Fans Of Characters That Hate Vulnerability Will Be Like “i Cant Wait Until They Cry 😍 Cant Wait

A punk stops during a gay pride parade to allow a mesmerized child to touch his jacket spikes.

Okay seriously. Reblog if you're OLDER than 11.

None of this is coherent and I'm so sorry

Seeing as I don't know what my exam piece was supposed to be focused on, I shall instead make this ramble about something I've noticed, and loathe, about almost every adaptation of this story I've seen. And that, is the portrayal of Jekyll and Hyde.

For clarification: while I loathe the specific concept presented, I do not loathe the majority of the adaptations that use it. I enjoy the concepts and plots used, I enjoy the art and I generally enjoy the characters themselves.

The concept for this character that I loathe so deeply, is the idea that they are two separate, clashing personalities.

The general consensus is that Jekyll and Hyde are separate characters, separate identities. A prime example would be from a webcomic I am indeed fond of: The Glass Scientists by Sabrina Cotugno (or @arythusa ).

Hyde in this adaptation is shown as a strikingly different person to Jekyll. To the point where he can be barely recognized as the 'evil half' of Jekyll. My issue with this, is that it perpetuates the idea that Hyde is not Jekyll, that he is a different character all together, that he is a separate personality to the other.

Personally, I greatly disagree with this consensus. I believe that Jekyll and Hyde are one in the same, and that there is little to no separation. I loathe the idea of them being separate entities in one body because I feel as though it defies the nature of the character himself. They are not a shared conscience. It is the same mind, the same personality, the same character. Merely wearing a different face.

When a shapeshifter changes form, do you believe they are no longer the person they were moments before? When a person transitions are they suddenly a new personality? An entirely new character from what you used to know them as? No. And neither is Hyde.

The society at the time of Jekyll and Hyde was oppressive to those that were not upper class. Things that did not match their ideals were shunned and shamed. Get caught doing something your peers didn't approve of and there'd be a scandal. You'd be ruined.

Jekyll was one of the upper class, and so was held to higher standards. His desires were buried deep within himself. Until he created Hyde.

Hyde is not, as many perceive, the opposite of Jekyll. He is just all that is wrong with him. Hyde is all the desires and shameful feelings and actions that were shunned and hated. He is Jekyll's temper, his ill manner, his selfishness, his arrogance. He is unaffected by the social pressure to be perfect, as he is imperfection itself.

Hyde is, in essence, the truest version of Jekyll.

With that in mind, it is easy to assume that Jekyll then would be everything Hyde is not. That is only partly true. Jekyll bears the burden of being sociable, of being polite and kind, of being perfect. But he does not mind that. It is in Jekyll's nature to be good, because these desires that are seemed evil are locked away.

That does not mean he can't be selfish, that he can't have a temper. He shows this when he tells Utterson to drop the subject of the will, he snaps at him,he gets angry for a moment. He's rude, but does not look as though he takes glee from it.

Jekyll might be pressured into perfection, but that is not to say he loathes the slides of being respected for who he appears to be.

Jekyll is the truest version of Hyde. Someone who wants to be accepted for who he is.

They are not separate beings forced to take turns in one body. They are the same person. Jekyll wears the persona of Hyde to let go and distance himself from the uptight expectations of being upper class.

Hyde wears the persona of Jekyll to escape from the sin, to be praised for what he is, to step away from this freedom and experience no consequences for his actions.

It is only when Jekyll indulges himself too much in this euphoria of being able to do as he pleases, does the balance shift and Hyde demands more freedom.

This is not Hyde developing a personality. This is not them separating. It is merely the part of him, drunk on freedom, that desires more, that insists they should leave their perfect life behind for this sinful paradise devoid of consequence.

The other part longs for the calm, for the perfection and the praise. There are consequences, and the half that knows they will be affected by them wants to hide, to take it all back and shut away the shameful desires that he tried to tear away.

Jekyll's original intention was never to create these two personas. It was to take away all these sinful features. To create a separate entity so that they may live separate lives. But it failed. He instead created a new identity, but not a new personality.

Because there is no way to separate the things are seen as good and perfect, and the things that are shamed and shunned.

Without one, there cannot be the other.

They are the same person, because there was never any real separation. Jekyll created a mask and deluded himself into believing it wasn't him. But it was.

The polite face you put on in front of strangers, out in public, is not a fabrication. It is you, in your truest form, just as you being vulgar or acting in a way that would make others stare with disgust behind closed doors is equally you in your truest form.

There is no separation.

And so, to conclude, I do not hate any adaptation that uses the trope of them being separate minds and personalities. But I loathe the trope itself, I believe it takes away from the character that was never two, but one.

In my eyes this is not a story of two personalities, the evil triumphing over good.

It is a story of chaos and conformity and the delicate balance between them.

But this is merely opinion.

“Oh come on it can;t be that b-”

ah.

a gift from me 2 u ♡

Bill Nye for most of his career: Imma do science for kids. Science without politics. Nice, tame science for the kiddos.

Bill Nye now:

oh the misery

FUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCKKKKKKK

Can we just talk about how awful it is, that when you buy original lithographies of scientific (botanical) sketches from the beginning of the past century or older, they most likely have been ripped out original dictionaries that otherwise would've been in good condition? Most even have the page number on them, some also the name of the dictionary they belonged to.

Or that decorations with antique sewing machines probably ruined the actual antique machine? Victorian machines could sew through anything, were easily repairable and modern machines still cannot sew as tiny stitches as they could.

People's craving for "academic" decoration is literally ruining actual academic artefacts with knowledge, that's being more and more forgotten.

hi i'm horny all of them thanks

alive, dangerous game and bring on the men all have on thing in common