Using the open-literature essay format, analyze how Utterson’s investigation of the connection between Jekyll and Hyde shapes the novel’s revelation of its central conflict. Explain how the contrast between his measured inquiry, Lanyon’s refusal to engage further, and Jekyll’s concealed life contributes to an interpretation of the novel’s treatment of knowledge and denial.
Practice adapted from: College Board · AP English Literature, 2025, Set 2 ↗ · Question 3, AP English Literature 2025 Set 2, open-literature task
In Robert Louis Stevenson’s *The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde*, the connection between the respectable Dr. Jekyll and the disturbing Mr. Hyde is not revealed through a single, immediate explanation. Instead, the reader approaches it through different responses to knowledge. Utterson investigates cautiously, Lanyon turns away after a shocking experience, and Jekyll eventually describes the concealed life that made their conflict possible. These contrasting responses suggest that the novel’s central conflict is not simply between two men, or even between good and evil, but within a person who tries to separate parts of himself and control what others can know. Utterson’s careful search makes the truth a gradual discovery; Lanyon’s refusal shows the cost of encountering it; and Jekyll’s account exposes denial as the condition that allowed his divided life to grow.
The will gives Utterson a concrete reason to investigate before he understands the nature of the connection. It states that, if Jekyll dies or disappears for more than three months, his possessions are to pass to Hyde. The arrangement is alarming because it gives a little-known figure an extraordinary claim over Jekyll’s life and property. Utterson’s response is measured: he treats the document as a problem to examine, rather than leaping to a supernatural explanation. That restraint shapes the reader’s experience. We encounter the mystery first as a troubling legal and social puzzle, and the unanswered questions invite us to share Utterson’s desire for a coherent account. His inquiry therefore does more than move the plot forward: it establishes a rational perspective whose limits become increasingly apparent.
In the margins Why this passage works +
“His inquiry therefore does more than move the plot forward: it establishes a rational perspective whose limits become increasingly apparent.”
This sentence connects Utterson’s actions to the reader’s experience and the essay’s larger claim, rather than stopping at plot summary.
The evidence Utterson gathers makes the connection seem both real and difficult to interpret. Jekyll’s first transformation reveals Hyde as smaller and slighter than Jekyll. The difference in their bodies might seem to support the idea that Hyde is a separate, lesser being, but it does not explain why Jekyll’s will gives Hyde power over his possessions. Likewise, Hyde’s cruelty to a child leads him to pay the family with a cheque in Jekyll’s name. The payment ties the two men together in a practical, visible way, even as their identities appear opposed. Each clue sharpens the question without resolving it. Stevenson thus makes investigation a process of accumulating contradictions: Hyde seems separate from Jekyll, yet Jekyll’s resources and arrangements sustain him.
Utterson’s caution also distinguishes him from a detective who can simply collect enough clues and close a case. The murder of Sir Danvers Carew turns the mystery into a grave public crime, but the existence of a case does not by itself reveal the deeper relation between Jekyll and Hyde. Utterson can follow evidence and seek explanations, yet his ordinary assumptions remain inadequate to the truth he is approaching. This gap matters because it shows that the novel does not treat knowledge as merely a matter of diligence. Utterson’s patient inquiry is morally serious, but the concealed conflict is embedded in Jekyll’s own life. The reader can value Utterson’s method while recognizing that the truth depends on a disclosure he cannot produce by investigation alone.
Lanyon’s response offers a stark alternative. After a shocking experience, he refuses to see or hear anything more about Jekyll. His refusal is not the same as Utterson’s measured uncertainty: Utterson continues to seek understanding, while Lanyon treats further knowledge as something he cannot bear to encounter. The contrast makes the consequences of revelation more complex. The novel does not present knowing the truth as an uncomplicated triumph, because Lanyon’s reaction suggests that knowledge can shatter the framework through which a person understands the world. Yet his withdrawal also leaves the mystery unresolved for Utterson and the reader. Denial may offer temporary protection, but it cannot repair the relationship or explain the evidence already in view.
In the margins Why this passage works +
“Denial may offer temporary protection, but it cannot repair the relationship or explain the evidence already in view.”
The sentence qualifies the interpretation of Lanyon’s refusal: withdrawal can be understandable without being a solution.
Jekyll’s own explanation finally shifts the question from what Hyde is to why Jekyll has made room for him. Jekyll admits that he concealed his pleasures and describes the result as a “profound duplicity of life.” That phrase identifies concealment not as a minor habit but as the structure of his existence. The will, the cheque in his name, and the stark difference between Jekyll and Hyde can now be understood as parts of a life Jekyll has tried to divide while remaining responsible for both sides. His confession complicates any simple division between respectable Jekyll and wicked Hyde: Jekyll’s secrecy helps create the conditions in which Hyde can act. The final disclosure therefore answers Utterson’s central question while implicating Jekyll in the very separation he once treated as manageable.
In the margins Why this passage works +
“His confession complicates any simple division between respectable Jekyll and wicked Hyde: Jekyll’s secrecy helps create the conditions in which Hyde can act.”
This is the essay’s interpretive turn. It uses Jekyll’s confession to make the conflict internal and to connect concealment with responsibility.
Taken together, the three responses form Stevenson’s argument about knowledge and denial. Utterson’s investigation shows the value and insufficiency of rational inquiry: it brings the reader close to the truth, but cannot force a concealed person to reveal himself. Lanyon’s refusal shows that confronting the truth may carry a psychological cost, although retreat leaves the underlying reality untouched. Jekyll’s retrospective account reveals the deepest danger: by hiding his desires and treating them as separable from his public identity, he mistakes secrecy for control. The novel’s revelation is therefore not simply that Jekyll and Hyde are connected. It is that the connection has been sustained by Jekyll’s choices. Knowledge exposes that responsibility, while denial delays its recognition and allows the divided life to persist.
Why this analysis works
The thesis answers the full prompt by making a claim about the novel’s treatment of knowledge and denial, then assigning each character a distinct role in developing it. The essay moves from Utterson’s initial evidence to the complications it creates, contrasts his inquiry with Lanyon’s refusal, and uses Jekyll’s confession to reinterpret the earlier clues. In each body paragraph, the evidence is followed by an explanation of its significance: the will creates a puzzle, the cheque connects apparently separate lives, and Jekyll’s description of concealment identifies the cause of the division. To adapt this structure, make each paragraph advance the thesis rather than merely recounting a scene.
The revision, explained
Utterson investigates the will, and Lanyon refuses to talk about Jekyll. Jekyll says he hid his pleasures. These things show the conflict between knowledge and denial.
Utterson’s inquiry makes the will a puzzle whose clues connect Jekyll to Hyde without explaining their relationship; Lanyon’s refusal shows the cost of confronting what Utterson still seeks to understand; and Jekyll’s admission that he concealed his pleasures reveals denial as part of the cause of their divided life.
The revision replaces a list of plot points with a line of reasoning. It distinguishes the characters’ responses, explains what each contributes, and links them to an interpretation of the central conflict.
Try the idea.
Write a thesis and a three-sentence paragraph plan for an essay on knowledge and denial in *Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde*. Your plan must use one detail associated with Utterson, one with Lanyon, and one with Jekyll, and explain how each detail advances the thesis.
See the self-check +
A strong response makes a debatable claim about the novel’s treatment of knowledge and denial rather than only naming its characters. Its plan explains how Utterson’s measured inquiry creates a gradual mystery, how Lanyon’s refusal represents the cost of revelation, and how Jekyll’s concealed life connects denial to the divided conflict. Each planned paragraph should say what its evidence demonstrates, not merely list an event.
Sources and evidence
- Robert Louis Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde · Project Gutenberg