Edward Cullen Picks Up Where Dr. Jekyll Left Off
It was the curse of mankind that these incongruous [personalities—the good and the bad] were thus bound together—that in the agonized womb of consciousness, these polar twins should be continuously struggling.
- Dr. Jekyll
In my last post, I began a review of the book Twilight. Let’s continue.
[Spoiler warning] Edward Cullen is biologically oriented to favor the tempting blood of humans—tempting to vampires, that is. Once succumbing to this fleshly desire, attacking a human, a vampire goes into a nearly unstoppable frenzy devouring their prey. In almost all cases of vampire vs. their prey, it ends with the prey’s horrible death. To make this bad situation worse, vampires are only attracted to human blood.
Being aware that eating people is morally wrong, Carlisle Cullen (a human made vampire a long time ago) was very happy to lead a morally upstanding life before he became a monster. Carlisle believed that he wouldn’t be able to stop himself from killing people since he became a vampire, so he fled to the forest and attempted suicide many times. Ironically, Carlisle learned it’s not easy to kill a vampire….
Eventually, Carlisle was near starvation in his attempt of suicide. There in the forest, a gathering of deer passed by, and out of ravaging hunger, Carlisle attacked one of the animals and devoured it. He found, surprisingly, not only was the deer’s blood edible, it nourished him and sustained him. It wasn’t a great meal for a vampire, but a meal nonetheless (only eating animals for vampires is comparable to human equivalent eating a strict diet of tofu). Carlisle got the idea that if he could live off animals, then maybe he didn’t have to behave like a monster. Maybe Carlisle, as a vampire, could return to civilization and make use of his other vampire gifts (like immortal life) to be of service to humanity in a medical profession.
One thing led to another, and Carlisle found himself several years later saving the life of Edward Cullen from influenza. Carlisle had to turn Edward into a vampire to save him. Now that Edward was one of them, Carlisle taught Edward how to abstain from human blood in spite of the natural cravings. It wasn’t easy, but Edward learned….
What is the Nature of Man?
Edward Cullen's representation in the "Twilight" movie adaptation
What unfolds in the story Twilight with Edward and the vampires reminds me of the message in the non-fiction book The Deadliest Monster. In it, Jeff Baldwin makes a great parallel between mankind and the monster of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde monster. The story of Mr. Hyde comes from a very different worldview than that of most monster tales.
In The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Robert Louis Stevenson, intentionally or unintentionally, patterned his monster after the Biblical paradigm. It is especially clear with this case of a monster in literature. Examples like Frankenstein’s monster would be more consistent with humanism, and those types of monsters are more common in fiction. It would be beneficial for thinkers to learn how the monster Hyde is different from most others like Frankenstein.
A unique feature to Christianity is the idea man has two motivations in him at war: to do good and to do evil. The Bible maintains that man is a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness at all times. However, the Bible also claims that man cannot maintain righteousness—that he is basically corrupted by a dominant sin nature. Dr. Jekyll conveyed this idea in Stevenson’s book:
Hence, although I had now two characters as well as two appearances, one was wholly evil, and the other was still the old Henry Jekyll, that incongruous compound of whose reformation and improvement I had already learned to despair. The movement was thus wholly toward the worse.
So, other monster stories have a very different premise. Most of them boil down to sentiments similar to that found in the book Frankenstein. To quote the Frankenstein monster himself from the original novel:
I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous.
You might think, that can’t be right—Frankenstein was a terrible monster! That he was, but Frankenstein blamed the world around him for his faults rather than himself. He didn’t see that it was his own nature that chose to do terrible things. Doesn’t it make sense then that Frankenstein would be responsible for his own actions? That Frankenstein would be responsible for the sin he committed that was conceived in his heart?
Man’s monstrous nature is more like that of Jekyll/Hyde in reality. We want to do right, and we want to do wrong. We understand what the two are at odds in our essence from birth, but at any given moment we are controlled by the one or the other. Inevitably, the sinful nature—the monster within us—will win. There’s no man but our LORD that ever lived a truly righteous life—monsterless.
Which brings me back to the vampires of Twilight. It was refreshing to see monsters in a modern setting understanding and contemplating the moral ramifications of their lifestyles. I believe smart protagonists in most stories should consider the matter of their sinful nature, and how to thwart it. Some of our sinful indulgences are purely caused by our physical drives, and others purely psychological ones. In many ways, it is easy to relate to the struggle that Edward faces against his own sin nature.
While the example in Twilight isn’t a flaunted Christian worldview lesson, it does consistently reflect Christian ethics in this matter. Edward in the story acknowledges that vampires are “created” by the Maker of the universe just the way they are with their natural fleshly desires—and yet, this doesn’t give them the right to behave wickedly just because it’s natural for them. It’s asking a lot of a vampire to say such things and get the reader to believe it, as in the case in Twilight.
Like Edward’s inner conflict, mankind is rent with with a monster-esque drive to sin in all manners conceivable. It is encouraging, however, to see the protagonists in Twilight not dwell on the struggle, but on the rewards of living a pure lifestyle. Dying everyday to the monster within, those faithful reap unexpected blessings from the Founder and Creator of the moral law and the universe.
Abstinence?
On a totally different note on the book, one of the more popular virtues of the Twilight saga is the abstinence of sexual relations before marriage. This is commendable, but while this may relieve the consciences of parents when their children read the book, having read the book myself, I wouldn’t say that the story sends a message that abstaining is a good thing or a bad thing.
It’s really not explained from a moral/ethical perspective why the love interests abstain, so I don’t see this helping today’s youth make decisions in their own lives. It just so happens that the characters “abstain” all the way through (thank God for no physical intimacy between humans and vampires…).
Conclusion
There is much more I could say about this book, but I don’t want to reveal all the insights and leave you with nothing to discover yourself. Twilight is by no means a perfect story, or the most well-written of Stephenie Meyer’s books. But…
Would I recommend it? Yes. Twilight just needs to be scrutinized with a biblical worldview filter—like anything else. Don’t forget to put on your thinking cap when you read it, but by all means, you should be able to enjoy it as well.
PS: the movie is not as good. If you have to have one without the other, the book is several times better. Still, the movie provides visual aids for this post.
RSS - Posts
I’ve found that Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is unintentionally problematic when it comes to the depiction of human nature. You (and Baldwin) are right that the character of the creature is intended to reflect that man is born good and turned evil only by society. This is a reflection of Shelley’s Enlightenment philosophy straight out of Voltaire’s tabula rasa. There is no innate sin nature, but only societal influences.
However, Shelley unconsciously goes against this theory in the character of Victor Frankenstein. Born of a loving family, Frankenstein should by all accounts be “good.” Yet he speaks of an inward battle, a pull toward anger, despair, and self-absorption. Through this he sets himself up as God and creates life, for the sole purpose of controlling death. In the end, Victor Frankenstein is as much, if not more, of a monster as his creature. So Shelley refutes her argument of “man born good” unintentionally. One of those instances when Truth creeps in without the author’s knowing it.
I like those moments, and they usually happen—unintentionally—when authors write something good.
It’s really hard to escape what we know is right when God wrote it in our hearts from conception. Believe whatever you want in defiance, but somewhere in every person there is the original knowledge of how the world should really operate.
I also think that Shelley may have wrote Dr. Frankenstein’s character so that he would contrast the monster. While the Doc might have exemplified contradictions to the monster’s worldview, this isn’t to say that the Doc’s worldview is the one in the end of the story that is justified. Lots of stories hold multiple worldviews (if they’re worth reading or watching). But when it comes right down to it, one shall stand and the rest will fall when the storyteller finishes the work.
After her husband’s death, Shelley revised quite a bit of “Frankenstein,” toning down a lot of the humanist issues. Once she got away from Percy and his friends’ Enlightenment philosophy, she changed quite a bit (don’t think she actually became a Christian, but came a little more in line with it). Plus by then she was fairly far removed from her father. She had some weird parents….
Speaking of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I find it interesting that, even after he created the evil side of himself in Hyde, Dr. Jekyll still retained a sin nature. He was not (contrary to many cinematic depictions) completely good. A great message that one cannot rid oneself of sin. It will also be a part of you.
“…Dr. Jekyll still retained a sin nature….”
That’s very true. After all, Dr. Jekyll had to choose to let Mr. Hyde takeover him when Jekyll would drink the potion to transform into Hyde. I’ve often pondered this myself. Fascinating.