“The Replacement” and The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, both explore the doppelganger as multiple facets of a single personality separated (as opposed to the two interrelated personas in “The Transformation” and “Doppelgangland”). The works suggest that people are made up of many, many different entities—E Pluribus Unum, from many, one. From what I remember studying in psyche, real science is pointing to similar results… or it may have just been a Reader’s Digest article… either way it makes sense.
The Doppleganger is just an overt way of showing this dichotomy. (Gothic conventions use a lot of dichotomy – two opposites that can’t exist without each other and so make one thing—in case you haven’t noticed yet….) Many other devices of the Gothic can explore this same idea—the nature of the soul, fear and overcoming it, the general gray of characters (ex. pity the villain [i.e. Dracula], condemn the hero [i. e. fallen Mina]), and others.
So what do we gain from this device? Another way to fear ourselves, for sure. (Which in turn, is another fear to face.) And how do the two different varieties of doppelgangers we’ve seen change or flavor whatever it is we gain? Any takers?
The Doppleganger is just an overt way of showing this dichotomy. (Gothic conventions use a lot of dichotomy – two opposites that can’t exist without each other and so make one thing—in case you haven’t noticed yet….) Many other devices of the Gothic can explore this same idea—the nature of the soul, fear and overcoming it, the general gray of characters (ex. pity the villain [i.e. Dracula], condemn the hero [i. e. fallen Mina]), and others.
So what do we gain from this device? Another way to fear ourselves, for sure. (Which in turn, is another fear to face.) And how do the two different varieties of doppelgangers we’ve seen change or flavor whatever it is we gain? Any takers?
It’s certainly seemed, most of the time, to allow the “human” who is doppled to step back from him/her-self and acknowledge, notice, or accept who he/she is. Yet Jekyll seems to have done that in reverse—he recognized his different aspects, and then created a double (granted, he seemed to be hoping for the chance that his double would be the all-good part). His story doesn’t end as happy as Willow’s, Xander’s, and Guido’s; a tragic inversion: and still were one to ascribe morals to these four works, they would be markedly similar.
Despite the similarity, there is a spectrum: from “The Transformation,” where Guido is encouraged to get rid of his evil side, to Dr, Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, where Jekyll tries to separate his evil side. As I reader, I ended up discovering it were better to have exercised one’s “Hyde” normally; not to rid myself of my bad inclinations, but to accept and use them responsibly. This spectrum seems to be a natural progression—and I must say I find the latter idea, while initially against my sensibilities, to be the more appealing one. I wouldn’t describe myself as bad for it, though—and I suppose that is the beauty of what we can gain from the doppleganger.
Despite the similarity, there is a spectrum: from “The Transformation,” where Guido is encouraged to get rid of his evil side, to Dr, Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, where Jekyll tries to separate his evil side. As I reader, I ended up discovering it were better to have exercised one’s “Hyde” normally; not to rid myself of my bad inclinations, but to accept and use them responsibly. This spectrum seems to be a natural progression—and I must say I find the latter idea, while initially against my sensibilities, to be the more appealing one. I wouldn’t describe myself as bad for it, though—and I suppose that is the beauty of what we can gain from the doppleganger.
No comments:
Post a Comment