This might not be an entirely faulty perception. Wilde was, I think, aiming for plausible deniability. To hide the homoeroticism amidst the pretense of merely intense platonic love. Because in that time such expressions were often permissible.

I've seen the theory phrased a few ways but here's one take. In sufficiently homophobic societies, the possibility that a man doing something we would perceive as homoerotic, is himself gay, is close to zero. Because no one would ever risk exposure. And so expression of non-sexual intimacies we would see as gay are not perceived as gay in those societies.

We see this shift in the recent literary tendency to "queer" platonic male relationships in historical literature. To use a slightly absurd example: are Sam and Frodo in the Lord of the Rings gay? It has been argued by some. (Put "Are Sam and Frodo" into Google and see what pops up on autocomplete to finish that question!)

I think it is the romantic (in the 19th century Wagnerian sense) and conservative worldview of Tolkien in action: the nature of the relationship is that of comrades-in-arms. And in that context certain intimacies that would be intolerable are otherwise not. That is why Sam says that he loves Frodo.

Another example the modern audience often just can't get over, is men who used to sleep together. In the most literal sense of the word. Platonic bed mates. Some guys did this even when other beds were available. Maybe they were cold. But maybe they were just lonely? if some women put on pajamas and have a movie-watching slumber party they probably won't get called lesbians. But men must tread carefully today at least in America for that kind of thing. There is just some mental block in our society with that kind of intimacy between two men. But perhaps not back then. (Or maybe Abraham Lincoln really was gay. But I kind of doubt it.)

Wilde is right on the transition point when it started to be conceivable that a man is actually a self-identifying homosexual and that male intimacy might therefore be coded as homosexual. He played with that ambiguity. And in his case, got burned.

I read it for the first time in my early 20s, and reason I read it was because when I was about 11 years old I saw an old black and white movie of it, and I had nightmares for quite some time (over the ending/fire).

It wasn't the only film to give me nightmares as a child, but it was definitely the first!

For me it is one of those books I re-read every few years, along with LotR, Amber chronicles, the Dune series, etc.

The original inspiration for it was Stevenson hearing about respectable pillar of Edinburgh society, William Brodie, being caught as a burglar, stealing to repay his gambling debts. Your social capital in Victorian Britain was based around your outward appearance of respectability and had to be defended to the utmost. If you were outed as a criminal, or as a homosexual, you'd lose every shred of privilege and position.

With that in mind, you can imagine the duality of Dr Jekyll trying to maintain his good standing while licentious Mr Hyde wants to engage in hijinks?

One such reading of the novella: https://sci-hub.st/10.1525/lal.2012.24.1.21

Turing even more, as by 1950, the society was much less religious overall and there was less reason to keep homosexuality illegal.

Goes to show that some themes of the human condition can be appreciated without being on the nose.

It restores parts that were cut, and essentially bans chapter 3 and some other digressions on art history that Wilde added as a literary Beard to the footnotes - still there to read, but set in context)

It's not a huge different honestly, but I believe Oscar Wilde would want you to read that version.

It