#sir danvers carew

[faithtrickedhope]

jekyll who does not die at his wedding, but instead must deal with the fallout of it. utterson who understands that jekyll does no control hyde’s actions but is still, in a way, responsible for him. lisa who loves her husband, but struggles to look at him without seeing the face of the man who tried to kill her. sir danvers who cannot stand for any of this, and yet, cannot seem to get away from it either. hyde who is just so glad that he gets to keep living

[tenebris-lux]

Umm … Edward Hyde deliberately killed a man by whacking the guy over and over with a cane until it broke, even past the point the guy was dead, and he had fun doing it.

[see-arcane]

And as she so sat she became aware of an aged beautiful gentleman with white hair, drawing near along the lane; and advancing to meet him, another and very small gentleman, to whom at first she paid less attention. When they had come within speech (which was just under the maid’s eyes) the older man bowed and accosted the other with a very pretty manner of politeness. It did not seem as if the subject of his address were of great importance; indeed, from his pointing, it sometimes appeared as if he were only inquiring his way; but the moon shone on his face as he spoke, and the girl was pleased to watch it, it seemed to breathe such an innocent and old-world kindness of disposition, yet with something high too, as of a well-founded self-content. Presently her eye wandered to the other, and she was surprised to recognise in him a certain Mr. Hyde, who had once visited her master and for whom she had conceived a dislike. He had in his hand a heavy cane, with which he was trifling; but he answered never a word, and seemed to listen with an ill-contained impatience. And then all of a sudden he broke out in a great flame of anger, stamping with his foot, brandishing the cane, and carrying on (as the maid described it) like a madman.

This bit is sticking with me in a way it didn't last year.

We'll see Jekyll's explanation for what he says is the cause of Hyde committing this murder. Maybe he believes it, maybe he's guessing, maybe he'll somehow believe there's a last fig leaf that needs hiding behind, even in the wretched condition he'll be in by the time of his confession. But looking at the details of poor old Carew laid out like this, I think I can spy a shortcut to a pretty good reason without just his word on it:

Edward Hyde saw in Sir Danvers Carew everything that Dr. Henry Jekyll could only pretend to be.

At least he leaps to that assumption. This is a story in which the impression of someone's character is always somehow visible at a glance--dreary but beloved Utterson, jovial Lanyon, respected but sly Jekyll, loathsome Hyde, odious housekeeper, et cetera--and we're to take the maid's opinion at face value. Carew was a stately old pinnacle of natural politeness and kindness. Aged, distinguished, self-content.

The point of Hyde's existence is to let Jekyll hide. To wear his own worst impulses as an outer disguise, free of inhibition or blame. Repression as physical manifestation, because he's so certain of his need to distill himself into two selves, the better to keep Jekyll 'pristine'--at least as presented to the world. Now here's Carew. Carew, who seems to radiate an intrinsic goodness. Carew, a happy old man. Carew, who is serene, who is at peace with himself.

No need of a 'Hyde' for him.

No shame.

Nothing to bury or let run wild.

Carew, for as much as we and Hyde get to know him, is only himself. Good. Kind. Needing nothing but directions, if you could point him along, sir.

Another strike. Sir Danvers Carew bowing and smiling to a loathsome little nobody like Hyde. This, when surely he has to have been disgusted like anybody else with sense..! Hypocrite! Liar! Fraud!

I think it's that very sterling regard that broke the dam in Hyde and let out the flood of verbal bile and violence. Insults and bludgeoning and a great childish fit--the kind of senseless viciousness of someone desperately flinging mud at the proof that they are Wrong, they are Lesser, they will Never Be Up to the Level of the Person Before Them.

Worse, Carew looks hurt even before the first blow lands. Not angry, not shocked. Just hurt. A final proof-positive (in Hyde's eyes) that he is as untainted and innocent as he looks.

So down comes the cane.

Striking the old man the way someone else might smash a mirror in frustration.

[frankbeetle]

Gabriel utterson is a deer in the sense that he is always aware of danger (Hyde) but can’t tell when danger is looking right at him (Jekyll)

I’m not sure what animal to associate with Jekyll but I associate Hyde with coyotes, making carew a little old dog

Lanyon would be a big cat, likely a mountain lion. Why? I don’t really have a reasoning for that

[our-future-is-up-to-us-2]

Ok but on a serious note, I have so much to analyse/rant about with Jekyll and Hyde like it's so BRILLIANT and for what:

FYI: Only listened to the 1994 Gothic Thriller Album and thus call 'Emma' by 'Lisa' (and will only refer to her as Lisa, thank you very much <3)

ALRIGHT BUT- Take Me As I Am is the most beautiful romance song ever... Like they're swearing to each other and accepting each other and god they're the most beautiful couple ever.

And then: 'give me your hand, give me your heart!' 'swear to me, we'll never part!' THE FACT THAT LISA IS SO LOYAL TO JEKYLL. She is always by his side, she defends him against her own father in His Work And Nothing More and THEN Jekyll is the one to swear about never parting... But he dies anyway IN FRONT OF HER ON THEIR WEDDING DAY. Tragedy tragedy I'm not crying, you are...

Also about His Work And Nothing More... The overlap is so beautiful. Utterson worries about Jekyll and his work/sanity, Sir Danvers questions everything, Lisa defends Jekyll, and then JEKYLL FINALLY CALLS OUT TO LISA... aaaaaaa

Can I just say asw, the steampunk aesthetic in The World Has Gone Insane... It drives ME INSANE. How it works and blends the madness into something as methodical as like- Train tracks and machinery and work which is everything that Henry Jekyll is all about...

Honorary mention to: 'I see the reaper grinning at my door!' being such an iconic and creepy line for Hyde in that song.

I don't really care for Lucy all that much (sorry Lucy stans). I understand her plight and empathise with her but... Getting with Hyde... Or trying to... Just remember that he's a psycho PLS

Also I love how Hyde's evilness is rather subtle until 'Alive' and then you get the full extent of Jekyll's descent into madness + the murders later on and the whole take over situation... Ofc Confrontation is already iconic but now I understand it and it's brilliant... I think that's enough for today but have fun with that <33

[shyshyaaaaaa]

been cooking up some stuffff!

did a lot of rapid brainstorming for the murders of this au today, and had to get my thoughts onto paper. seeing as i want Lanyons death to be a climax of this story, its taking a lot more thinking than i thought it would at first and is still in the works😭 this is all a rough draft/idea so if some of it doesnt make sense, dont worry, i know. im working out the kinks as we speak 😭

[nik-the-bik]

For all the times I've read The Strange Case, and for all the questions the story leaves unanswered, the one that has always gnawed at me is -

What set Hyde off on Carew?

Hyde, to all appearances, is the only aggressor. Jekyll, in his typical form, is at least rational. Does taking the transformation drug really "intoxicate like wine" and make him so impulsive?

Carew is a well-known public figure. Jekyll hangs out in high society too. Did they know each other? Does Hyde recognize him? Or are they strangers?

We can guess why Hyde is out around midnight, but what is Carew doing wandering around that late alone? Where was he trying to go? And a man of his status out on foot?

Did Carew happen to mention that he was trying to send something to his lawyer on Gaunt Street?

It doesn't help that we only have one person's point of view - and while she seems to have a pretty consistent description of Hyde, how accurate is her portrayal of the kindly Carew in this interaction? She's "romantically given" after all.

A fog rolled over the city the night Carew was murdered, and the exact circumstances around the event are equally foggy.

[thatwildegirl]

Trailer of our school production of Jekyll and Hyde the musical

I'm in love with every second of it!

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by 2024高師大英劇公演 (@engdrama.nknu)

[deeply-unserious-fellow]

Jekyll and Hyde Velocipastor AU featuring Henry Jekyll as Doug the Velocipastor, Lanyon, Utterson AND Lucy as Carol(the hooker-doctor-lawyer) and Sir Danvers Carew as Father Stewart

[a-model-of-propriety]

Anyone else ever think about why the song "Letting Go" exists in the first place?

I mean, it's a part of the show from pretty much the beginning (i know for a fact it's in at least one of the '80s demos) and, despite undergoing significant rewrites over the years, it always remains a part of the show.

But... why?

Narratively, the song doesn't seem to do all that much. It gives us a glimpse into the dynamic between Lisa and Sir Danvers, but we don't really return to that dynamic very often throughout the rest of the show, so it doesn't seem like an integral enough part to survive cuts where other songs like "The World Has Gone Insane" get left behind.

And yet, the song inexplicably survives.

Though the song in its final form doesn't do much in the show, I see a couple ways that I think it could have become a masterstroke in storytelling.

First: In both the 1987 demo and the 1990 highlights album, I believe "Letting Go" is sung by Jekyll and Lisa. This made me consider an alternate version of the story where, instead of Lisa's "When you need me, if you need me, you know where I'll be" after "Once Upon a Dream", they break off the engagement because they have become so distant.

What if, in this hypothetical version of the show, they reprise "Letting Go" as they part? This song then becomes a gut-punch to the audience; though we know both Jekyll and Lisa adore each other, the time must always come to "let go" of the person you adore, even though it hurts.

(I will admit, this idea is heavily inspired by the song "Your Father's Eyes" in Frankenstein: A New Musical. I am adamant that that song only exists so that Victor can reprise it to the Creature at the end. The Danvers + Lisa "Letting Go" would serve a similar purpose in this: it exists solely so that it can be reprised in a far more emotionally devastating setting.)

Second: In the Broadway version, Sir Danvers sings the line "I think I would die if any harm should come to you." In the end, harm very nearly did come to Lisa/Emma. Hyde had her in his grasp! And yet, Danvers survives the tale to become a narrator, despite the fact that he is one of only two major deaths in the original story.

What if—in the musical—he didn't survive? What if that line was foreshadowing his death in the Wedding Reception? Say, for example, Hyde moves to grab Lisa and Danvers gets in his way, encouraging Hyde to send him off to follow Stride and the other Board members who got in Jekyll's way.

"Letting Go", then, signals to those in the audience that the writers know Danvers' fate in the book, reminding us that Danvers truly was doomed from the beginning.

TLDR: The song "Letting Go" doesn't serve much of a purpose in the current iteration of Jekyll & Hyde, but it has the potential to set up incredibly heart-wrenching moments later in the show if anyone is ever brave enough to do a proper revival.

[ghostmistdraws]

POV: You are Sir Danvers Carew

[tenebris-lux]

I’ve seen the headcanon here and there that Sir Danvers was a more guilty party than was let on and that there was possible justification for Hyde killing him, but I disagree with that. The most we have to go on for that is that we don’t know what the conversation between him and Hyde was; someone could insert anything into that.

But in his final Statement, Jekyll didn’t really give himself any justification for killing Sir Danvers aside from being stir-crazy with withdrawal. If Sir Danvers did say something shady, killing him would still be an overreaction on Hyde’s part, but there’d be that tiny justification in Hyde’s feelings of animosity. Yet even then, “feeling threatened” doesn’t justify beating someone up. However, that’s not the case.

The fact that Jekyll didn’t go into the scene in detail indicates that it wasn’t really important what they were talking about. It didn’t have to be Sir Danvers he ran into—it could’ve been anyone. What he says specifically about the scene is this:

“I was conscious, even when I took the draught, of a more unbridled, a more furious propensity to I’ll. It must have been this, I suppose, that stirred in my soul that tempest of impatience with which I listened to the civilities of my unhappy victim; I declare, at least, before God, no man morally sane could have been guilty of that crime upon so pitiful a provocation; and that I struck in no more reasonable spirit than that in which a sick child may break a plaything. But I had voluntarily stripped myself of all those balancing instincts, by which even the worst of us continues to walk with some degree of steadiness among temptations; in my case, to be tempted, however slightly, was to fall.”

So he was already itching to hurt someone, wound up real tight, and drowned out his senses of restraint and reason; and then this polite guy shows up and just starts chatting. Jekyll uses terms like “civilities” and “unhappy victim” to describe Sir Danvers, and those terms/phrases should tell us (if we had any doubts) that Sir Danvers was innocent. (“Unhappy” could also be synonymous with “unlucky”.)

Why was Sir Danvers delivering something to his lawyer at 11 at night, rather than during the day? No idea; it seems a little odd, but it’s hardly an indication that it was anything sinister.

Of course I am curious—about the unheard conversation between Sir Danvers and Edward, and the whole scene between Jekyll and Lanyon later—but only because I like the story that much, and world-building is fun. However, the book is written to circle specific themes, so all the tangential stuff was streamlined out. And the ambiguity makes the book even tastier.

It’s much more interesting to me if I just roll with the general impression that Sir Danvers was completely benign—it means Hyde is worse for having no justifiable reason for killing him. And his latent reactions as Jekyll are questionable as well. He doesn’t express much remorse for having killed someone, but rather relief that he now has a good excuse to stay “on the wagon.” He says he had “streaming tears of gratitude and remorse.” But was it remorse for having killed someone, like what you’d expect of most people? Or remorse that he couldn’t go out and play anymore because he had screwed up so badly?

I’m really, really happy that I can’t know for certain.

[hitchell-mope]

Fancast for a live action adaptation of the Jekyll & Hyde musical.

Henry Jekyll and Edward Hyde. Taron Egerton.

Lisa Carew. Samantha Barks.

Gabriel John Utterson. Daniel Radcliffe.

Lucy Harris. Jessie Buckley.

Sir Danvers Carew. Michael Ball

Simon Stride. Richard Fleeshman.

Lord Savage. Douglas Hodge

Bishop of Basingstoke. Robert Carlyle.

Lady Beaconsfield. Hannah Waddingham.

Sir Archibald Proops. Julian Bleach.

General Lord Glossop. Hugh Laurie.

[frankbeetle]

could u draw edward hyde in. five nights at freddys

WAS THAT THE MURDER OF 87’????

[reine-du-sourire]

Yo, what's up, peeps? It's the MC, DC, Sir Danvers Carew in the hizzy, and let me tell you, things have been wild lately. I mean, have you heard about this Hyde dude? He's like, totally cray cray.

I was chillin' in the streets the other day, just tryna keep it lowkey, when all of a sudden, this bro rolls up on me. At first, I was like, "Sup man, you good?" But then he starts gettin' all aggressive and stuff, and before I knew it, he straight up murked me! Like, what the actual heck, right?

I can't believe that Jekyll guy is mixed up in all of this. He always seemed like such a chill dude, but I guess you never know what people are really capable of. And don't even get me started on that crazy transformation he goes through. Like, who even does that?

Anyway, I'm just glad that the homies were able to spot Hyde before he could do any more damage. I mean, I know that Jekyll is probably going through some serious ish right now, but he brought this on himself by messin' with stuff that he shouldn't have been messin' with. It's like, bro, just stick to playing video games or something.

But yeah, rest in peace to your boy Sir Danvers. It's a shame that I had to go out like that, but hey, at least I went down as a boss. And who knows, maybe someday they'll make a movie about me or something. Aight, peace out, fam.

[k1ngrav]

thinking about the musical ver of jekyll & hyde and my headcanons of them. about how sir danvers would have been absolutely CRUSHED to see jekylls spiral and descent but HAD to be there to support his daughter through her grief versus jekyll. about how utterson was absolutely destroyed having to kill his bestfriend (and lover cough polycule gang) on a day that was supposed to be joyful and seeing the desperation in jekylls eyes and he begged him to kill him and end his misery. how in the book jekyll went to him (utterson) to write his will. how utterson intimately saw jekylls fall and felt helpless during it. how lisa felt tossed aside and desperately wanted to help her fiancé but also needed to stand firm in herself. bawling my eyeballs out as we speak.