I’m re-reading my ‘Les Aventures de Tintin’ comic albums, and I’ve always found myself in the minority when I say that there is nothing baffling or ambiguous about Tintin. As a character, he has a definite moral compass; he just lacks the subtlety or substance when it comes to making a character feel realistic. He becomes bland, then. He’s almost flawless, be it in the field of intellect, skill, or virtue. I can only numerate one for what makes him, disputably, somewhat relatable, and this would be his inquisitiveness; thus, him getting into troublesome situations (for instance: the villains getting the upper-hand at first, with him getting shot on the head plenty of times. I think, this can only mean a lighthearted mockery, to give the audience suspense, and a balanced effect against circumstances revolving around our hero - in amiable terms, to make him look bad and less the mary stu that he arguably is), but then again, he’s often saved by some stroke of luck, and many times, the odds are in his favor. I grew to love Tintin for being the hero figure with a bounded set of ethic and principles. There’s nothing uncertain about him, and you feel secure. Besides, who would really settle for some reckless and imprudent chief hero? Sure, they may get you out of trouble, but they could lead you to your premature death for all we care. It’s awfully refreshing to have order and caution in the midst of tremulous world.  Almost all his adventures deal with realistic issues, but he will prevail over the villains in the end - make no mistake about it. That’s what I love about him and the series the most. A sort of escapism of the moral dilemma in a real-life locality - just too good to be true in our lives. At least, that’s how it feels to me. And of course, that he is a genuine character for children: the role model, no doubt, that can help shape their early outlook in life. Also, for the entertainment and adventure.

How can Jekyll & Hyde be about good versus evil, when Jekyll is uncertainly good and Hyde uncertainly evil (the guise of the animalistic prominence feels a hoax). Moreover, of course they aren’t two persons; they are dual personalities of the same person. I’m both unscientific and ill-poetic; however, I can’t simply adhere to the philosophy of many, especially, which is the core of the moral story. I personally think that Jekyll is just a mad man, ashamed of his faults, so as he despicably “[conceals] his pleasures and [stands] already committed to a profound duplicity of life.” He doesn’t stop here, but “[regards] them with an almost morbid sense of shame.” importantly, that it is “rather the exacting nature of [his] aspirations than any particular degradation in [his] faults that made [him] what he [is]…” this recites an only indecorous confession of his veridical nature: that shame of which his guilt is curtly invested on is not out of an authenticity for alteration, but to submerge conscience, living a double life. Hyde is the shady characteristic provided none alien to Jekyll. It is a person from the same man, only with depraved shame toward his pleasurable acts Jekyll himself admitted. Given his account, he’s not suspended from cognition of his original self and vise-versa, merely indifferent to the other: Hyde is barely a disguise to mask his notoriety. It’s not a horror story, either; it’s an experiment gone wrong. I’ve read worse. But it’s definitely gothic in all artistic proportions. I just don’t get how this is a study between good versus evil. And even if it were good AND evil, I can’t see that far, as for our Dr. Jekyll being uncertainly either of the two.

Vanity, curiosity, and hypocrisy. Are all what gave him to his own purpose. It is only a mask for him, in denying himself of his acceptance to his veridical nature. The last act is his retaliation to this, in final moments, perhaps, to give way to his hopelessness and to escape from the tragedy of his vain assets. To stab the painting, the mirror of his soul is a stroke of vanity, but could be acceptance to one’s fate as well. To destroy the corruption staying there is the initiative, but whether for what genuine reasons is Dorian Gray’s living ruin. However, the message is unaltered: The painting is restored to its original state, with the youthful and purity of beauty it once possessed, and the person being Dorian Gray is wrinkled, sickly, and ugly. Quintessentially, it is but a trial and the last moments are his movement of confession at last. In an idyllic sense, it could have been a climactic endeavor to save him from what would be his future: implacable, debauched with a depraved indifference to solemnity and conduct. He will entirely give himself away to evil. Dorian Gray got what he truly wanted in the end: his beauty back, and so much more. His life is never to be spoiled again by iniquities and failures. His sins are redressed. Or maybe not. But Wilde was a master storyteller. I loved the irony in this.