Strange though it reads, Stevenson's title does not start with "The" though many later printings added it. It was first released as a "shilling novel", i.e. a cheap paperback, and certainly not novel length. It was almost immediately very popular, but because of the format it took a bit before critics took notice.

The structure of the story may frustrate modern readers who know the basic story from multiple movie and TV versions. The first half or more is set up like a mystery. Who is Mr. Hyde? What hold does he have over Dr. Jekyll. Why does the good doctor provide him housing ? Why has the doctor changed his will to leave everything to him? Why is everyone who meets Mr. Hyde immediately filled with disgust? And eventually, why did Mr. Hyde fly into a rage over some minor interaction and beat a man to death? Why does Dr. Jekyll then hide himself away? Why does his old friend Mr. Lanyon want nothing more to do with him? Since we know what is going on, it's easy to have a "get on with it" reaction to this lengthy section of the story.

After all this mystery has been set up, and events come to a climax, two documents are then presented to end the story, one from Mr. Lanyon who learned the truth, and then final story of how it all began from Dr. Jekyll.

The Norton Critical edition includes footnotes, a thematically related earlier story, Markheim, various reviews of the time, some essays by noted modern critics like Nabokov, and a discussion of how the story has been repurposed in plays and multiple movies, noting how the first major stage version added several elements used so often that it's surprising they are not in the original story. There are no women -- no fiance or bride for Dr. Jekyll, nor prostitutes for Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jekyll is not an innocent. He in fact always had his secret indiscretions. Mr. Hyde allowed him to indulge at a distance, in an important sense. He is rarely horrified by what Mr. Hyde does.

As a classic, and a short one at that, how could this not be recommended? ( )

Finally read story have heard of for years. No real surprises,

Just read this for maybe the 8th time, this time with my Victorian Lit class. For such a short novel (a novella, really), it presents an incredibly comprehensive image of some of the central anxieties of Victorian culture.

It's not much like the various films made from it in violence--there are only two murders in the book vs. some of the veritable blood baths that occur in the films. But the insight into internal conflicts and struggles, especially considering the Victorian concerns with belief, keeping up middle-class appearances, and science/religion controversy, is eye-opening.

One thing to keep in mind as you read is that the conflict is not between Jekyll-the-good and Hyde-the-evil, but between Hyde-the-all-evil and Jekyll-the-good-and-evil. Also, be aware of the subtext of whether one is one's brother's keeper. ( )

Delicious fiction; has much of the feel of a Conan-Doyle Sherlock Holmes story, with an added undercurrent of supernatural fright. Questions of human nature are put very directly, but without any attempt to provide direct or simple answers that disrespect the reader's intelligence. The characters--Utterson, Jeckyll, Hyde, Lanyon--are all quite memorably sketched. ( )

It has been noted as "one of the best guidebooks of the Victorian times because of its piercing description of the fundamental dichotomy of the 19th century outward respectability and inward lust" as it had a tendency for social hypocrisy. Victorian yes, but most people I know lead some kind of double life, some worse than others - the theme is a timeless observation of social morality.

See also the open source annotated version: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annotated_Strange_Case_Of_Dr_Jekyll_And_Mr_Hyd... ( )