What do you think?
Rate this book
Frankenstein / Dracula / Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
This is a previously-published edition of ISBN 9780451523631.
A scientist oversteps the bounds of conscience and brings to life a tortured creation. A young adventurer succumbs to the night world of a diabolic count. A man of medicine explores his darker side only to fall prey to it. They are legendary tales that have held readers spellbound for more than a century. The titles alone -- Frankenstein, Dracula, and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde -- have become part of a universal language that serves to put a monster's face on the good-and-evil duality of our very human nature. And the authors -- Mary Shelley, Bram Stoker, and Robert Louis Stevenson -- equally mythic, are still possessed of as inventive and subversive power that can shake a reader to this day with something far more profound than fear. They gave root to the modern horror novel, and like the creatures they invented, they've achieved immortality.
A scientist oversteps the bounds of conscience and brings to life a tortured creation. A young adventurer succumbs to the night world of a diabolic count. A man of medicine explores his darker side only to fall prey to it. They are legendary tales that have held readers spellbound for more than a century. The titles alone -- Frankenstein, Dracula, and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde -- have become part of a universal language that serves to put a monster's face on the good-and-evil duality of our very human nature. And the authors -- Mary Shelley, Bram Stoker, and Robert Louis Stevenson -- equally mythic, are still possessed of as inventive and subversive power that can shake a reader to this day with something far more profound than fear. They gave root to the modern horror novel, and like the creatures they invented, they've achieved immortality.
736 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published December 1, 1978
About the author
Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley
1,641 books7,174 followersMary Shelley (née Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin, often known as Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley) was an English novelist, short story writer, dramatist, essayist, biographer, travel writer, and editor of the works of her husband, Romantic poet and philosopher Percy Bysshe Shelley. She was the daughter of the political philosopher William Godwin and the writer, philosopher, and feminist Mary Wollstonecraft.
Mary Shelley was taken seriously as a writer in her own lifetime, though reviewers often missed the political edge to her novels. After her death, however, she was chiefly remembered only as the wife of Percy Bysshe Shelley and as the author of Frankenstein. It was not until 1989, when Emily Sunstein published her prizewinning biography Mary Shelley: Romance and Reality, that a full-length scholarly biography analyzing all of Shelley's letters, journals, and works within their historical context was published.
The well-meaning attempts of Mary Shelley's son and daughter-in-law to "Victorianise" her memory through the censoring of letters and biographical material contributed to a perception of Mary Shelley as a more conventional, less reformist figure than her works suggest. Her own timid omissions from Percy Shelley's works and her quiet avoidance of public controversy in the later years of her life added to this impression.
The eclipse of Mary Shelley's reputation as a novelist and biographer meant that, until the last thirty years, most of her works remained out of print, obstructing a larger view of her achievement. She was seen as a one-novel author, if that. In recent decades, however, the republication of almost all her writings has stimulated a new recognition of its value. Her voracious reading habits and intensive study, revealed in her journals and letters and reflected in her works, is now better appreciated. Shelley's recognition of herself as an author has also been recognized; after Percy's death, she wrote about her authorial ambitions: "I think that I can maintain myself, and there is something inspiriting in the idea". Scholars now consider Mary Shelley to be a major Romantic figure, significant for her literary achievement and her political voice as a woman and a liberal.
Mary Shelley was taken seriously as a writer in her own lifetime, though reviewers often missed the political edge to her novels. After her death, however, she was chiefly remembered only as the wife of Percy Bysshe Shelley and as the author of Frankenstein. It was not until 1989, when Emily Sunstein published her prizewinning biography Mary Shelley: Romance and Reality, that a full-length scholarly biography analyzing all of Shelley's letters, journals, and works within their historical context was published.
The well-meaning attempts of Mary Shelley's son and daughter-in-law to "Victorianise" her memory through the censoring of letters and biographical material contributed to a perception of Mary Shelley as a more conventional, less reformist figure than her works suggest. Her own timid omissions from Percy Shelley's works and her quiet avoidance of public controversy in the later years of her life added to this impression.
The eclipse of Mary Shelley's reputation as a novelist and biographer meant that, until the last thirty years, most of her works remained out of print, obstructing a larger view of her achievement. She was seen as a one-novel author, if that. In recent decades, however, the republication of almost all her writings has stimulated a new recognition of its value. Her voracious reading habits and intensive study, revealed in her journals and letters and reflected in her works, is now better appreciated. Shelley's recognition of herself as an author has also been recognized; after Percy's death, she wrote about her authorial ambitions: "I think that I can maintain myself, and there is something inspiriting in the idea". Scholars now consider Mary Shelley to be a major Romantic figure, significant for her literary achievement and her political voice as a woman and a liberal.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 139 reviews
October 25, 2020
Frankenstein 4****
I approached this book with a completely open mind having never seen a Frankenstein movie of any kind in its entirety. I have seen snippets from time to time and that's all.
What I read in this book was so far from any preconceived notion I might have had. Such a simple story full of guilt, remorse, love and redemption.
The wordiness of the early 19th century sometimes gets in the way, but the story within is striking.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde 2**
I'll have to give Stevenson credit for coming up with a good premise for a story, but his execution leaves much to be desired. A modern author would have created something extraordinary, I'm sure.
Dracula 5*****
I'm so glad that I finally sank my teeth into the story of Dracula. Pardon the pun. It was very well-written, but at some times, too wordy.
It was written in the style of letters and diary entries of the various characters to give different viewpoints of the story. That was sometimes a distraction, but it really worked here. Very clever.
The main plot of the story is very good, but there are sub-plots that go off and distract from the excitement.
All in all, the book had its flaws, but it was so engrossing that I could not help but to give it 5 stars.
I approached this book with a completely open mind having never seen a Frankenstein movie of any kind in its entirety. I have seen snippets from time to time and that's all.
What I read in this book was so far from any preconceived notion I might have had. Such a simple story full of guilt, remorse, love and redemption.
The wordiness of the early 19th century sometimes gets in the way, but the story within is striking.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde 2**
I'll have to give Stevenson credit for coming up with a good premise for a story, but his execution leaves much to be desired. A modern author would have created something extraordinary, I'm sure.
Dracula 5*****
I'm so glad that I finally sank my teeth into the story of Dracula. Pardon the pun. It was very well-written, but at some times, too wordy.
It was written in the style of letters and diary entries of the various characters to give different viewpoints of the story. That was sometimes a distraction, but it really worked here. Very clever.
The main plot of the story is very good, but there are sub-plots that go off and distract from the excitement.
All in all, the book had its flaws, but it was so engrossing that I could not help but to give it 5 stars.
March 16, 2011
This is one of my all-time favorite paperbacks. A single binding of Frankenstein, Dracula, and Dr.Jekyll and Mr Hyde with an introduction by Stephen King. I have separately rated Frankenstein as four stars, Dracula as three stars, and I would rate Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde as a big time five stars. Yet the reason I would go a full five stars on this edition is two-fold...
1) The idea of placing these novels together is a stroke of genius. You have the three cornerstones of modern horror. Frankenstein is the precursor of all modern science fiction, Dracula is a cornerstone of Gothic fiction while also setting the tone for the modern vampire, and Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde is the beginning of the psychological horror tale. The stage for modern horror is set with these three novels.
2) King's introduction brings all this together and explains in wildly entertaining prose why these three novels are so important to understanding literary horror. It is a masterpiece in its own right.
If I taught a class in literary horror this would be my only required textbook.
1) The idea of placing these novels together is a stroke of genius. You have the three cornerstones of modern horror. Frankenstein is the precursor of all modern science fiction, Dracula is a cornerstone of Gothic fiction while also setting the tone for the modern vampire, and Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde is the beginning of the psychological horror tale. The stage for modern horror is set with these three novels.
2) King's introduction brings all this together and explains in wildly entertaining prose why these three novels are so important to understanding literary horror. It is a masterpiece in its own right.
If I taught a class in literary horror this would be my only required textbook.
October 24, 2019
This was a revisit for me and I'm so glad that I did it! I love these stories so much. Even though they are a little difficult to read because they were written so long ago I still enjoy the stories and the characters within them. These are indeed timeless classics that should be savored and enjoyed for many generations to come.
February 22, 2011
Frankenstein, Dracula, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde / 0-451-52363-6
The classic three foundational works of horror, and the inspiration for dozens if nor hundreds of movies, are packaged here together in an attractive tight package.
"Frankenstein" is something of a love-it-or-hate-it work and I will confess of falling on the more heretical side of that equation - there's a strong didactic feel to the work and Shelley comes off a little too hand-wringing and pearl-clutching for my taste. All well and good to create a monster who is turned evil by society, but the author really must trust the reader to understand this on their own, without little "this means, of course..." moralizing asides every five pages. However, if you can get past Shelley's distracting narrative lurches, the story itself is quite superb.
"Dracula", arguably *the* foundational vampire novel, is included here and shows off the diarist form of narration so popular at the time. ("Dear diary, you won't BELIEVE who just materialized in my room...") This is always an interesting tact for a horror novel because it can mean that the suspense is lost (if you're alive enough to write the diary entry, then where is the drama?) but Stoker bypasses this problem nicely - the race here is not to "stop the vampire" or "stay alive" but rather to hunt and destroy the vampire forever, before Mrs. Harker can be completely corrupted. The hunt is a superb one, although I am biased - Dracula is one of my favorite classics.
Last, but never least, is "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". This short story is surprisingly short indeed, and it is a testament to how superbly the story is written that this short story has inspired so many movies and dramas. This is a wonderful addition to any collection and it is delightful that it is included here.
~ Ana Mardoll
The classic three foundational works of horror, and the inspiration for dozens if nor hundreds of movies, are packaged here together in an attractive tight package.
"Frankenstein" is something of a love-it-or-hate-it work and I will confess of falling on the more heretical side of that equation - there's a strong didactic feel to the work and Shelley comes off a little too hand-wringing and pearl-clutching for my taste. All well and good to create a monster who is turned evil by society, but the author really must trust the reader to understand this on their own, without little "this means, of course..." moralizing asides every five pages. However, if you can get past Shelley's distracting narrative lurches, the story itself is quite superb.
"Dracula", arguably *the* foundational vampire novel, is included here and shows off the diarist form of narration so popular at the time. ("Dear diary, you won't BELIEVE who just materialized in my room...") This is always an interesting tact for a horror novel because it can mean that the suspense is lost (if you're alive enough to write the diary entry, then where is the drama?) but Stoker bypasses this problem nicely - the race here is not to "stop the vampire" or "stay alive" but rather to hunt and destroy the vampire forever, before Mrs. Harker can be completely corrupted. The hunt is a superb one, although I am biased - Dracula is one of my favorite classics.
Last, but never least, is "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". This short story is surprisingly short indeed, and it is a testament to how superbly the story is written that this short story has inspired so many movies and dramas. This is a wonderful addition to any collection and it is delightful that it is included here.
~ Ana Mardoll
March 11, 2012
I deeply enjoyed Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde! I enjoyed this book because the diction is easily comprehendable and has a fantastic theme arguing scientic rationalism against ambition. The language Robert Louis Stevenson uses enhances the imagery the reader illistrates in their mind and also adds to the overall understanding of London's society in the late nineteenth century. The Gothic mystery serves as the perfect storyline for the overarching theme of the duality of nature as scientist Henry Jekyll tries to preserve and flourish his harshness as the despicable Edward Hyde.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is known for the famous storyline of impending evil and the possibilty of triumphant good. As Jekyll explores his darker side of nature, he falls prey to it and the readers can only assume one thing, which you must read to figure out. As Stephen King said, "...Monsters are real, and ghosts are real too. They live inside us, and sometimes, they win." This acurately depicts the intricate and thought out storyline of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Stevenson uses a very basic theme of life that we all know, and twists that into a mesmerizing horror novel that achieves immortality throughout the years.
Stevenson did not write about good versus evil, but man's animal nature and his ability to control it and reform.
Overall, I am very fond of this classic novel that not only tells us of the duality of nature, but also the conquer of what is right over wrong-doing.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is known for the famous storyline of impending evil and the possibilty of triumphant good. As Jekyll explores his darker side of nature, he falls prey to it and the readers can only assume one thing, which you must read to figure out. As Stephen King said, "...Monsters are real, and ghosts are real too. They live inside us, and sometimes, they win." This acurately depicts the intricate and thought out storyline of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Stevenson uses a very basic theme of life that we all know, and twists that into a mesmerizing horror novel that achieves immortality throughout the years.
Stevenson did not write about good versus evil, but man's animal nature and his ability to control it and reform.
Overall, I am very fond of this classic novel that not only tells us of the duality of nature, but also the conquer of what is right over wrong-doing.
December 13, 2010
I only read the Dracula portion of this book so that's all I'm reviewing.
I liked it. It was good. If it had been written today, it DEFINITELY would have been a trilogy. So, I kept thinking we were coming to the end...and then a whole new segment would begin. And for that reason, it seemed too long to me. First I thought it was about going to his castle and how to escape. Then it was about the poor girl and what was going to happen to her. And THEN it was about catching the villain. All very separate stories.
But I really enjoyed it. Really. Except for, at times the Professor's speeches, in his made up-ish dialect got a little lengthy, verbose and dramatic for my liking.
In summary, I feel better having read the classic vampire book of all time. To really know the whole story sort of completes something in my mind somehow.
I liked it. It was good. If it had been written today, it DEFINITELY would have been a trilogy. So, I kept thinking we were coming to the end...and then a whole new segment would begin. And for that reason, it seemed too long to me. First I thought it was about going to his castle and how to escape. Then it was about the poor girl and what was going to happen to her. And THEN it was about catching the villain. All very separate stories.
But I really enjoyed it. Really. Except for, at times the Professor's speeches, in his made up-ish dialect got a little lengthy, verbose and dramatic for my liking.
In summary, I feel better having read the classic vampire book of all time. To really know the whole story sort of completes something in my mind somehow.
March 9, 2009
A hard book to rate because I liked Dracula so much (couldn't put the book down and devoured the pages) and I disliked Frankenstein so much (one of the worst "classics" written in my opinion).
April 28, 2016
As 4 estrelas são mais por Frankenstein e Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, porque Dracula foi apenas ok pra mim
March 20, 2012
You know the book you've read is mediocre at best when the most well-written part was the introduction, even if someone as great as Stephen King wrote it. Three classics in the horror genre, whose influence is felt to this day, you'd think one of them would be above average. Nope. King actually gives fair warning in his intro that the stories are not written particularly well, but I wondered if maybe he was being too harsh. Turns out he was being too kind.
First was Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, the tale of a young doctor obsessed with learning the secrets of life and death who discovers how to give life to a monster. There are some fascinating themes, such as how far is too far for science to go and, although this isn't often talked about in relation to the story, is god responsible for the evil that men do? Unfortunately, these themes aren't as prevalent as endless scenes of Victor Frankenstein talking about his family, his friends, his vacations to escape his troubles and almost anything he can talk about besides the monster he has inflicted on himself and the rest of humanity. Imagine Superman narrating his life's story and talking mostly about Ma and Pa Kent, Lois Lane's childhood and the decor of the Fortress of Solitude, and then, every fifty or so pages, remembering to touch briefly about one of the times he saved the world from Lex Luthor or Braniac. For example, early on when Frankenstein is detailing his time at medical school, where his obsession begins, through the actual creation of his monster, he ruminates constantly on what his professors think about scientific ethics, but glosses completely over the steps he took to build his creation! All the scenes you remember from the movie where he digs up dead bodies and steals limbs and organs from morgues and laboratories were created for the movie (by better writers than Mary Shelley). Apparently, Shelley thought readers wouldn't be interested. Well, to be fair, Frankenstein does say several times that he will not reveal the methods he used for fear that someone else may try to recreate them and, ultimately, the monster, but I think that's a cop-out. When you're dealing with mystical things it's okay, and sometimes better, not to explain the details, but when you're dealing with a radical scientific experiment it's criminal not offer any information as to how the experiment was conducted (especially when she went into great detail about the most inconsequential subjects). Another problem was the prose itself, which was awkward and, frankly, pretentious, even considering the era in which it was written. It reads as though Shelley felt she had something to prove, like she felt she had to make her story seem more important than it really was. Frankenstein was a bore.
I'll admit that Dracula, by Bram Stoker, was the one to which I was most looking forward. I love vampires (when done properly; I weep for the current state of Nosferatu in our pop culture, with the rare exception) and was eager to read the most famous novel of the undead. And it started off terrifically! The first sixty-two pages are incredible, filled with chilling atmosphere and a sense of dread you can feel all around you, as though the Count himself (or perhaps the Three Sisters he keeps in his castle) are staring hungrily at your neck. Then, almost instantly, the suspense is gone. There are intervals where the menace returns, but nothing compared to that first section in Transylvania. Part of the problem is that the novel is epistolary, meaning it is formed entirely of letters, journal or diary entries, newspaper clippings and the like. This limits the field of perspective to only what the main characters see. In the beginning this is fine, as it deals only with Harker (as opposed to Renfield, as it is in most of the movies) visiting Castle Dracula. We want his perspective. But as the novel moves on, we don't get to see any of the good stuff. Dracula is absent for most of the story, save the occasional appearance as a bat outside a window. When Lucy is turned and stalks the streets of London for young victims, we never read of any of her encounters. The closest we get is seeing her from Dr. Seward's perspective as she carries a victim back to her crypt (an excellent, haunting image, to be sure, but a look at Lucy, a formerly sweet girl, on the prowl would've been appreciated). The characters are all one-note, and that note is exactly the same for all of them. Every time they meet each other, they become best friends and declare their (platonic) love for each other. Pages and pages are wasted talking about the high esteem in which they all hold each other. The only thing that separates Morris from Arthur and Dr. Seward is that he has a Texas accent. Van Helsing, portrayed in every Dracula movie I've ever seen as a hardened, experienced vampire hunter, is here a very kindly old man. There's nothing wrong with this in theory, but his constant gushing over everyone becomes too much after a while and he almost becomes a caricature (although I did enjoy his broken English and the way he called Dr. Seward "Friend John"). Every character with whom he comes into contact is one of the most extraordinary people he's ever met (although, since they're all exactly the same, I guess that kind of makes sense) and he belabors that point endlessly. The climax is weak compared with the excellent opening and even some of the middle section. There is no grand battle with Dracula where the lives of all these amazing people hang in the balance. How unfortunate to set up such a terrific villain, one who still resonates today, and then sideline him not only for the bulk of the novel, but the climax as well. Dracula wasn't the worst of the three novels, but it was the most disappointing.
Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde was the shortest and easily the best written of the three (there's a reason we know of more than one Robert Louis Stevenson novel, as opposed to Bram Stoker and Mary Shelley). Told from the perspective of Mr. Utterson, a lawyer, it examines his investigation into Mr. Hyde, an ugly little man inside and out who seems to cause trouble wherever he goes. Hyde has some sort of link to Utterson's good friend, Dr. Henry Jekyll, but what that link may be is a mystery. Perhaps the biggest problem with Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde is not the fault of the novel; we know the secret. Everyone knows that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are one and the same. You'd be hard-pressed to find a first-grader who didn't know that. The suspense, therefore, is gone. When Utterson hears the story of how Hyde transformed back into Jekyll from Dr. Lanyon, I wasn't shocked; instead, I thought, "Finally, we're on the same page." As I said, this isn't really Stevenson's fault, and I do still wonder if I would've caught on if I hadn't known the twist, but it inescapably affects the impact of the story. There are still worthwhile ruminations on repression and the desire to have your darkest impulses set free, but again, the story has been so analyzed over the years that none of this comes as a shock. It's a real shame.
What a disappointment. I'm glad, in retrospect, that I can now say I've read these three stories, but I would never pick them up again. The few bright spots don't make up for the flaws.
First was Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, the tale of a young doctor obsessed with learning the secrets of life and death who discovers how to give life to a monster. There are some fascinating themes, such as how far is too far for science to go and, although this isn't often talked about in relation to the story, is god responsible for the evil that men do? Unfortunately, these themes aren't as prevalent as endless scenes of Victor Frankenstein talking about his family, his friends, his vacations to escape his troubles and almost anything he can talk about besides the monster he has inflicted on himself and the rest of humanity. Imagine Superman narrating his life's story and talking mostly about Ma and Pa Kent, Lois Lane's childhood and the decor of the Fortress of Solitude, and then, every fifty or so pages, remembering to touch briefly about one of the times he saved the world from Lex Luthor or Braniac. For example, early on when Frankenstein is detailing his time at medical school, where his obsession begins, through the actual creation of his monster, he ruminates constantly on what his professors think about scientific ethics, but glosses completely over the steps he took to build his creation! All the scenes you remember from the movie where he digs up dead bodies and steals limbs and organs from morgues and laboratories were created for the movie (by better writers than Mary Shelley). Apparently, Shelley thought readers wouldn't be interested. Well, to be fair, Frankenstein does say several times that he will not reveal the methods he used for fear that someone else may try to recreate them and, ultimately, the monster, but I think that's a cop-out. When you're dealing with mystical things it's okay, and sometimes better, not to explain the details, but when you're dealing with a radical scientific experiment it's criminal not offer any information as to how the experiment was conducted (especially when she went into great detail about the most inconsequential subjects). Another problem was the prose itself, which was awkward and, frankly, pretentious, even considering the era in which it was written. It reads as though Shelley felt she had something to prove, like she felt she had to make her story seem more important than it really was. Frankenstein was a bore.
I'll admit that Dracula, by Bram Stoker, was the one to which I was most looking forward. I love vampires (when done properly; I weep for the current state of Nosferatu in our pop culture, with the rare exception) and was eager to read the most famous novel of the undead. And it started off terrifically! The first sixty-two pages are incredible, filled with chilling atmosphere and a sense of dread you can feel all around you, as though the Count himself (or perhaps the Three Sisters he keeps in his castle) are staring hungrily at your neck. Then, almost instantly, the suspense is gone. There are intervals where the menace returns, but nothing compared to that first section in Transylvania. Part of the problem is that the novel is epistolary, meaning it is formed entirely of letters, journal or diary entries, newspaper clippings and the like. This limits the field of perspective to only what the main characters see. In the beginning this is fine, as it deals only with Harker (as opposed to Renfield, as it is in most of the movies) visiting Castle Dracula. We want his perspective. But as the novel moves on, we don't get to see any of the good stuff. Dracula is absent for most of the story, save the occasional appearance as a bat outside a window. When Lucy is turned and stalks the streets of London for young victims, we never read of any of her encounters. The closest we get is seeing her from Dr. Seward's perspective as she carries a victim back to her crypt (an excellent, haunting image, to be sure, but a look at Lucy, a formerly sweet girl, on the prowl would've been appreciated). The characters are all one-note, and that note is exactly the same for all of them. Every time they meet each other, they become best friends and declare their (platonic) love for each other. Pages and pages are wasted talking about the high esteem in which they all hold each other. The only thing that separates Morris from Arthur and Dr. Seward is that he has a Texas accent. Van Helsing, portrayed in every Dracula movie I've ever seen as a hardened, experienced vampire hunter, is here a very kindly old man. There's nothing wrong with this in theory, but his constant gushing over everyone becomes too much after a while and he almost becomes a caricature (although I did enjoy his broken English and the way he called Dr. Seward "Friend John"). Every character with whom he comes into contact is one of the most extraordinary people he's ever met (although, since they're all exactly the same, I guess that kind of makes sense) and he belabors that point endlessly. The climax is weak compared with the excellent opening and even some of the middle section. There is no grand battle with Dracula where the lives of all these amazing people hang in the balance. How unfortunate to set up such a terrific villain, one who still resonates today, and then sideline him not only for the bulk of the novel, but the climax as well. Dracula wasn't the worst of the three novels, but it was the most disappointing.
Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde was the shortest and easily the best written of the three (there's a reason we know of more than one Robert Louis Stevenson novel, as opposed to Bram Stoker and Mary Shelley). Told from the perspective of Mr. Utterson, a lawyer, it examines his investigation into Mr. Hyde, an ugly little man inside and out who seems to cause trouble wherever he goes. Hyde has some sort of link to Utterson's good friend, Dr. Henry Jekyll, but what that link may be is a mystery. Perhaps the biggest problem with Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde is not the fault of the novel; we know the secret. Everyone knows that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are one and the same. You'd be hard-pressed to find a first-grader who didn't know that. The suspense, therefore, is gone. When Utterson hears the story of how Hyde transformed back into Jekyll from Dr. Lanyon, I wasn't shocked; instead, I thought, "Finally, we're on the same page." As I said, this isn't really Stevenson's fault, and I do still wonder if I would've caught on if I hadn't known the twist, but it inescapably affects the impact of the story. There are still worthwhile ruminations on repression and the desire to have your darkest impulses set free, but again, the story has been so analyzed over the years that none of this comes as a shock. It's a real shame.
What a disappointment. I'm glad, in retrospect, that I can now say I've read these three stories, but I would never pick them up again. The few bright spots don't make up for the flaws.
May 29, 2023
woulda probably been better if we didnt read this in class. i only read the frankenstein novella
October 20, 2011
Dr. Jekyll created a potion that changed his life. Dr. Jekyll lived a well spent life, born among wealth, and with a hardworking, decent nature. From his birth Jekyll had an interest in the indecent and evil side of life. This interest stuck with him until fully grown when he finally discovered a way to act on it without affecting his reputation.
Mr. Utterson, the protagonist of the story and a friend of Dr. Jekyll, is a lawyer who helped create a peculiar will for a good friend Dr. Jekyll for a man known as Mr. Hyde. Utterson is well respected and never abandons a friend who’s reputation has been ruined. This man’s curiosity and willingness to stick by a friend through thick and thin leads him into a dark corner only to illuminate a deep dark secret.
Mr. Utterson ventures on long but strange strolls every Sunday through the town with his dear friend, Mr. Enfield, who, on one particular meander, introduces the disrespected, disreputable character of Mr. Hyde. This new character leads Mr. Utterson down a long and narrow path that eventually causes a horrific and unexpected twist ending.
Reputation is an important part of this novel. Without the desire for people to maintain or obtain a notable reputation, Dr. Jekyll would never have created his mischievous potion and the story would have no meaning. It is safe to say that Reputation is the most significant theme of the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The craving for a significant reputation puts Dr. Jekyll in a tough position and leads to a horrifying creation. Although this novel has a literal monster, a figurative monster resides within the characters. Dr. Jekyll’s interest, Mr. Utterson’s curiosity and concern, Dr. Lanyton’s knowledge that escorts him to death, these monsters subsist in the characters and guides the story along a rickety bridge with the end nowhere in sight.
This novel entertained and mesmerized throughout the entire story. It left a taste and a desire for more. A want for more mystery, more horror, and more suspense. This sickness can only be cured with another novel of similar storyline. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde fictionally depicts a supernatural being of Mr. Hyde, the dark side of Dr. Jekyll, which reminds readers of other fictional supernatural characters such as Count Dracula in Dracula by Bram Stoker. The theme of reputation and those with superior reputation versus those with inferior reputation connects with Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Dr. Jekyll’s fascination for the dark side is similar to that of Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars collections.
Mr. Utterson, the protagonist of the story and a friend of Dr. Jekyll, is a lawyer who helped create a peculiar will for a good friend Dr. Jekyll for a man known as Mr. Hyde. Utterson is well respected and never abandons a friend who’s reputation has been ruined. This man’s curiosity and willingness to stick by a friend through thick and thin leads him into a dark corner only to illuminate a deep dark secret.
Mr. Utterson ventures on long but strange strolls every Sunday through the town with his dear friend, Mr. Enfield, who, on one particular meander, introduces the disrespected, disreputable character of Mr. Hyde. This new character leads Mr. Utterson down a long and narrow path that eventually causes a horrific and unexpected twist ending.
Reputation is an important part of this novel. Without the desire for people to maintain or obtain a notable reputation, Dr. Jekyll would never have created his mischievous potion and the story would have no meaning. It is safe to say that Reputation is the most significant theme of the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The craving for a significant reputation puts Dr. Jekyll in a tough position and leads to a horrifying creation. Although this novel has a literal monster, a figurative monster resides within the characters. Dr. Jekyll’s interest, Mr. Utterson’s curiosity and concern, Dr. Lanyton’s knowledge that escorts him to death, these monsters subsist in the characters and guides the story along a rickety bridge with the end nowhere in sight.
This novel entertained and mesmerized throughout the entire story. It left a taste and a desire for more. A want for more mystery, more horror, and more suspense. This sickness can only be cured with another novel of similar storyline. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde fictionally depicts a supernatural being of Mr. Hyde, the dark side of Dr. Jekyll, which reminds readers of other fictional supernatural characters such as Count Dracula in Dracula by Bram Stoker. The theme of reputation and those with superior reputation versus those with inferior reputation connects with Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Dr. Jekyll’s fascination for the dark side is similar to that of Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars collections.
December 25, 2014
This combination of novels really summarizes their immortality since they are the true original and foundation of all other horror books.
Frankenstein: A marvelous psychological and philosophical book that looks at the good and bad side of humanity and really puts the question of who is the true villain in question. The story itself is quite emotional and gives insight to the conflicted main character who can be seen as both a protagonist in some instances but more so the antagonist overall. The way Dr. Frankenstein's story was told was also an awestruck way of retelling his past actions and connecting it all together in the end.
Dracula: The entire story is told through journal entries, letters, telegrams, etc., which really unveils each character's true perspective on the events. It is a true horror story in the sense of how the Count was the manifestation of evil and how he psychologically manipulated and indoctrinated fear in each character's personal life both internally and externally. None of the movies do this tale justice. Near the end, it did become a bit repetitive and ongoing, but the first 3/4 of the book is truly amazing.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: This was my least favorite out of all three, but because it was only 70 pages long, it wasn't hard to get through. I believe it was my least favorite because it wasn't as in depth as the previous two novels as it was a broad and gave a quick account of the dark and bright sides of human nature: One that is respectable, calm, down-to-earth and smart, and the other that is angry, violent, spontaneous and downright malicious. In the end, the evil won over where one must ask: Isn't that more natural and free?
Either way, I would recommend this book to all who want a glimpse into the original horror genre as well as the psychology of human nature and how to overcome evil.
Frankenstein: A marvelous psychological and philosophical book that looks at the good and bad side of humanity and really puts the question of who is the true villain in question. The story itself is quite emotional and gives insight to the conflicted main character who can be seen as both a protagonist in some instances but more so the antagonist overall. The way Dr. Frankenstein's story was told was also an awestruck way of retelling his past actions and connecting it all together in the end.
Dracula: The entire story is told through journal entries, letters, telegrams, etc., which really unveils each character's true perspective on the events. It is a true horror story in the sense of how the Count was the manifestation of evil and how he psychologically manipulated and indoctrinated fear in each character's personal life both internally and externally. None of the movies do this tale justice. Near the end, it did become a bit repetitive and ongoing, but the first 3/4 of the book is truly amazing.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: This was my least favorite out of all three, but because it was only 70 pages long, it wasn't hard to get through. I believe it was my least favorite because it wasn't as in depth as the previous two novels as it was a broad and gave a quick account of the dark and bright sides of human nature: One that is respectable, calm, down-to-earth and smart, and the other that is angry, violent, spontaneous and downright malicious. In the end, the evil won over where one must ask: Isn't that more natural and free?
Either way, I would recommend this book to all who want a glimpse into the original horror genre as well as the psychology of human nature and how to overcome evil.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 30, 2019
Well, reading these three alone wasn't enough. I had to do all three together too.. Welcome to the dark side, we have secret formulas..
All three were as creepy as they can be and so beautiful. This was like a compilation of everything that is dark and impossible.
Frankentein - I hated the genius coward and felt sad about the creature. Misunderstood and cast out, he didn't deserve to be treated as such. Human nature is as such they will fear what looks scary for the wrong reasons. I think the creature deserves the love and affection above everyone else in this story.
Dracula - Oh what can I say? Isn't he the most loved undead fellow in the history?
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - Now this is something. I'm sure there are lot of these out there without any help of potions. R.L. Stevenson merely elaborated what's already there in humans and made it a bit dramatic. Brilliant.
All three were as creepy as they can be and so beautiful. This was like a compilation of everything that is dark and impossible.
Frankentein - I hated the genius coward and felt sad about the creature. Misunderstood and cast out, he didn't deserve to be treated as such. Human nature is as such they will fear what looks scary for the wrong reasons. I think the creature deserves the love and affection above everyone else in this story.
Dracula - Oh what can I say? Isn't he the most loved undead fellow in the history?
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - Now this is something. I'm sure there are lot of these out there without any help of potions. R.L. Stevenson merely elaborated what's already there in humans and made it a bit dramatic. Brilliant.
October 17, 2010
I actually only read the Frankenstein portion of this book. I had already read the other two stories previously. As for Frankenstein, it was very different from what I would have guessed from the popularized portrayals I've seen in various forms of media. I had no idea what the story was about, so it was a nice surprise to read it and see what really happened in the story. I also think it's amazing that Mary Shelley wrote this when she was 19. In the introduction Stephen King says that the writing is really bad and he's not sure why the story has stayed so popular, but I disagree with him. I think the writing was great, and the level of vocabulary used is quite impressive for a 19 year old. I really enjoyed reading it.
Want to read
November 14, 2011Stephen King introduction in this omnibus edition.
Stephen King recommended book. In Chapter 3 of Berkley's 1983 paperback edition of Danse Macabre, King said: "The three novels I want to discuss in this chapter seem to have actually achieved that immortality, and I believe it's impossible to discuss horror in the years 1950-1980 with any real fullness of understanding unless we begin with these three books."
Those three books are Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Dracula, and Frankenstein.
Stephen King recommended book. In Chapter 3 of Berkley's 1983 paperback edition of Danse Macabre, King said: "The three novels I want to discuss in this chapter seem to have actually achieved that immortality, and I believe it's impossible to discuss horror in the years 1950-1980 with any real fullness of understanding unless we begin with these three books."
Those three books are Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Dracula, and Frankenstein.
April 27, 2020
As a horror film fan, the classics include Big Frank, Drac, and to some lesser degree, Jekyll & Hyde aka an early precursor of the Werewolf (before the Lon Chaney Werewolf we know and love.) Bundle those with an introduction by Stephen King and people will buy it, moreover, may even read it. Which I did. And thoroughly was enlightened.
The source material for my favorite movies held subtle and differing morsels that were interesting to digest. Even more thought provoking, the best known movie versions differ in varying degrees, as one would probably expect a novel and movie to do. Unfathomable almost to consider the original Frankenstein was published in 1818 and we witnessed the best-known version of the creature in 1932, although the 1910 Edison short was fun to watch.
And I write this in 2020, a mere 200 plus years later is testament to the inspiration of the abomination tale. Same for Dracula, published 1897, with the best known film released in 1931, with Coppola's critical version released in 1992. And even the same goes for Jekyll/Hyde from the 1880s, with the earliest versions released in 1920 (100 years long past) or Frederic March's in 1931.
This reading definitely engaged my curiosity to seek out and re-watch the classics with a keen eye to take in the nuances that exist. I mean who among us read Frankenstein before seeing Karloff in action? or read Dracula before seeing Lugosi among the stairs speaking in his native accent (or with Abbott & Costello, am I right?)
Taking a leap to capture John Barrymore as Jekyll (albeit in a silent film) was unsuspectedly intriguing and probably the most iconic version of the Jekyll/Hyde pairing before Frederic March or Spencer Tracy. Even so, the 2007 take "Jekyll" by the BBC, was entertaining to watch.
But the stories reveal the time period of their birth. Frankenstein reads more like a travelogue in most places than a horror piece. Humanity was questioned and sparked other questions but shock and horror were not among them. Of course, the movie changed all of the that.
Conversely, Bram Stoker wrote more of a ghost story, haunted house/castle tale. You see the puzzle pieces being fitted into a grander plan while watching poor Harker deteriorate, or dear Lucy Westenra succumb to her anemia in 1880s London ;) And welcome the most iconic of horror heroes in Abraham Van Helsing, in all of his Dutch glory. While Jekyll/Hyde in idyllic London, as well, precedes the true to life Jack the Ripper if only by moments in real time.
All have their merits. I highly recommend you take the time to enjoy the source material of our child hood Silver Screen visions.
Thanks for reading.
The source material for my favorite movies held subtle and differing morsels that were interesting to digest. Even more thought provoking, the best known movie versions differ in varying degrees, as one would probably expect a novel and movie to do. Unfathomable almost to consider the original Frankenstein was published in 1818 and we witnessed the best-known version of the creature in 1932, although the 1910 Edison short was fun to watch.
And I write this in 2020, a mere 200 plus years later is testament to the inspiration of the abomination tale. Same for Dracula, published 1897, with the best known film released in 1931, with Coppola's critical version released in 1992. And even the same goes for Jekyll/Hyde from the 1880s, with the earliest versions released in 1920 (100 years long past) or Frederic March's in 1931.
This reading definitely engaged my curiosity to seek out and re-watch the classics with a keen eye to take in the nuances that exist. I mean who among us read Frankenstein before seeing Karloff in action? or read Dracula before seeing Lugosi among the stairs speaking in his native accent (or with Abbott & Costello, am I right?)
Taking a leap to capture John Barrymore as Jekyll (albeit in a silent film) was unsuspectedly intriguing and probably the most iconic version of the Jekyll/Hyde pairing before Frederic March or Spencer Tracy. Even so, the 2007 take "Jekyll" by the BBC, was entertaining to watch.
But the stories reveal the time period of their birth. Frankenstein reads more like a travelogue in most places than a horror piece. Humanity was questioned and sparked other questions but shock and horror were not among them. Of course, the movie changed all of the that.
Conversely, Bram Stoker wrote more of a ghost story, haunted house/castle tale. You see the puzzle pieces being fitted into a grander plan while watching poor Harker deteriorate, or dear Lucy Westenra succumb to her anemia in 1880s London ;) And welcome the most iconic of horror heroes in Abraham Van Helsing, in all of his Dutch glory. While Jekyll/Hyde in idyllic London, as well, precedes the true to life Jack the Ripper if only by moments in real time.
All have their merits. I highly recommend you take the time to enjoy the source material of our child hood Silver Screen visions.
Thanks for reading.
September 13, 2022
Dracula - 5/5
Jonathan Harker is a soon-to-be-wed lawyer who eagerly travels to Castle Dracula in the lovely country of Transylvania to settle a real estate transaction with the noble gentleman. During his journey, Jonathan suspects that things aren't as ordinary as they seem in the beautiful country. Superstitious locals speak of demons, vampires and vengeful spirits. The wolves howl with unnatural hunger. Children and villagers disappear without a trace. Blue flames appear out of thin air. The land itself seems to be haunted by a dreadful presence. Upon arriving at the castle, Jonathan soon realizes that all the horror in the land is the direct influence of the very man he was soon to meet. Count Dracula is a monster with plans to spread chaos and misfortune wherever he walks, and Jonathan is now his helpless prisoner.
In spite of its flaws, this book holds a special place in my heart. It's far from perfect and certainly far from the best story out there, but I can't help but love it because Dracula is the first horror novel I ever read. This is the book that turned me into a horror fanatic all those years ago, the book that sparked my obsession with dark literature, culture, history, folklore, music and all things relating to the horror genre. From the haunting beauty of the Carpathian Mountains, the eerie hellscape of Dracula's castle and the constant bombardment of dread that stems from the looming threat of Dracula himself, there's a lot to love here.
If you read it with the sole intention of it being scary or horrifying, you're probably going to be disappointed. That being said, it's one of the most atmospheric books ever written in my opinion. The very analytical look into Victorian society, the questioning of outdated traditions and smothering cultural standards, the exploration of sexual identity and expression, the steady rise of science vs. religion, the eerie dread that permeates every page with rumors of monsters, devils, witches, evil spirits and all manner of wicked things, the gloomy gothic architecture and more. The atmospheric nature of the tale told through personal and intimate journal entries truly make you feel as if you're experiencing the events from the eyes of the struggling characters. Stephen King taught Dracula to college students for many years and it reflects in his own works quite a bit.
Speaking of the characters, the version of the cast in the original novel are so much better than any of their numerous film and television counterparts. I always felt like every adaption fails to capture the complexity and emotional depth of the cast, portraying them as bland and one-dimensional when the original versions had a lot of heart to them.
Dracula himself is much scarier and crueler, while still maintaining his lovable disguise as a good-humored, charismatic gentleman. He feeds a living baby to a pack of ravenous vampires then feeds the mother to a flock of rabid wolves. He finds humor in psychological torture and prolonged suffering. He amuses himself by driving people insane and watching them bring harm to themselves and everything around them. He's a creepy sicko, a heartless monster and a lovably passionate nobleman all rolled into one. He's an excellent villain, especially considering the time this was written.
Jonathan, Lucy, Dr. Helsing, Seward, Quincy, even the hilarious Dr. Renfield are all heartfelt characters in their own right. Most of all, my favorite part of the book is the character of Mina Harker. I always felt moved by her bravery, kindness and rebellious humor. No matter how strong the threat of Dracula grew, Mina's the one that remained strong, courageous and rational in the face of terror and despair. Even after losing her dearest friend and when her male comrades were left frantic and devastated, she remained a great leader. She was the link that held the main group together and gave them the courage they needed to face off against the menacing Dracula. If you ask me, she's very underrated as far as strong female characters go. I think it's very sad that Mina's character is always horribly misconstrued and poorly represented in nearly every film and tv show she's ever been in because the original character is fantastic.
***
Frankenstein - 4/5
Obsessed with discovering the cause of generation. life and bestowing animation upon lifeless matter, Dr. Victor Frankenstein assembles a human being from stolen body parts. Upon bringing it to life, he recoils in horror at the creature's hideousness and rejects it. Tormented by isolation, loneliness and abandonment issues, the once-innocent creature turns to evil and unleashes a campaign of murderous revenge against his creator, Frankenstein.
A classic tale depicting the often selfish and cruel nature of mankind as well as the horrors of science going too far. I remember being shocked by how sad this novel is the first time I read it. I was expecting something campy along the lines of a cheesy old black and white horror film, but found the plot and characters to be more reminiscent to that of Dorian Gray. This isn’t a horror story, it’s a tragedy about loneliness and the pain of being ostracized by all of the people that you want to receive love and acceptance from.
I ended up feeling bad for Victor by the end of the novel, but the monster is the true highlight of the book for me. The second half of the book mostly takes place from the monster’s point of view and the chapters revolving around it are quite sad. Seeing how poorly the monster was treated despite how kind he was to others made me feel terrible for him. He was no different than an innocent child that was abandoned by a parent that left him to suffer and die alone and he was punished for it. The monster was the true victim of this story.
Penny Dreadful is the only series I’ve seen that does the original story justice in its portrayal of the monster.
***
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - 3/5
A psychological crime novella tackling the complexities of the scientific revolution as well as the many complicated layers of human nature. Dr. Jekyll is a kind and well-respected scientist seeking to bring change and advancement to society. Hyde is a ruthless barbarian who feels no remorse for his brutal crimes. What do they have in common? They're both the same man. This brings up the question; is he good or is he evil? Or are people simply too complex to be fully one or the other?
Much like Poe's The Tell-Tale Heart, Stevenson displays an impressive understanding of psychosis in a time when not much was known about human psychology. The story and prose wasn't nearly as well-crafted as Poe's story, the final chapter which is the longest in the novella could've been entirely removed. It should've ended on the previous chapter when it was revealed that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are one and the same.
Speaking of Mr. Hyde, it's interesting to see how different he is in the original story than any of his film counterparts. Instead of being a giant, ape-like monster, he's a shrunken, rat-faced man with a vicious temper. Even knowing the plot twist ahead of time I still felt like it was very well done. If the story ended on the revelation that the doctor and the killer are the same person, it would've left a stronger impression on me.
Jonathan Harker is a soon-to-be-wed lawyer who eagerly travels to Castle Dracula in the lovely country of Transylvania to settle a real estate transaction with the noble gentleman. During his journey, Jonathan suspects that things aren't as ordinary as they seem in the beautiful country. Superstitious locals speak of demons, vampires and vengeful spirits. The wolves howl with unnatural hunger. Children and villagers disappear without a trace. Blue flames appear out of thin air. The land itself seems to be haunted by a dreadful presence. Upon arriving at the castle, Jonathan soon realizes that all the horror in the land is the direct influence of the very man he was soon to meet. Count Dracula is a monster with plans to spread chaos and misfortune wherever he walks, and Jonathan is now his helpless prisoner.
In spite of its flaws, this book holds a special place in my heart. It's far from perfect and certainly far from the best story out there, but I can't help but love it because Dracula is the first horror novel I ever read. This is the book that turned me into a horror fanatic all those years ago, the book that sparked my obsession with dark literature, culture, history, folklore, music and all things relating to the horror genre. From the haunting beauty of the Carpathian Mountains, the eerie hellscape of Dracula's castle and the constant bombardment of dread that stems from the looming threat of Dracula himself, there's a lot to love here.
If you read it with the sole intention of it being scary or horrifying, you're probably going to be disappointed. That being said, it's one of the most atmospheric books ever written in my opinion. The very analytical look into Victorian society, the questioning of outdated traditions and smothering cultural standards, the exploration of sexual identity and expression, the steady rise of science vs. religion, the eerie dread that permeates every page with rumors of monsters, devils, witches, evil spirits and all manner of wicked things, the gloomy gothic architecture and more. The atmospheric nature of the tale told through personal and intimate journal entries truly make you feel as if you're experiencing the events from the eyes of the struggling characters. Stephen King taught Dracula to college students for many years and it reflects in his own works quite a bit.
Speaking of the characters, the version of the cast in the original novel are so much better than any of their numerous film and television counterparts. I always felt like every adaption fails to capture the complexity and emotional depth of the cast, portraying them as bland and one-dimensional when the original versions had a lot of heart to them.
Dracula himself is much scarier and crueler, while still maintaining his lovable disguise as a good-humored, charismatic gentleman. He feeds a living baby to a pack of ravenous vampires then feeds the mother to a flock of rabid wolves. He finds humor in psychological torture and prolonged suffering. He amuses himself by driving people insane and watching them bring harm to themselves and everything around them. He's a creepy sicko, a heartless monster and a lovably passionate nobleman all rolled into one. He's an excellent villain, especially considering the time this was written.
Jonathan, Lucy, Dr. Helsing, Seward, Quincy, even the hilarious Dr. Renfield are all heartfelt characters in their own right. Most of all, my favorite part of the book is the character of Mina Harker. I always felt moved by her bravery, kindness and rebellious humor. No matter how strong the threat of Dracula grew, Mina's the one that remained strong, courageous and rational in the face of terror and despair. Even after losing her dearest friend and when her male comrades were left frantic and devastated, she remained a great leader. She was the link that held the main group together and gave them the courage they needed to face off against the menacing Dracula. If you ask me, she's very underrated as far as strong female characters go. I think it's very sad that Mina's character is always horribly misconstrued and poorly represented in nearly every film and tv show she's ever been in because the original character is fantastic.
***
Frankenstein - 4/5
Obsessed with discovering the cause of generation. life and bestowing animation upon lifeless matter, Dr. Victor Frankenstein assembles a human being from stolen body parts. Upon bringing it to life, he recoils in horror at the creature's hideousness and rejects it. Tormented by isolation, loneliness and abandonment issues, the once-innocent creature turns to evil and unleashes a campaign of murderous revenge against his creator, Frankenstein.
A classic tale depicting the often selfish and cruel nature of mankind as well as the horrors of science going too far. I remember being shocked by how sad this novel is the first time I read it. I was expecting something campy along the lines of a cheesy old black and white horror film, but found the plot and characters to be more reminiscent to that of Dorian Gray. This isn’t a horror story, it’s a tragedy about loneliness and the pain of being ostracized by all of the people that you want to receive love and acceptance from.
I ended up feeling bad for Victor by the end of the novel, but the monster is the true highlight of the book for me. The second half of the book mostly takes place from the monster’s point of view and the chapters revolving around it are quite sad. Seeing how poorly the monster was treated despite how kind he was to others made me feel terrible for him. He was no different than an innocent child that was abandoned by a parent that left him to suffer and die alone and he was punished for it. The monster was the true victim of this story.
Penny Dreadful is the only series I’ve seen that does the original story justice in its portrayal of the monster.
***
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - 3/5
A psychological crime novella tackling the complexities of the scientific revolution as well as the many complicated layers of human nature. Dr. Jekyll is a kind and well-respected scientist seeking to bring change and advancement to society. Hyde is a ruthless barbarian who feels no remorse for his brutal crimes. What do they have in common? They're both the same man. This brings up the question; is he good or is he evil? Or are people simply too complex to be fully one or the other?
Much like Poe's The Tell-Tale Heart, Stevenson displays an impressive understanding of psychosis in a time when not much was known about human psychology. The story and prose wasn't nearly as well-crafted as Poe's story, the final chapter which is the longest in the novella could've been entirely removed. It should've ended on the previous chapter when it was revealed that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are one and the same.
Speaking of Mr. Hyde, it's interesting to see how different he is in the original story than any of his film counterparts. Instead of being a giant, ape-like monster, he's a shrunken, rat-faced man with a vicious temper. Even knowing the plot twist ahead of time I still felt like it was very well done. If the story ended on the revelation that the doctor and the killer are the same person, it would've left a stronger impression on me.
November 6, 2017
Excelentísimo.
February 13, 2019
This is the exact edition from which I read all three of these books in my college class, Literature of Horror. All are great reads.
October 31, 2021
These three books have been on my book bucket list for so long and I’m so glad I’ve finally been able to read them!
January 6, 2020
After the mammoth read that was Dracula (which I reviewed separately along with Frankenstein), Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde was a breeze. The last of the three books in one, at only 40+ pages compared to Dracula’s 400+ I got through it in no time. However the story wasn’t quite as compelling. The majority of it is told in a letter that is probably a third to half of the book in length. It’s an explanation of how Mr Hyde was the meaner side of Dr Jekyll, which even if I had not known from the outset, was kind of obvious.
In both writing courses I’ve attended and in English class at college, you are constantly told to show, not tell, and yet nobody seems to have told Robert Louis Stevenson this tip. He tells you every agonising detail about the doctor with the duel life, apart from, unsurprisingly, how it all was possible. We just learn that their personalities split after Jekyll took a tincture he made from some defective salt.
Whilst I don’t need to know the science behind it, I could certainly have done with less of the explaining every detail in a letter after his death, and more showing of their dual life, and the debauched ways Mr Hyde took Dr Jekyll’s form and used it to his own gains. For me this would have made for a much more interesting story!
In both writing courses I’ve attended and in English class at college, you are constantly told to show, not tell, and yet nobody seems to have told Robert Louis Stevenson this tip. He tells you every agonising detail about the doctor with the duel life, apart from, unsurprisingly, how it all was possible. We just learn that their personalities split after Jekyll took a tincture he made from some defective salt.
Whilst I don’t need to know the science behind it, I could certainly have done with less of the explaining every detail in a letter after his death, and more showing of their dual life, and the debauched ways Mr Hyde took Dr Jekyll’s form and used it to his own gains. For me this would have made for a much more interesting story!
July 18, 2017
Great collection, actually 4 1/2 stars on average, but these are classic horror suspense stories not to miss
October 23, 2011
Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde was an extremly enjoyable book the mystery contained within the worn pages of this spectacular book, is a mystery that will leave you reading nonstop, leaving you with the yearning to know every detail this short, but fantastic story contained. This book was enjoyable, however the only thing I wished would have been different is the beginning chapter. the opening of this book was not really a pull in to read more. In books one of the most importaint parts that i believe is the attention grabber that really allows a reader to want to keep reading. Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde did not provide that, although I am ver happy I kept reading, because the turn out of this story really left me with a good feeling at the end of this book. The mystery was the real attention grabber in this book, because i would have never guessed that the secret of Dr.Jekylls potionand transformation would not be discovered till the end when they finally brake the door down into Jekylls lab to find Mr.Hyde lying dead on the floor of the lab dressed in Dr.Jekylls clothing. This was shocking to me because there were so many obvious signs, such as the poor murder of the old man, and the very strange actions that Dr.Jekyll was beginning to express.
The theme of this book seemed to revolve around light vs dark, or good vs evil. The main reson for this theme is for you to look into your life and realize the everday balance of good and evil. After reading this book, I began to compare this battle of light vs dark to my life and what I have experienced during the years, as i have been growing up. I myself realized that it truly is part of our ever day lives even if we never take the time to nice it. Our decisions, and thoughts are what choose which side we will be apart of. This is the conflict between light and dark and how I can relate to it in every day life.
Overall I gave this book a four out of five, because although i found this book fantastic, and very enjoyable to read, it was not a book i would normally read because topics like these do not always interest me. My favorite part of this novel was the secrets that took place right in front of Mr. Uttersons face even though he believed he knew everything taking place. The letter that explains the story of Dr.Jekylls potion truly shows how mysterious the whole situation was and why even for Mr.Utterson who was a close friend had a hard time discovering the secreted of Mr.Hyde. I truly recomend this book to anyone who has never read but has thought about reading this book because I believe You, like I did will fall into reading this novel. This was an exception to a book type I myself usually do not read, and this has made me want to try more books like it.
The theme of this book seemed to revolve around light vs dark, or good vs evil. The main reson for this theme is for you to look into your life and realize the everday balance of good and evil. After reading this book, I began to compare this battle of light vs dark to my life and what I have experienced during the years, as i have been growing up. I myself realized that it truly is part of our ever day lives even if we never take the time to nice it. Our decisions, and thoughts are what choose which side we will be apart of. This is the conflict between light and dark and how I can relate to it in every day life.
Overall I gave this book a four out of five, because although i found this book fantastic, and very enjoyable to read, it was not a book i would normally read because topics like these do not always interest me. My favorite part of this novel was the secrets that took place right in front of Mr. Uttersons face even though he believed he knew everything taking place. The letter that explains the story of Dr.Jekylls potion truly shows how mysterious the whole situation was and why even for Mr.Utterson who was a close friend had a hard time discovering the secreted of Mr.Hyde. I truly recomend this book to anyone who has never read but has thought about reading this book because I believe You, like I did will fall into reading this novel. This was an exception to a book type I myself usually do not read, and this has made me want to try more books like it.
August 31, 2010
Although I own this edition of the book, and read the Stephen King introduction to it, I am reading a different edition of the three novels. I found a website -- DailyLit -- that emails you snippets of classic books every day, so that they can be read in a serialized manner over the course of a few weeks to months, depending on the length of the work. I am going to experiment with reading these three novels that way and review those editions of them, and my experience with Daily Lit, when I finish.
Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley
Since this is considered a "groundbreaking", "classic" work for the genres of science fiction and gothic literature, I expected to embrace it. But, in reality, I found it dragged endlessly on, mostly with the never-ending lamentations of the narrator, Dr. Frankenstein, who is unable to stop waxing poetic and philosophical for a single page. What is most infuriating is that the story is supposed to be a series of journal entries that Frankenstein gave on his deathbed to a ship captain, which makes the long-windedness even more absurd. The actual plot could be written on a cocktail napkin, and could very well be adapted into a compelling short story. Rating: Between one and two stars.
Dracula, by Bram Stoker
Bram Stoker's classic vampire tale, which like Frankenstein, is written as a series of journal entries, was a much more enjoyable read than Mary Shelley's monster story. Although it is a considerable longer work, it isn't tedious or lacking action -- there is so much more going on, and from many points-of-view. That being said, it did drag a bit in the middle, especially in two specific segments -- after Jonathan Harker's first section of journal entries, and again after Lucy Westerna's death. Rating: Four stars.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, by Robert Louis Stevenson
Robert Louis Stevenson is the only of these three authors that understands the concept of brevity. The idea for his tale was just as interesting as the others, but he managed to pen the whole thing in less than a week, making it readable in one captivated sitting. It reminded me a lot of various Sherlock Holmes stories, both in tone and setting. Rating: Four stars.
Note: I found reading the Daily Lit serialized emails distracting, as I like to read books in larger segments than the service sends, and also like being able to decide when to stop reading, instead of Daily Lit deciding for me. I finished reading Frankenstein using DailyLit, but am going to read the Kindle editions of Dracula and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hytde.
Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley
Since this is considered a "groundbreaking", "classic" work for the genres of science fiction and gothic literature, I expected to embrace it. But, in reality, I found it dragged endlessly on, mostly with the never-ending lamentations of the narrator, Dr. Frankenstein, who is unable to stop waxing poetic and philosophical for a single page. What is most infuriating is that the story is supposed to be a series of journal entries that Frankenstein gave on his deathbed to a ship captain, which makes the long-windedness even more absurd. The actual plot could be written on a cocktail napkin, and could very well be adapted into a compelling short story. Rating: Between one and two stars.
Dracula, by Bram Stoker
Bram Stoker's classic vampire tale, which like Frankenstein, is written as a series of journal entries, was a much more enjoyable read than Mary Shelley's monster story. Although it is a considerable longer work, it isn't tedious or lacking action -- there is so much more going on, and from many points-of-view. That being said, it did drag a bit in the middle, especially in two specific segments -- after Jonathan Harker's first section of journal entries, and again after Lucy Westerna's death. Rating: Four stars.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, by Robert Louis Stevenson
Robert Louis Stevenson is the only of these three authors that understands the concept of brevity. The idea for his tale was just as interesting as the others, but he managed to pen the whole thing in less than a week, making it readable in one captivated sitting. It reminded me a lot of various Sherlock Holmes stories, both in tone and setting. Rating: Four stars.
Note: I found reading the Daily Lit serialized emails distracting, as I like to read books in larger segments than the service sends, and also like being able to decide when to stop reading, instead of Daily Lit deciding for me. I finished reading Frankenstein using DailyLit, but am going to read the Kindle editions of Dracula and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hytde.
October 27, 2011
Robert Louis Stevenson’s Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a captivatingly mysterious novel set in London during the late 1800s. It tells the story of Mr. Gabriel Utterson, a town lawyer, as he investigates the mystery surrounding an old friend and colleague of his, Dr. Henry Jekyll. Utterson is alarmed to discover that Dr. Jekyll’s will had named an unfamiliar Mr. Hyde as the sole beneficiary of his estate. This raises questions that Utterson becomes determined to have answered. Upon meeting Mr. Hyde in the street, he gets the impression that Hyde, a seemingly evil man, must be blackmailing Jekyll to steal his money. Utterson’s apprehension about Hyde is put to ease as Jekyll returns to his old sociable ways after Hyde is believed to have fled town. Suddenly, Jekyll returns to seclusion. Deserted by his friend once again, Mr. Utterson takes it upon himself to get to the bottom of his old friend’s shady ways and discovers the truth is far more bazaar than he ever could have imagined.
Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is exactly the kind of book that I love to read. With just the right amount of suspense and philosophy, this novel tells a story of inner struggle and human nature that we can all learn from. Robert Louis Stevenson’s Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a story that fits seamlessly into this quarter’s theme of the duality of good and evil in human nature. As the truth is being revealed in the late Dr Jekyll’s letter, it becomes evident that he was a man that suffered from an internal conflict that was physically externalized. In separating his pure and evil selves, Dr Jekyll thought that he could use science to defy nature. He tried to get the best of both worlds--perfect his good side and unleash his bad side. He quickly learns that this unnatural occurrence would result in evil and tried to rid himself of Hyde. Unable to fight temptation, he gives in to willingly becoming Hyde one last time-- this would ultimately bring about his downfall.
Before reading this book, I thought I had already known all that this book had to offer. I knew the storyline roughly and thought I could use my imagination to fill in any gaps, but I can honestly say this book kept me guessing. Knowing the ultimate outcome, but being unsure of how each detail would fall into place, I turned each page of this book eager to find out what was coming up on the next page.
Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is exactly the kind of book that I love to read. With just the right amount of suspense and philosophy, this novel tells a story of inner struggle and human nature that we can all learn from. Robert Louis Stevenson’s Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a story that fits seamlessly into this quarter’s theme of the duality of good and evil in human nature. As the truth is being revealed in the late Dr Jekyll’s letter, it becomes evident that he was a man that suffered from an internal conflict that was physically externalized. In separating his pure and evil selves, Dr Jekyll thought that he could use science to defy nature. He tried to get the best of both worlds--perfect his good side and unleash his bad side. He quickly learns that this unnatural occurrence would result in evil and tried to rid himself of Hyde. Unable to fight temptation, he gives in to willingly becoming Hyde one last time-- this would ultimately bring about his downfall.
Before reading this book, I thought I had already known all that this book had to offer. I knew the storyline roughly and thought I could use my imagination to fill in any gaps, but I can honestly say this book kept me guessing. Knowing the ultimate outcome, but being unsure of how each detail would fall into place, I turned each page of this book eager to find out what was coming up on the next page.
October 23, 2011
Good vs. evil plays a substantial role in the chilling mystery of Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde. Revolving around Dr.Jekyll, a well known and well acclaimed scientist living in London, his number one goal turned to separating his ‘evil’ side from his body and into it’s own. To accomplish this, Jekyll concocted a potion that would transform him in to the perilous Edward Hyde. The creation of the disguise gave Jekyll the ability to go about his dirty and malicious deeds and then safely return to his typical self and not face any consequences. Jekyll created Hyde so that he had a way to separate every ounce of evil that swam within him. However, Jekyll’s plan ends up backfiring and turning in to a somber tale. The story of Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde shows readers how the interior struggles of humans are set free to duality with the hand of science.
I found Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde to be a dry and insipid novella. All types of suspense were ripped out from underneath my fingertips with all the modern talk of the story’s plot. Having read the story with an open mind, I just could not engage with the text. The language was not difficult to understand, but I found that I had to read pages and pages of ‘fluff’ just to get to the ending, which was dragged out and written in extensive detail. The mystery of Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde had one particular theme that I related to: humans wanting to separate the evil from within them to try and lead a happy life. I found Jekyll’s tale to be one that was very understandable. There was a side to him that was monstrous and he simply couldn’t bare with that. I think that many people can relate to Jekyll when I say that we all have evil inside of us that we wish could be released and not have to deal with.
I recommend that if readers enjoyed the mystery of Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde, that they would also enjoy Frankenstein. Both are tales involving scientists and their creations of ‘monsters’; the creation of life and alter egos. Dr.Jekyll and Frankenstein take place around the same time, are composed in similar written language and their morals of time were much alike. The stories are old, well written pieces that are detailed, unique, and sure to please any science fiction fanatic.
I found Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde to be a dry and insipid novella. All types of suspense were ripped out from underneath my fingertips with all the modern talk of the story’s plot. Having read the story with an open mind, I just could not engage with the text. The language was not difficult to understand, but I found that I had to read pages and pages of ‘fluff’ just to get to the ending, which was dragged out and written in extensive detail. The mystery of Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde had one particular theme that I related to: humans wanting to separate the evil from within them to try and lead a happy life. I found Jekyll’s tale to be one that was very understandable. There was a side to him that was monstrous and he simply couldn’t bare with that. I think that many people can relate to Jekyll when I say that we all have evil inside of us that we wish could be released and not have to deal with.
I recommend that if readers enjoyed the mystery of Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde, that they would also enjoy Frankenstein. Both are tales involving scientists and their creations of ‘monsters’; the creation of life and alter egos. Dr.Jekyll and Frankenstein take place around the same time, are composed in similar written language and their morals of time were much alike. The stories are old, well written pieces that are detailed, unique, and sure to please any science fiction fanatic.
January 7, 2012
The plot of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was interesting, but reading the book was not. What I mean when I say this is the story sounded interesting when someone had told me about it before reading the story. The fact that a man lived two separate lives (trying to describe the story without giving too much away) UNREALISTICALLY made the story sound mysterious. All throughout the story, I was waiting for a twist. I was thinking, "Okay, I know that was going to happen, but what next?" It turned out there was no twist after the climax, the climax was the twist. The summary I had heard sounded creepy, making me want to read it, but really, all there is to the story is a few sentence summary. I feel like there could have been much more detail put into the story- more background on Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, more description to features, and to get into the heads of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The story does get into their heads through letters, but not in detail. Not knowing the background of the twisted character may have been what I thought was missing in the story. The plot is mysterious, but not deeply developed. The number of pages of the story goes by quickly as well. I suggest that if the plot of the story is known, there isn't much reason to read the story; but then again, the book isn't that long anyway.
I actually prefer the story behind 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' better than the actual story. The author, Robert Louis Stevenson, lived in a middle class family. His father had sent him to school to study science and become a civil engineer. Stevenson's real interest was literature in pursing writing. His father let that be Stevenson's back-up plan. Two Edinburghs helped mold Stevenson's life. One side of it was respectful, religious and well-mannered while the other side was shady and secretive. This put life into perspective for Stevenson which gave inspiration to the story, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
I actually prefer the story behind 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' better than the actual story. The author, Robert Louis Stevenson, lived in a middle class family. His father had sent him to school to study science and become a civil engineer. Stevenson's real interest was literature in pursing writing. His father let that be Stevenson's back-up plan. Two Edinburghs helped mold Stevenson's life. One side of it was respectful, religious and well-mannered while the other side was shady and secretive. This put life into perspective for Stevenson which gave inspiration to the story, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
October 27, 2011
“The Mysterious Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” by Robert Louis Stevenson, is about a man named Henry Jekyll who performs experiments in an attempt to separate the dual personalities of good and evil found in every human being. He wishes to give each a separate entity so that they may not conflict. Instead, he unleashes his secondary dark personality within the same body.
Two men. Two polar-opposite personalities. One body. This age-old story is one that most people have heard, but simply didn’t know the details of.
The book follows the account of Mr. Utterson, a lawyer and friend of Dr. Jekyll, as he attempts to uncover the truth about the mysteries surrounding his good friend Henry Jekyll and Jekyll’s mysterious protégé Edward Hyde. Throughout most of the book, both Utterson as well as the reader are left in the dark as to the true identity of Edward Hyde, but by the end of the novel both parties have discovered the truth.
This setup relies on the idea that the reader does not know that Jekyll and Hyde are one and the same. When you know how it will end, you spend most of the book wondering how long it will take for the other characters to figure it out, and it turns out to be quite boring. However, I rather enjoyed re-reading it because I was able to pick out many interesting details that I had missed or forgotten the first time through. It is a nice short and to-the-point novel so it is easy to read and re-read, though it does not go into great detail or griping dialogue, as many longer novels might. Ii personally prefer the longer novels, but “Jekyll and Hyde” was a nice change. However, what the novel lacks in length, it more than makes up for in depth. Stevenson delves deep into the dark subject of the duality of human nature and the temptations for evil that men face as they attempt to live a righteous life.
Two men. Two polar-opposite personalities. One body. This age-old story is one that most people have heard, but simply didn’t know the details of.
The book follows the account of Mr. Utterson, a lawyer and friend of Dr. Jekyll, as he attempts to uncover the truth about the mysteries surrounding his good friend Henry Jekyll and Jekyll’s mysterious protégé Edward Hyde. Throughout most of the book, both Utterson as well as the reader are left in the dark as to the true identity of Edward Hyde, but by the end of the novel both parties have discovered the truth.
This setup relies on the idea that the reader does not know that Jekyll and Hyde are one and the same. When you know how it will end, you spend most of the book wondering how long it will take for the other characters to figure it out, and it turns out to be quite boring. However, I rather enjoyed re-reading it because I was able to pick out many interesting details that I had missed or forgotten the first time through. It is a nice short and to-the-point novel so it is easy to read and re-read, though it does not go into great detail or griping dialogue, as many longer novels might. Ii personally prefer the longer novels, but “Jekyll and Hyde” was a nice change. However, what the novel lacks in length, it more than makes up for in depth. Stevenson delves deep into the dark subject of the duality of human nature and the temptations for evil that men face as they attempt to live a righteous life.
March 16, 2016
These books are a classic, which is why I read them, but man has writing and language evolved since their creation! And so has "horror" literature, but I do want to note that I was wrapped up in all three books at most points, but toward the end of Dracula I just wanted the whole book to be done. I did think it was interesting though, that in all three,at least parts of the stories were told using letters or journal entries.
Frankenstien - I was expecting the Frankenstien that is portrayed in movies and such today, but it was not that. I enjoyed reading this original because it put those more modern portrayals into perspective. I found myself coming to parts of the book and going "This is where the monster will pop out and destroy someone/something!" and then that didn't happen. I thought he would make more appearances than he really did. It was a lot of build up, much more than destruction.
Dracula - This was by far the longest of the three and I feel like it probably could have been shortened by about 100 pages, none the less it was easier for me to read this since it was written all in the letter/journal format. I felt like the search was too long and the resolution too quick and easy. I mean after all the drama and stuff the characters went through I feel like the ending could have been better. It also never really explained how Van Helsing knew what he did about vampires.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - This was my favorite of the three, but that could be because it was the last "book" in the book and it was the shortest. However, I think the story was laid out well. The reader is told enough to get the story and there is something happening in each section. And then the end is well told as well. I did find that once I got into the story I forgot who was Jekyll and who was Hyde, though i'm guessing that was done on purpose.
Frankenstien - I was expecting the Frankenstien that is portrayed in movies and such today, but it was not that. I enjoyed reading this original because it put those more modern portrayals into perspective. I found myself coming to parts of the book and going "This is where the monster will pop out and destroy someone/something!" and then that didn't happen. I thought he would make more appearances than he really did. It was a lot of build up, much more than destruction.
Dracula - This was by far the longest of the three and I feel like it probably could have been shortened by about 100 pages, none the less it was easier for me to read this since it was written all in the letter/journal format. I felt like the search was too long and the resolution too quick and easy. I mean after all the drama and stuff the characters went through I feel like the ending could have been better. It also never really explained how Van Helsing knew what he did about vampires.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - This was my favorite of the three, but that could be because it was the last "book" in the book and it was the shortest. However, I think the story was laid out well. The reader is told enough to get the story and there is something happening in each section. And then the end is well told as well. I did find that once I got into the story I forgot who was Jekyll and who was Hyde, though i'm guessing that was done on purpose.
April 23, 2010
These three together are the horror classics modern authors like King, Rice, Crichton, Thomas Harris are greatly indebted to. I think Stoker's Dracula is the strongest novel of the three--one with unforgettable characters, a propulsive narrative, and one where the narration and dialogue feels more natural. All three interestingly enough have first person elements. Dracula is almost entirely told through journals and letters; Frankenstein is framed as a letter about Victor Frankenstein including his (and the monster's) own account of the creature's creation and his ruin. A short novel, it's perhaps the most different than what popular culture would lead you to expect--more literary and philosophical, but also at times rather flowery and emo. Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde, a short novella, is mostly told in third person through the perspective of Dr Jekyl's friend and lawyer, but ends with Jekyll's letter giving his own account of what led to his transformation. That ending to me made the novel feel disjointed and abrupt, since we never get his friend's reaction to events. Dracula is a more sustained, lengthy novel, and in my opinion, the scariest. All three are worth a read--Frankenstein and Dr Jekyll are as much science fiction as horror, indeed their themes have to do with the horror in science. Dracula I think is all the more interesting then because it uses the science of its day, from blood transfusions to telegrams, to fight the horror from a superstitious age.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 139 reviews