'If he be Mr. Hyde,' he had thought, 'I shall be Mr. Seek.'
A Tyler Galpin Character Analysis Text
This is in response to the “Tyler is Evil and Wyler is Flawed” thread on twitter/x, and a crosspost written by myself! (there were some clean up done, since it's SO much easier to edit on tumblr, but only in the sense for better comprehension)
Just thought I could take the dust from this blog after well... 5ish years? yeah, I'm kinda deep into Weyler again.
Shall we begin?
Suggested music: 12 to 12 by Sombr
On the matters of the book " The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde "
In the main thread, linked above, right at the beginning, there is an emphasis that the Hyde from the Wednesday TV show would be the same, or have the same origin, as the one in the book, in an attempt not only to inspire the writers of the series, but also as something fundamental that does not change from one work to another.
This does not hold up, especially since their origins are fundamentally different.
In the book, Mr. Hyde appears as all the bad parts of Dr. Jekyll, a renowned scientist in his field, as if he were the combination of all his worst characteristics in one person, who takes shape and can become corporeal when his good side is not dominant.
While some analyses may emphasize that Dr. Jekyll is a purely cruel, irredeemable being, or even that instead of seeking to create a cure for “his bad side” he only sought maliciously to create something that would bring it out in himself, I do not believe this wholeheartedly.
We see in the analyses and points of view in the books who Jekyll was to his closest friends, as well as to the people who worked in his residence, and from their point of view they would never describe him as a mad scientist or someone who sought to live for his own pleasures.
On the other hand, when we have Dr. Jekyll's perspective, what we see is a human and sincere view of himself, even if sometimes with a touch of grandeur (since he emphasizes that he is a genius in his area of expertise), but who also recognized in himself that he sought unsuitable things and had indulgences considered immoral by the society in which he lived, and that throughout his life he sought to let these desires flourish in the dark, which also reflects how Mr. Hyde has a younger appearance — for while not restrained in his actions, he is not as cultivated as the parts of Jekyll considered good in himself.
Thus, the main objective of the work is a critique of the period in which it was published: when appearance, economic power, and how one was seen through their actions were valued much more than who one really was and what one really thought (to the point of one deceivengs themselves)
Having said that, another interpretation that can be given to the work is that it is not possible to deny one's good or bad parts, as this type of attitude becomes self-destructive, which we can clearly see throughout the work, but especially in the last chapter of the book, where, no matter how much Dr. Jekyll wants to remain in the form that brings him the most comfort and to which he was accustomed, the temptation to continue as Mr. Hyde consumes him, causing the characteristics he has cultivated throughout his life to be lost in his alter ego.
In addition it brings the clear perception that no one is totally good or bad, this dichotomy being necessary for us to be genuinely real as we seek balance and do not allow ourselves to be consumed by the expectations imposed by society or by our capacity for evil as human beings.
Regarding the information we have about Hydes in Wednesday
“...Hyde in danger of his life was a creature new to me: shaken with inordinate anger, strung to the pitch of murder, lusting to inflict pain. Yet the creature was astute;” The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, p. 134.
Maintaining the line of reasoning that Mr. Hyde, as inspiration for the Hyde creature in Wednesday, is NOT the same thing and does not have the same principle, we need to establish what we know so far about this type of Outcast.
Hydes are genetically imparted, that is, from parents to children, as we have the situation where Tyler's mother, Françoise, was a Hyde and so is her son.
In the work, Mr. Hyde appears as an alter ego of Dr. Jekyll, but induced to reveal himself after years of attempts and experiments.
While it can be argued because of the chemical compounds used on Tyler by Laurel, they would have the “same origin,” Mr. Hyde was completely aware of his actions, as they stemmed from Dr. Jekyll's own will and desire, which could be expressed without restraint in his other face, whereas what we have in the series are records that when Hyde is awakened, and always through trauma, it becomes submissive to its master and, worse, when done through chemical induction, it causes mental confusion and memory loss on the subject, which leads to the conclusion:
While Dr. Jekyll could not imagine the consequences of his actions (being driven to suicide to stop Mr. Hyde), he chose to be indulgent in his desires, FULLY aware that he would have a refuge in his first persona and '' true self '', which had been carefully cultivated for decades for society.
Tyler, on the other hand, with a genetic condition he didn't know he had, after Hyde awakened in him, said in his own words that he woke up naked, covered in blood, and not knowing where he was.
He had no choice but to have his Hyde side in him.
There was no chance to choose to prioritize one side of himself or the other. There was conformity to a horrible situation to which he found himself subjugated, with little information about what it was and, as explained in the series through Laurel's notes, mental confusion, memory loss, and changes in his psyche, all during his formative years, as he is still a teenager.
Tyler is Evil and Wyler is Flawed
“…and now I was the common quarry of mankind, hunted, houseless, a known murderer, thrall to the gallows.” The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, p. 132.
Disliking the character and his arc/construction is different from denying his reality and the abuse he suffered on the show.
Tyler Galpin is a character who lost his mother very early, had a negligent father in the first season, is a troubled teenager, and was abused by an older woman. These are facts that we are told in the character's construction and are undeniable.
The question is, is Tyler evil?
Tyler and his then-friends destroyed Xavier's mural on Outreach Day, and he was sent to boot camp and weekly therapy. These are also facts.
Tyler, under the command of the same woman who traumatized him to the point of awakening the dormant Hyde in his blood, killed people, often without even knowing it, and when he woke up to it, he learned to accept it and, why not, take some pleasure in it, if it is his reality and that is unlikely to change?
Or even, considering what is currently known about what it takes to become a Hyde master, this acceptance we see in him in his statement at the police station (... And it was delicious) may well be just the distortion caused by being under someone's control and having his entire mind affected, which, at the same time, is no reason to dismiss his conformity to the situation.
However, it would be a huge disservice to deconstruct a three-dimensional character with nuances, past, present, and future in the series as just someone who is inherently “evil.”
It doesn't really bother me that people don't like him, but rather that there is a trivialization of characters simply because of a lack of interpretation, and the not taking into account that there is a reason why he was inserted into the series in relation to the main character, Wednesday Addams, as well as the other characters.
To say that Wyler/Weyler is flawed because the viewers did not intend to understand what they were watching is where the real flaw lies.
I'm not talking about preference between couples, I'm talking about literalness, understanding, and subjectivities and what that brings to the main character.
Tyler is the reason she stays in town, as her curiosity about the mystery monster in the woods and the deaths is piqued. Tyler is also the one who was willing to take her out of town as soon as they met, as it was also something he wanted to do, but found himself unable to. Tyler is the one who did not allow himself to be bought/bribed by her, thus also gaining some respect from Wednesday. Tyler is the one who awakens romantic interest in her for the first time. The one who did manipulate her, but who cannot be ignored while they are together, and within his limits considering the aforementioned facts, was always willing to help her (leaving it open to interpretation by the audience as to why).
The point is
Weyler cannot be considered flawed just because those who watch the show fail to understand that this is not a shallow, conflict-free relationship, but rather a game of interests with differing perspectives, in which Wednesday was considered the "king to be preserved until checkmate", while Tyler was just a mere pawn doing the dirty work for the one who believed to be the queen and that
this is indeed at odds with what morality dictates as appropriate in real life.
