This is all absolutely correct, but what I feel it misses is that the mythic power of the story lies in our enjoying it, reading it naively. In other words we deliberately read it ourselves in repressed mode. If we read it the first time with the kind of clarity suggested here then we don't actually feel its power: we are merely interested - rather than complicit.
Astute observation, succinctly put. I would additionally add that it also works the other way; if a story's themes and metaphors are too clear before the story is over, it can damage suspension of disbelief and hurt enjoyment.
This is one reason why the typical teaching methodology of a US high school English class typically has the effect of blunting the enjoyment of classic literature - students are not usually given the chance to read the story in its entirety before it is dissected to death, chapter by chapter.
When you take something apart to understand it, of course you can never quite put it back together again the same way and see it holistically. But there's no other way to gain a good understanding of the component parts, so this is a worthwhile exercise, even if they don't enjoy it in the same way as other reading.
I'd contend very few teenagers are really ready to enjoy Sense and Sensibility or similar texts anyway because of their different and short experience of life, but they are in a position to learn some of the techniques and vocabulary used.
> This is one reason why the typical teaching methodology of a US high school English class typically has the effect of blunting the enjoyment of classic literature - students are not usually given the chance to read the story in its entirety before it is dissected to death, chapter by chapter.
Maybe, but I think the bigger reason is just that teenagers have generally not developed the kind of maturity where reading a classic work of literature is very enjoyable.
I haven't read the original story, but in all the film adaptations I've seen, I've always interpreted Hyde as the violent, visceral side which Jekyll would express more often if he weren't so restrained by his veneer of civility.
I've never even read that book, but I probably should.
As it's described in the article, I see many parallels with today's anonymised internet culture - we can be someone else, someone who doesn't have to fear any consequences for what he says,
we can lie on the internet to (try to) form other's perception of ourselves, thus being whoever we want to be.
But ultimately it's still the same person making those decisions, typing those words and decepting those other people, who may not be all that honest themselves.
Not to be compared with murder, obviously, but I feel like the same principle applies.
> As it's described in the article, I see many parallels with today's anonymised internet culture - we can be someone else, someone who doesn't have to fear any consequences for what he says, we can lie on the internet to (try to) form other's perception of ourselves, thus being whoever we want to be.
See also the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory" from 2004:
I would just add that internet requires some effort (great effort) to find the original person.
And in the book, the distiction is a bit different: whatever someone does in "real life", his body, face, voice... it's all the same. In small villages it's impossible to hide. In bigger cities at that time, it wasn't so big, people still know each other among his social circle. And it was easy to notice someone leaving his own circle and appearing in another.
So, what internet gives you as a basic (easy to be anonymous, in the sense that commmon people perceive it, I'm not talking about using tor and so on), Jekyll had to blame on his drink. And blaming saves his face: wasn't he blaming it, he couldn't say that the "monster" was doing things that, in the end, he was trying to.... hyde.
It's also why I found the TV series _Angel_ (the _Buffy_ spin-off) so unsatisfying. There is a truly fascinating story to be told about a vampire whose soul has been restored to him, and who is always at war with his own evil nature. But _Angel_ is not it. Instead, the eponymous character is essentially entirely good except when some supernatural agency transforms him back into Angelus, his evil form. All the conflict is externalised.
That's a particularly surprising and disappointing mis-step given _Angel_'s provenance. Joss Whedon is exactly the kind of person who I'd have expected to be interested in exploring the _inherent_ contradictions within the Angel character, and showing how they are analogous to the questions that we all face.
I think a modern fictional character that would come closer to the Jekyll-and-Hyde relationship as espoused in the parent article is the CW show Arrow. Oliver Queen is a harmless playboy in the public view (and in the last season, the mayor of his city), but he puts on the hood and does things, sometimes unspeakable things like torture and murder, in order to achieve his greater goal of "saving his city" from crime while leaving his public persona untarnished. He struggles with the notion that perhaps the Green Arrow persona is his true nature rather than the one he presents to the public.
Of course, that character assessment essentially apes Batman/Bruce Wayne as well; Batman is Hyde, Bruce is Jekyll, but Hyde and Jekyll are the same person with the same drives and impulses.
The real issue with Batman as a lens into this conflict is that Batman only seems controversial. He has bad PR in Gotham, but nothing he does is really bad. Punch an attempted rapist? They might have to send you to jail but no one is booing you. If Arrow has the main character murder and torture, that's a real exploration of hidden darkness. Color me interested.
I think the story that WAS told was just as interesting... Angel isn't about the duality of his nature. That was a character device to actually explore Redemption. I think the show did very well at exploring that issue. Angel goes through several phases of trying to cope with what it means to be redeemed... At first, his hardline do gooder stance, where it was never acceptable to "do wrong", which, given his profession actually ended up doing more harm than good. The story continued with him having to deal with "walking the line" and ultimately, allowing others to ALSO redeem themselves, through their own journey, accepting that the path to redemption was as unique as the person who was seeking it.
In a lot of ways, I actually found Angel to be much deeper than Buffy, especially as Buffy progressed through later seasons. The shows were definitely dealing with two entirely different aspects of human nature, so it is difficult to compare them fairly.
Interestingly, I feel that the character of Angel/Angelus, with his entirely black/white toggle-switch morality, is actually just acting as a foil to all of the other characters, almost becoming a supporting character in his own show! I don't think this is accidental either.
Much better in this aspect is Fargo season 3, where Varga character - played brilliantly by David Thewlis - is sort of a Mr. Hyde to the protagonist's (Emmit Stussy) Jekyll - in my interpration.
Seems the only plausible explanation of the recent "Las Vegas massacre": described by friends & family as a perfect nice guy (rich even), the few records revealed so far indicate he led a possibly violent double life - culminating a self-destructive slaughter. Doctor Jekyll kept up the pure front to indulge his Hyde desires with no further ulterior motive; likewise perhaps Stephen Paddock, in an unsatisfying truth, committed horrors simply because he wanted to.
It is worth pointing out that, in one sense, the "misreading" and the "proper reading" are the same. One is just metaphorical and the other is literal.
To state it more clearly, even if you believe that Hyde is the evil in Jekyll's soul, and not just Jekyll acting out his fantasy, the former is a metaphor for the latter.
I also disagree with this reading because it is clearly stated that Hyde is smaller than Jekyll because such a small percent of Jekyll is evil. (Hyde is the unadulterated evil, in other words).
> I also disagree with this reading because it is clearly stated that Hyde is smaller than Jekyll because such a small percent of Jekyll is evil.
Given it is Jekyll himself that makes that observation, it may not be all that "clear". Jekyll is a very unreliable narrator in the book, and "I only have a little bit of evil inside, it's small really" is probably one of his lesser delusions.
"Are we good because we want to be good, or are we good because we just don’t want to be punished?"
It's interesting he brings up this point. I once took a leadership class at my University, and in the class my teacher once said, "do you follow the speed limit because if you don't you'll get a ticket or because it is the right thing to do?" He then followed it by saying, "If you follow it because it's the right thing you're crazy." When I heard this I was just hoping he wasn't applying it to things other than the speed limit. Sometimes I feel you have to do the right thing, because it is the right thing.
Another similar case was when I was reading my economics book which said altruism only exists due to incentives, and it wouldn't exist otherwise; I personally believe there are people who act altruistically despite incentive going either way. Although, I also find personally if I do the right thing despite incentives for me to lie or do otherwise people will often make up the difference.
There is an alternative to "I don't speed because I might get ticketed" and "I don't speed because it's the right thing to do", and it's "I don't speed because it benefits me when everyone drives carefully."
It can be argued that altruism itself generates dividends for the whole of society, and thus acts of altruism can be seen as self-benefiting, adding a middle that isn't otherwise considered.
A good example might be: "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because I'm forced to." vs. "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it's the right thing to do." There is yet another option of "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it has economic benefits and because I don't want to personally deal with the homeless everywhere I go." The last one might sound heartless, but I think that it might appeal to more conservative members of society, and it also turns out to be true.
You may be interested in George Price. There are a few documentaries that cover his life and work. He was very interested in altruism and his efforts to figure that out are believed to be why he killed himself. Basically, it drove him insane to think about altruism and if it was actually possible to be altruistic.
Good argument. To me the reason for not speeding due to it being a net benefit to society is just a specific case of speeding due to it being the right thing to do. One point I got from your argument (though not directly stated) is that it's often important to clarify why the thing you are saying is the right thing to do is in fact right.
I feel your understanding of altruism seems to coincide with a utilitarianism standpoint of it is the right thing if it creates the greatest sum total happiness for society. I feel Utilitarianism is close to defining what is right, but if you have ever studied it Utilitarianism has some flaws (when I say this I don't mean to attack your personal standpoint on altruism/right only Utilitarianism in general.) Often these flaws can be fixed with a more rule based approach to Utilitarianism. I personally like Utilitarianism's approach, but probably take a more Aeristotelian approach which is more along the lines of it is the right thing if it makes me act in a more virtuous manner. Aeristotle believes those of truly virtuous characters wouldn't desire to do wrong things in the first place.
> There is an alternative to "I don't speed because I might get ticketed" and "I don't speed because it's the right thing to do", and it's "I don't speed because it benefits me when everyone drives carefully."
But, really, as a single driver, your behavior doesn't have that much influence on others.
A slightly different wording of that last one would make it compassionate, IMO. "Because I can't be happy if I have merely 'won' the soc-ec game, while so many around me have 'lost' and are suffering."
You should do the right thing because it is the right thing.
However, with speed limits your teacher framed the question incorrectly. There is not right or wrong to a speed limit. 35 miles an hour is no more right than 38 miles an hour. The real question is why do we obey a law when there is no clear right or wrong to it? In the case of the speed limit our right/wrong choice is to obey the law or not. (And while speed has no right or wrong unsafe driving absolutely does, which could be unsafe due to the speed.)
Readit News
This is one reason why the typical teaching methodology of a US high school English class typically has the effect of blunting the enjoyment of classic literature - students are not usually given the chance to read the story in its entirety before it is dissected to death, chapter by chapter.
I'd contend very few teenagers are really ready to enjoy Sense and Sensibility or similar texts anyway because of their different and short experience of life, but they are in a position to learn some of the techniques and vocabulary used.
Maybe, but I think the bigger reason is just that teenagers have generally not developed the kind of maturity where reading a classic work of literature is very enjoyable.
I certainly read all of my assigned texts an din the case of classical studies several other books and plays in the cannon.
[0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/augury
As it's described in the article, I see many parallels with today's anonymised internet culture - we can be someone else, someone who doesn't have to fear any consequences for what he says, we can lie on the internet to (try to) form other's perception of ourselves, thus being whoever we want to be.
But ultimately it's still the same person making those decisions, typing those words and decepting those other people, who may not be all that honest themselves.
Not to be compared with murder, obviously, but I feel like the same principle applies.
See also the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory" from 2004:
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
And in the book, the distiction is a bit different: whatever someone does in "real life", his body, face, voice... it's all the same. In small villages it's impossible to hide. In bigger cities at that time, it wasn't so big, people still know each other among his social circle. And it was easy to notice someone leaving his own circle and appearing in another.
So, what internet gives you as a basic (easy to be anonymous, in the sense that commmon people perceive it, I'm not talking about using tor and so on), Jekyll had to blame on his drink. And blaming saves his face: wasn't he blaming it, he couldn't say that the "monster" was doing things that, in the end, he was trying to.... hyde.
It's also why I found the TV series _Angel_ (the _Buffy_ spin-off) so unsatisfying. There is a truly fascinating story to be told about a vampire whose soul has been restored to him, and who is always at war with his own evil nature. But _Angel_ is not it. Instead, the eponymous character is essentially entirely good except when some supernatural agency transforms him back into Angelus, his evil form. All the conflict is externalised.
That's a particularly surprising and disappointing mis-step given _Angel_'s provenance. Joss Whedon is exactly the kind of person who I'd have expected to be interested in exploring the _inherent_ contradictions within the Angel character, and showing how they are analogous to the questions that we all face.
Of course, that character assessment essentially apes Batman/Bruce Wayne as well; Batman is Hyde, Bruce is Jekyll, but Hyde and Jekyll are the same person with the same drives and impulses.
In a lot of ways, I actually found Angel to be much deeper than Buffy, especially as Buffy progressed through later seasons. The shows were definitely dealing with two entirely different aspects of human nature, so it is difficult to compare them fairly.
Besides, if you want a vampire character at war with his own evil nature, surely that's basically Spike's arc?
To state it more clearly, even if you believe that Hyde is the evil in Jekyll's soul, and not just Jekyll acting out his fantasy, the former is a metaphor for the latter.
I also disagree with this reading because it is clearly stated that Hyde is smaller than Jekyll because such a small percent of Jekyll is evil. (Hyde is the unadulterated evil, in other words).
Given it is Jekyll himself that makes that observation, it may not be all that "clear". Jekyll is a very unreliable narrator in the book, and "I only have a little bit of evil inside, it's small really" is probably one of his lesser delusions.
It's interesting he brings up this point. I once took a leadership class at my University, and in the class my teacher once said, "do you follow the speed limit because if you don't you'll get a ticket or because it is the right thing to do?" He then followed it by saying, "If you follow it because it's the right thing you're crazy." When I heard this I was just hoping he wasn't applying it to things other than the speed limit. Sometimes I feel you have to do the right thing, because it is the right thing.
Another similar case was when I was reading my economics book which said altruism only exists due to incentives, and it wouldn't exist otherwise; I personally believe there are people who act altruistically despite incentive going either way. Although, I also find personally if I do the right thing despite incentives for me to lie or do otherwise people will often make up the difference.
It can be argued that altruism itself generates dividends for the whole of society, and thus acts of altruism can be seen as self-benefiting, adding a middle that isn't otherwise considered.
A good example might be: "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because I'm forced to." vs. "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it's the right thing to do." There is yet another option of "I pay taxes to help welfare recipients because it has economic benefits and because I don't want to personally deal with the homeless everywhere I go." The last one might sound heartless, but I think that it might appeal to more conservative members of society, and it also turns out to be true.
Here is a starting point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price
I feel your understanding of altruism seems to coincide with a utilitarianism standpoint of it is the right thing if it creates the greatest sum total happiness for society. I feel Utilitarianism is close to defining what is right, but if you have ever studied it Utilitarianism has some flaws (when I say this I don't mean to attack your personal standpoint on altruism/right only Utilitarianism in general.) Often these flaws can be fixed with a more rule based approach to Utilitarianism. I personally like Utilitarianism's approach, but probably take a more Aeristotelian approach which is more along the lines of it is the right thing if it makes me act in a more virtuous manner. Aeristotle believes those of truly virtuous characters wouldn't desire to do wrong things in the first place.
But, really, as a single driver, your behavior doesn't have that much influence on others.
Further, I'll suggest that there is something wrong with that take on altruism, simply because that's not how altruism feels.
However, with speed limits your teacher framed the question incorrectly. There is not right or wrong to a speed limit. 35 miles an hour is no more right than 38 miles an hour. The real question is why do we obey a law when there is no clear right or wrong to it? In the case of the speed limit our right/wrong choice is to obey the law or not. (And while speed has no right or wrong unsafe driving absolutely does, which could be unsafe due to the speed.)
https://xkcd.com/1687/