Capri 1

Landon Capri
Professor Carlson
11/06/2015
Introduction to English Studies

Different or the Same

In the novella the focalizing point of view often shifted from third person to first person.
There were different focalizing points of view that the readers see through such as Dr. Lanyon,
Utterson, and Dr. Jekyll. The fact that we get to look through the eyes of multiple characters
throughout the story is good evidence for sufficient closure even though we primarily see
through the eyes of Utterson. Culler explains that Aristotle believed, "good stories must have a
beginning, middle, and end and that they give pleasure because of the rhythm of their ordering"
(84). The novella reaches sufficient closure, because of how well ordered the series of events
unfolded. The most prominent example is the letter that Utterson reads written by Dr. Jekyll. The
letter carefully fills in any plot holes or confusion that we might have had throughout the story. It
wonderfully gives an entirely different view point at critical moments throughout the story such
as the murder of Sir Danvers Carew and explains why Dr. Lanyon told Utterson he no longer
wishes to speak of Dr. Jekyll and will soon pass away. In order for stories to be considered
complete and finished Culler says they must be, teaching us about the world, showing us how it

Capri 2

works, enabling us through the devices of focalization to see things from other vantage points
and to understand others motives that in general are opaque to us (91). The story of Dr. Jekyll
and Mr. Hyde wonderfully illustrates his points, because the letters and different characters
doesnt leave us at the verge of a cliffhanger. Garret in his criticism agrees by writing, Jekylls
statement gathers up the threads of the preceding episodes and joins them in a continuous and
intelligible sequence (189). Without the letter written by Dr. Lanyon and Dr. Jekyll the book
could not be considered complete, because an incredible amount of vital information is contained
in these letters. In the regards to closure these letters are essential, because they provide an
answer to important questions that the reader may be asking such as: Who or what is Mr.
Hyde?, Why was Dr. Jekyll so secretive and secluded?, What shocked Lanyon so much that
he did not wish to speak of Dr. Jekyll?, Why was Dr. Jekyll transforming into Mr. Hyde?,
Why did Mr. Hyde murder Sir Danver Carew?, and what did it feel like transforming between
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde like?. Its also important to the novella, because it leaves with us a
definite conclusion, because like Utterson we are relieved to know the root cause behind each
event.

The novella also reaches closure because there is a clear ending. Culler writes, There is
a basic human drive to hear and tell stories. Children very early develop what one might call a
basic narrative competence: demanding stories, they know when you are trying to cheat by
stopping before reaching the end (83). In the novella we reach closure, because we find out the
root cause of Dr. Jekylls transformations and why he behaved the way he did with the final
letter. Along these thoughts, a child would feel cheated if the story ended simply with Utterson
breaking down the door and finding Mr. Hyde wearing Dr. Jekylls clothes, because we would be

Capri 3

left clueless as to how the transformations occurred and what exactly was going on. Culler also
states, Essentially, though, a plot requires a transformation. There must be an initial situation, a
change involving some sort of reversal, and a resolution that marks the change as significant
(84). In the novella there is a transformation both literally and figuratively. In the novella the
initial situation is when Dr. Jekyll first took the potion to transform into Mr. Hyde, which
inevitably marks his death. Then there is a change involving some sort of reversal, because he
desperately tries to find a way to remain Dr. Jekyll. He stops taking the potion and for a while
everything seems fine until he starts changing into Mr. Hyde in his sleep. Soon thereafter he tries
to remedy the situation by creating as many potions as he could, but soon runs out of ingredients
to create his potion. He eventually confines himself to his lab, unto which Utterson and his
servants break into the room finding Mr. Hyde wearing Dr. Jekylls clothes. The story could not
end here, because we do not know the reason for his transformations. We reach sufficient
closure, and like Culler mentions, there is a resolution. The resolution is Dr. Jekylls letters that
he wrote, while living as himself for one final time.
There are many different ways that a story may be presented. In this case the novella is a
combination of both temporal and limitation of knowledge point of view, because according to
Culler,
Narration may focalize events from the time at which they occurred, from shortly
afterwards, or from long afterwards. It may focus on what the focalizer knew or
thought at the time of the event or how she saw things later, with the benefit of hindsight.
In recounting something that happened to her as a child. A narrator may focalize the event
through the consciousness of the child she was, restricting the account to what she
thought and felt at the time, or she may focalize events through her knowledge and

Capri 4

understanding at the time of narration. Or, of course, she may combine these
perspectives, moving between what she knew or felt then and what she recognizes now
(89).
The novella uses this point of view, because in the story we see a different perspective of the
events of the story through the letters of Dr. Lanyon and Dr. Jekyll long after the events took
place. Interestingly the entire story up to this point is written in a limitation of knowledge
perspective. According to culler a narration with a limitation of knowledge approach is, A
narrative may focalize the story through a very limited perspective- a cameras eye or fly on the
wall perspective- recounting actions without giving us access to characters thoughts. Even here,
great variations can occur depending on what degree of understanding objective or external
descriptions imply (89). For example, Dr. Lanyon was very hesitant to reveal why he did not
wish to talk about Dr. Jekyll, but we later find out through his letters using temporal narrations
why he did not want to talk about him.
In order for stories to be considered complete or finished Culler says they must be,
teaching us about the world, showing us how it works, enabling us through the devices of
focalization to see things from other vantage points and to understand others motives that in
general are opaque to us (91). The story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde wonderfully illustrates his
points, because we get to see very clearly different focalizations and how each character reacts to
Mr. Hyde. We are also able to feel the torment of what it is like becoming and living as Mr.
Hyde. Stevenson develops Mr. Hyde carefully through the use of minor characters such as the
cab driver who Mr. Hyde gnashes his teeth at and the poor attendants who trembled and refused
to make eye contact with him. It is interesting to see how Stevenson develops Mr. Hyde subtly
through the use of minor characters, because regardless of them being minor it sheds a light on

Capri 5

how, as Enfield puts it, detestable Mr. Hyde is. The minor characters as well as the major
characters and even Dr. Jekyll give different depictions of Mr. Hyde, which results in a fuller and
more complete story.
Garrett in his criticism believes that the final letter written to Utterson is logical and
easily understood, and he believes that it leaves the book with more questions that need to be
answered such as the relationship between doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and whether they share
the same mind, or if they are entirely separate beings. Garret expounds on the murder of Sir
Andrew Carew when Stevenson writes, With a transport of glee, I mauled the unresisting body
tasting delight with every blow (87). This was written by Dr. Jekyll during his final moments
before his death. Dr. Jekyll is saying I referring to the time Mr. Hyde murdered Sir Andrew
Carew. Interestingly this raises a question as to whether Mr. Hyde and Dr. Jekyll are entirely two
different beings or if they share the same consciousness. Garrett also writes that there is a
constant splitting and reunion of these characters. Dr. Jekyll often talks about Mr. Hyde in third
person while at other times referring to Mr. Hyde as I. I agree with Garrett that this does raise
questions about whether the characters are separate beings or if they are the same person and that
it is a very difficult topic. I believe that when Dr. Jekyll transforms into Mr. Hyde he loses all
control of himself and is at the whim and mercy of his new identity, but he clearly remembers
everything that happens. This is true, because he mentions that he remembers finding pleasure
into transforming into Mr. Hyde for the first time. The two in a way are the same person, because
they both share the same consciousness. Dr. Jekyll still witnesses everything that Mr. Hyde does,
but he has no control over what happens. You might argue that they are two different beings,
because they dont look anything alike, but I argue that they are in fact the same being. The only
difference is that he inhabits a different look and personality. I would like to use the analogy of a

Capri 6

schizophrenic or someone with delusional disorder. Say someone named Frank has a delusional
disorder. Someone with delusional disorder believes that they are in fact someone else; be it a
King, Prince, or whatever. Their personality changes to suit the role, but universally everyone
agrees that he is still Frank. His behavior and the way he dresses might change, but he is still
Frank. The similarity between this analogy and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is the fact that Mr.
Hyde cannot control his impulses. I argue that they are in fact the same person. Just because you
cannot control your impulses does not make you a different person. Just because your looks have
changed doesnt make you a different person. Dr. Jekylls consciousness remains the same and
the memory of his actions remain the same.
Garrett writes that Dr. Jekyll, reasserts his separation from Hyde by identifying himself
with his narrative, its last words with his death. Will Hyde die upon the scaffold? Or will he find
courage to release himself at the last moment? (191). I still believe that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
are in fact just Dr. Jekyll even though he behaves differently and looks differently. I believe Dr.
Jekyll himself is confused on the subject perhaps from the severe trauma that he is experiencing
that he is not even sure about the truth of the matter.
If Garrett is saying that the book does not have sufficient closure due to the fact that we
dont know for sure what the relationship between the two characters were then I would have
to disagree. Even if we dont know what the relationship of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is, there is
still a beginning, middle and an end as Culler and Aristotle believe.
The novella reaches sufficient closure, because as Culler writes stories have an initial
change, reversal and resolution. We are able to see through many focalizing points of view,
which enable us to have a more complete sense of the story. Even though the debate between

Capri 7

whether Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are in fact one person continues it does not inhibit the plot in
any way, because Dr. Jekyll dies regardless and there is a clear resolution.

Capri 8

Citation

Stevenson, Robert Louis. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. New York: Dover
Publications, 1991. Print.