Also, in defense of Dickens…it’s true he wrote about character traits (physical traits, mannerisms, catchphrases) that both summed up a character and were repeated often (Uriah Heep’s hand-rubbing and “umbleness”, Rosa Dartle’s scar, and so on).
But one must remember that his longer works were serialized in magazines, month to month. Dickens repeated these particular character traits or catchphrases so a reader that was following along might easily remember who this character was and what his personality was like.
Not the same thing, is it? He’s reasoning backward. Not, “You’re ugly, so you have to be bad,” but “Your bad actions are making your soul ugly.” It’s a realization metaphor.
Something nearly everyone seems to get wrong when they make movies of Jekyll and Hyde: Hyde wasn’t ugly! He was daunting, and brusque, and coarse, and threatening, but it wasn’t a body thing.
Well, I can’t agree. “He’s a fat banker, so he’s evil” is, to me, the very essence of a lazy short-cut in writing.
(Watching Jurassic Park. The guy who mentions he’s a lawyer. We knew, right then, he was dino chow. Lazy writing.)
I’m not sure even I would say “always,” as a really good writer can break the rules in creative ways. But…how about “too damn often.”
I’ll go along with you there. It can be annoying and trite and overused. My point was that it can also be well-used and interesting (including variations and reversals, like Hunchback of Notre Dame.) I think that the examples I cited from the 1800s are similar to Dorian Grey: there was an underlying assumption that a corrupt, evil, or immoral life would leave visible “scars” of one form or another.
As I recall, he was actually described as a bit dashing, if a bit short. I recall the book mentioning him wooing women. The vibe I got from Hyde as the book described him was essentially that he was an asshole, but a charming and well put together asshole (with a bit of a temper). He was the jerkish, confident extrovert to mirror Jekyll’s quiet, kind introvert.