Category: Reflections

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a mystery and terror novel by Robert Luis Stevenson published in 1886.

I liked this story more than the others we have read in class before, I find this story much more interesting and understandable to read besides I like horror and suspense stories similar to this one.

the story is about a scientist called Dr. Jekyll who made an elixir in his laboratory to transform himself into the negative part of his personality that he calls Mr. Hyde, this was a bad idea and it ended up getting out of his control because Mr. Hyde becomes more powerful and it was no longer possible to stop him, so Dr Jekyll decides to kill himself, making Mr. Hyde also disappear.

this story makes me think about the reason why Dr. Jekyll made that elixir, i mean, i know that if he hadn´t done that there would be no story but i think that it wasn´t that difficult or it wasn´t necessary to think a lot to know that it is a terrible idea that wasn´t going to end in anything good and wasn´t beneficial in any way. it was just an irresponsible use of what he is capable of, but well… at the end he took the responsibility and fixed his mistake even though the price of that was losing his life.

 

I think that Jekyll and Hyde was an interesting book, however it was very predictable, and within the first chapter, when it was mentioned the doctor looked at Hyde in hatred, it was already evident there would be something wrong. It was confusing for me, about the little girl, when Hyde trampled over her, how did he do so? Obviously he was not in a car, mentioned they both ran/walked into each other, but wouldn’t the girl still have been big enough to not simply walk on? It was confusing for me, that part because he doesn’t try to trample over her, he does it, but he doesn’t try to do it, but how did he do it?

I think it was a confusing story, a lot of which because we don’t know a lot of pieces of the puzzle until later in the story, which we have to kind of go back to in the book to fit in place, it was sort of like the timeline was a little messed up, or maybe it was hard for me to understand. I also did not get how Hyde died, all I saw was Poole and Utterson open the door and Hyde was already dead, so maybe I missed a paragraph but otherwise, how would we know how he died?

A lot of this book raises questions out of me that it doesn’t answer itself, even in the end and that is kind of frustrating. A lot of people say this book represents Borderline-Personality Disorder, but what i understand more out of this is the fact that it was more of a guilt with himself, when you get raised a certain way to despise the other way, and when you begin to even think about the other way it disgusts you. I think it was more of a disgust with himself due to the way that religion was taught back then, how it was disgusting to even feel or think about things like alcohol, a lot of it was Jekyll trying to rid himself of these things, but I think some thoughts were if he died as himself together, he would go to hell for having that side, so he made a potion to split himself, I don’t think Jekyll even considers Hyde a part of him, whatever Hyde does as Hyde IS Hyde, whatever Jekyll does as Jekyll IS Jekyll, and in that sense he probably didn’t consider himself to be him, he thought that when split, if Jekyll and Hyde both die then Jekyll goes to heaven and Hyde goes to hell because they would no longer be the same person, right? It was more or less a hatred towards himself with a sense of guilt and confusion, Jekyll didn’t consider them the same person, simply because they no longer coexisted in the same body within the same time.

This book was more or less confusing unless we just talk about Hyde and Jekyll overall, that is which what i understood. However there is still many questions I could only wish for an answer to. It was a good book, but very predictable in a sense that I cannot explain.

“Our Town” is a very out of world and place play (literally), with a very extraordinary narrator, who narrates the play in a interesting manner of where he tells us what the future beholds at random spots in the story. Most would say, that for an interesting character would be one we have followed, like Ms. Webb, or Emily, or the aforementioned Narrator, but i would like to point out how Simon Stimson quite changed a lot, even for appearing very few times and late in the book, Simon Stimson changes quite well.

The first time we see Simon Stimson is during a choir practice, where they sing “Blessed be the tie that binds” in which he is partly drunk and directs the choir to be “softer” which then leads to a fit of him yelling at them in rage. we later learn that Simon Stimson is a raging alcoholic in the words of Mrs. Soames “To have the organist of the church drunk and drunk year after year.” and Mrs. Webb “Its getting better. i have been in that choir twice as long as you have.” suggesting that Simon Stimson, despite having a despisable alcoholic attitude now, was even worse back then. The next time we see Simon Stimson is when he walks out from the bar, but he doesn’t say or do anything too strange that tells us more than we know already, and so, skipping that scene we arrive at the graveyard in Act III. In act III we learn that Simon Stimson hung himself in an attic, suggesting that his alcoholism was probably a sort of grief or internal depression that soon sent him spiraling into a quick mess. Despite knowing this, in the graveyard Stimson seems to change, from when before he was a anger-induced alcoholic and now he seems to have a almost softer way of heart and more normal interaction with other characters. The first thing Simon Stimson said is “I am always uncomfortable when they’re around” but he does not say it in a disgusting matter, almost in a nonchalant way. when Mrs. Soames says that life was wonderful, Simon Stimson glances at her and gives a quick comment with “Wonderful, was it?” which could reference his life with alcoholism, but it almost felt a little quiet, like he did not mean it in a condescending or judgmental way, it felt like a simple question, to me at least. When Emily arrives as a dead soul, Simon Stimson is not bitter or sour or weird, he asks “How do you do, Emily.” in a firm manner, but never in a bite or bark. it really is a step up from the suffering and yelling, because now, although a little firm in words, he more or less seems content and reasonable. When Emily comes back from reliving a quick part of a day from the past, Simon Stimson talks about how she now knows about what it was like to be alive and human, to live in ignorance and waste time like you had immortality, and that was the happy existence one wants to go back to, ignorance and blindness. he seems almost a slight cruel with it, but he also seems more dreamful then ever, to have died and then realized, he should have taken that opportunity of life and got better, instead of being so ignorant, so blind to the world around him.

This book was good, but as of it not being in modern day words and vocabulary, it was hard to understand what some words meant, meaning when i guided myself on the book, it was hard to find the meaning of a sentence with the poetic kind of manners they speak, because not everyone, like me, has the patience to keep checking the paper for instructions on what certain words mean. it is very hard to keep track of, but other then that the book was good, although i always thought joseph was a little idiotic for telling his brothers, who are already slaves, that he had a dream of them being slaves to him.

In my personal opinion master and man was just not that astounding as I thought it would be. When I had came home when we first started reading master and man my parents had told me that it was a great story and that I’ll enjoy reading it, I in fact did not this story. Throughout the whole story Vasili was just a rude person with 0 respect for anyone around him but himself. Nikita was just there mainly because he was told to and also didn’t want Vasili to make any stupid decisions out in the cold by himself. That’s why the only character I liked was Mukhorty he was strong and honourable and pulled them everywhere they needed to go, at one point Nikita even let Mukhorty lead back on to the path! Mukhorty honestly didn’t deserve what happened to him he was the best character in that entire story and never gave any complaints, the way he died was just so heartbreaking to me.

Other than Mukhortys tragic death the main thing I didn’t like about this book was the fact that the beginning was a good introduction, then the middle dragged on for like the entire book and then when it came to the ending it just said “well like Nikita lived for 20 more years than died”. I was so confused on why Tolstoy would make the longest story then end it that way? Why not just kill of Nikita and then your ending can be short because they both just die I mean if you’re going to make one of them live I obviously want more of a detailed ending.

I mean I get the plot and I guess Tolstoys whole thing was to just write a tragedy, but I believe that this tragedy can happen in real life I mean it just takes some greedy guy and a loyal one!!

When I first got told we had to read this story I was sad, I did not want to read “Master and Man” because I thought it would be a boring book.

When I started reading it, I realized Vasili was not a good person and started to hate him a bit. He was selfish, and dishonest, and did not think about others at all. For me, his kind of behavior are frustrating and boring, and I don’t like this kind of person.

On the other hand, Nikita was very empathic, honest, and respectful. Most of the time I felt bad for him because he did a lot of things to help Vasili, even if those things didn’t benefit him at all, and Vasili did nothing but lie to him. I also understood how Nikita was feeling because at some points if my life I was like him, I gave everything to someone who did not contribute anything good to me.

I was surprised reading the book because I expected it to be boring but was not. Some parts of the books were hard to read because it goes by very slowly and becomes boring. For me, as it is written in a formal language, numerous words were difficult to understand.

While reading the book I was intrigued by what was going to happen next. I really liked the suspense that was going on throughout most of the story.

            The story somehow felt realistic, but some details seemed to be less likely to happen than others, yet they could happen in real life. For example, when Vasili decided to go in the night instead of staying the night, was less likely to happen, he probably would have stayed the night in real life.

            I think the story focuses too much on when they were lost in the snow; the main point is that they were lost in the snow in the middle of the night, but it still felt tiring reading a bunch of pages explaining how they were lost. I personally would have liked the story better if that part would have been shorter and less detailed.

            When Vasili died, I felt bad, not only for him but also because of his family; even if he was not the best person, he tried to get what made him happy and, in the end, that is the point of living. I felt even worse for Mukhorty because he did not deserve to die, he only was there because Vasili brought him there, he always did what he was asked to, and still, he died.

Even if I feel bad for Vasili dying, I feel happy that he gave his life for Nikita.

            I was surprised by the plot when Vasili drastically changes and gives his own life to save Nikita. I never would have expected it and I think that is the most important part of the book.

            This story could be considered both realistic and something more like a parable. Even if it is considered a realistic story, it has a teaching behind it. It teaches us that good people are put under difficult circumstances but in the worst times they are helped.

“Master and Man” by Leo Tolstoy was an interesting book to say the least, the way it reaches within the characters thoughts with just the description of their voice is kind of astonishing, actually. The story actually makes me think about how, against popular opinion, new flourished flowers get trampled on easily, that’s why every leaf and petal of any plant has brown spots, or tears, maybe its wilting too. It goes to show nothing is perfect and if we take that in a sense, you can see Nikita through a new lens, and in truth nothing is perfect, as how Nikita use to be drunkard, but now he’s healing and has become a better person. In a sense you can think of Vasili too, though selfish, at the end of the book he becomes a new flourished flower, only to die or get trampled on easily.

This book made me feel weird, there were a lot of ups and downs, how I felt upset at Vasili for being so mean and cruel but then to feel sorrow at the end after realizing he died when he had a change of soul. Nikita I felt bad most of the time, but when the barn scene came and he was kind of shooshing the dog away I felt a little bit angry at Nikita and bad for the dog, but maybe that’s because i’m just a dog person. At the end I felt kind of upset at Nikita for letting his wife get away with cheating and accepting her apology but then he died and I was a little happy because I realized, at least now everyone is at peace and their souls are free now. I had a lot of weird emotions, but ultimately I was happy with the end.