbacked, hunted murderer. These two stereotypes combine to create the average man who has the capacity to be both ‘good’ and ‘evil’, and they have both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ thoughts and emotions.
This is one more way of talking about the two sides of human nature and how different people deal with the two sides that are inside of them. In Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde the author, Robert Louis Stevenson, talks about and explains the two sides of human nature, which are good and evil. He tells about how different people deal and handle our two sides, how we as humans have always been fascinated by the evil part of our nature, how the evil side of our nature, that if left unchecked, can overpower our good side and completely take over people, and also how undeveloped our evil side is compared to our good side. So, in this battle of good and evil in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, evil won.
The obvious push-and-pull between Dr. Jekyll’s good intentions and Mr. Hyde’s desires to create corruption sparks an innovative conflict between the forces of good and evil within one’s self, specifically the inherent evil that exists within humans. This issue is evident in various parts of the book as Jekyll constantly tries to control his evil self, but fails frequently. Jekyll recognizes this evil is portrayed in himself: It was on the moral side, and in my own person, that I learned to recognise the thorough and primitive duality of man; I saw that, of the two natures that contended in the field of my consciousness, even if I could rightly be said to be either, it was only because I was radically both; and from an early date . . .