I gotta say thinking about the ideas and messages of the book are much more fun than reading the book itself. I found the writing style and how the story was constructed to be rather tough to get through. A little frustrating at times when you know the length of the book.
The plot is built like a detective novel that was common around that time (think Sherlock Holmes). I wonder whether the story would work in a differently structured style as well and if that could convey the topics in a similar manner.
I guess Stevenson tried to marry the, at the time, hyped detective fiction with the changes in the scientific world and the ethics and morals that might get forgotton on the way for the sake of progress, money and prestige.
We have the voice of law and logic (Utterson) I guess the „detective“ who ends up finding out who did it and why & how things happened but without actively looking for it, science with morals (Lanyon) and one without (Jekyll).
Very interesting to compare to Frankenstein (which I read right before this): the decisions of the characters, the consequences, the influences of the authors, the writing style, the structure of the stories, the general mindset of that century etc.
Also much to discuss with other people.
