Introduction
The theory of evolution according to which humans descend from animals and inherit their key traits was first introduced by the English naturalist Charles Darwin and was met with a mixed response from the public. Since then, numerous debates have been rising around the problem of people and animals and the boundary that separates them. In fact, the principle question that has always concerned the society is whether a human being has any distinguishing qualities that make him different from animals. In other words, people keep searching for some evidence of their superiority, of something that might prove their specialty and uniqueness.
The Island of Dr. Moreau provides an unconventional answer to this eternal question. Wells’s anti-utopia offers the world where animals are unwillingly turned into humans and vice versa. The author shows how fine the line between the former and the latter is, although it does not essentially mean that it should be stepped over. The writer focuses on the nature of a human being, revealing it from an unexpected, even appalling side.
It is particularly curious how the island of Dr. Moreau turns into the most horrible place on the planet not because it is inhabited by the dangerous wild creatures but due to the evil will and uncontrolled imagination of the people that live there.
Thus, Wells tries to show that the only difference that exists between a human and an animal resides in the fact that people have a right to choose between being a person and a best. As it might be seen in the story, this choice is not always made in the favor of the former – the transformation of Dr. Moreau, in the course of his experiments, is much more shocking than the metamorphosis that his subjects underwent.
The Threat of the Half-Transformed Creatures
From the very first lines of the novel, Wells welcomes the readers to plunge into the atmosphere of surrealism, where animals and people exist together under artificial conditions in the environment that promises numerous threats though it is not clear where they come from. Thus, when the main character first meets his rescuer, Montgomery, their conversation is set against “the low angry growling of some large animal” (Wells 7). The reader immediately receives a feeling of anxiety and disturbance even though it is impossible to define its source yet. Unlike other stories that describe a well-known conflict between a man and nature where the former is expected to fight with some physical enemy whether it is a storm or a monster, here, the problem is much more complex.
From the very beginning, the author does not draw a distinct line between humans and animals; on the contrary, he puts a particular emphasis on their equivalence. It is particularly curious, that when the main character, along with the readers, finds out the ship is full of wild and dangerous animals he does not treat them as the source of the threat. The drunk and aggressive captain represents a greater concern than a dozen of grisly staghounds. Therefore, Wells, evidently, contributes a certain irony in the captain’s remark “This ship ain’t for beasts and cannibals, and worse than beasts, any more” (Wells 19).
Whatever paradoxical it might seem, the appalling impression is produced not by the animals but by those who seem to have stuck in the transformation process. Thus, the captain of the schooner behaves in such a manner that one can hardly apply a term “human” to him. Another character, Montgomery’s attendant, also makes the main character feel ill at ease. In this case, contrary to the captain’s one, the nervousness seems to be irrational, as the attendant does not express any aggressiveness at all.
As the reader later learns, the attendant is one of the experimental products of Dr. Moreau; thus, to a certain extent, the creature, as well as the captain, cannot be fully referred to a human or an animal. As a result, it is logical to assume that the author intends to show that the transition from one condition into another, whether it is from a man into an animal, or vice versa, is artificial, and the products of this transition produce an appalling effect.
The Prevalence of Instincts
Another critical aspect that Wells elucidates in the book is the problem of humans and the animals’ instincts taking over them. Thus, the author speculates upon the border that separates people from animals and the conditions under which this border can be possibly crossed. Unlike the followers of romanticism that appeal to high ideals and consistent moral principles, Wells relies on an utterly scientific approach admitting the fact that the reality imposes certain limits beyond which these ideals cease to exist.
Thus, the main character of the novel first faces an inhuman reaction when watching a fight between two sailors. Hence, Prendick recalls: “They sank like stones. I remember laughing at that, and wondering why I laughed. The laugh caught me suddenly like a thing from without” (Wells 5). Here, the man first realizes he is overwhelmed by an inexplicable feeling that due to the lack of reasonable grounding can be referred to an animal instinct rather than a human emotion.
It is necessary to note that the process of a man’s forfeiting the human nature is described in details which makes one think that the author is particularly interested in the relevant aspect. Thus, Wells puts an emphasis on the fact that the more challenges and physical discomfort one faces, the more distinctly animal instincts are experienced. Wells’s main character, Prendick, once states that “hunger and a lack of blood-corpuscles take all the manhood from a man” (Wells 20). Therefore, the author’s position in these terms becomes, to a certain extent, evident, and the readers have grounds to assume that it bases on the laws of physics rather than on ethical ideals.
Human Superiority
The central question of the novel resides in defining the principles, whether moral or ethical, that might serve to be a distinguishing trait of a human being, and it should be noted that the relevant problem is addressed in the novel in quite a specific manner. First and foremost, it is essential to analyze the so-called “moral code” of a Beast Folk – the product of the doctor’s experiments. As the reader might guess, the code is aimed at providing the key framework for a creature’s behavior so that it can resemble a man as much as possible.
However, a closer consideration of the rules included on the lists shows that the code, despite its name, the code has little to do with morality. Thus, the principle guidelines of this code imply the restrictions on the physical activities only – “not to go on all-fours” , “not to claw the bark on trees”, etc. (Wells 50). This code might provide some hint on the nature of Dr. Moreau’s failure – the professor did not take into account the ethical side of a human nature focusing, instead, on its physical aspects. As a result, his creatures would resemble human beings perfectly, although they would never be able to become humans in the full sense of the world.
There can be two possible explanations of this experimental flaw. On the one hand, it might be a casual mistake. In other words, Dr. Moreau could get so obsessed with the idea of turning animals into people that he focused on their appearance and accidentally overlooked the emotional aspect. However, such a theory would hardly stand any critics as the scientist is described as smart and cool minded man. Therefore, the reader might suggest that Dr. Moreau was so confident in humans’ superiority that he considered it impossible to make the animals adopt the humane morality and neglected this aspect intentionally.
Meanwhile, it would be unjust to accuse Dr. Moreau of emphasizing humans’ superiority, and overlook the prejudiced attitude towards animals in other characters. For example, the way Montgomery treats his attendant cannot be regarded as an attitude to an equal, although, the reader further learns that the man sympathizes and pities the experimental subjects (Wells 95). Nevertheless, despite all his warm feelings towards the creatures he is not ready to admit their equal positions.
From this perspective, the main character, Prensick, is also unwilling to agree on the fact that animals have similar rights for life as humans. Thus, for instance, during his discussion with Dr. Moreau, the man notes: “The only thing that could excuse vivisection to me would be some application” (Wells 63). With this statement, the author eliminates all the illusions the reader might have previously had concerning Prensick’s nature – despite the fact that he had already observed all the horrors of the experiments he is still ready to tolerate vivisection under particular conditions.
Morality and Ethics
At this point, the reader comes to the key problem of the book – the Wells’s interpretation of human nature. Some specialists believe that the author’s attitude towards this question might be analyzed through the moral and ethical principles the writer assigns to his character (Christensen 580). Therefore, the central dialogue between Dr. Moreau and the main character, Prensick provides some explanations of the author’s position.
This conversation is devoted to the debates around science and its moral framework and reveals a series of critical aspects. First and foremost, the reader learns that the doctor’s choice of a human being as a model was accidental (Wells 62). At this point, some delusions that one might have had about the author’s intention to describe a sole evaluation process disappear. It becomes evident that the novel is devoted to the problems of science and its borders rather than to the examination of the limits of evaluation.
In addition, the author reveals some insights on the moral principles of a scientist which seem to be critical for understanding the general vision of human nature in the framework of the novel. Thus, according to Dr. Moreau science and scientific experiments is free of either moral or ethical boundaries (Wells 62). From this perspective, his activity finds consistent reasoning. It is critical to note that the author received a large scope of critics for advancing such radical ideas in literature. Some scholars would blame him for imposing devolution ideas and discrediting the image of science (Pascale 49).
In the meantime, from a different standpoint, it might be assumed that the author’s initial intention was to illustrate the threats one is expected to meet unless the relevant limits are set. In other words, the characters described in the book, Dr. Moreau in particular, did not have any ethical boundaries to guide them through their activity. It should be noted that even the main character, Prensick would suffer from the horrible activities only because he could actually feel them physically – the terrible sounds of the puma’s screaming would seem to be particularly unbearable. In the meantime, he admits that he could put up with the idea of such experiments happened distantly (Wells 60).
Moreover, the author shows how a man, due to the lack of strict moral boundaries, tends to adjust his ethical code to the circumstances – Dr. Moreau justifies his cruelty by scientific aims, Prensick finds an excuse for killing Hyena-Swine assigning a sin to the creature (Wells 106). It is, then, particularly curious that the laws, which the main characters reject, help the creatures survive. Thus, one of the main concerns of Dr. Moreau was to make his subjects respect and obey the imposed rules.
Even though it was initially done to maintain the discipline and exercise power, the reader might notice that these laws, to a certain extent, were one of the few ways to survive for the transformed creates. Therefore, after the doctor’s death, they keep on existing relatively peacefully until the power of law weakens. In such a manner, Wells illustrates the critical similarity that might link humans and animals – they all need some framework for their existence; as long as this framework is ruined their lives take unexpected turns.
Conclusion
The novel under discussion is a fine example of an anti-utopia exposing the negative sides of human nature. Taking into account the fact that the book dates back to the nineteenth century its author might be justly called a skillful predictor as the problems he elucidated have become particularly acute in the modern century.
In his novel, Wells does not provide any ready-made answers to the eternal questions. Instead, he creates a surrealistic environment placing people and animals together and making them reveal their hidden sides in the course of the plot’s development. This unprejudiced position is one of the main benefits of the author’s style. Wells does not blame Dr. Moreau for his inhuman cruelty or Prensick for his mendacity but tries to find the reasoning for their actions and explain it in details to the readers enabling the latter to arrive at the verdict on their own.
The author shows that the fact that the line between animals and humans is very delicate does not mean that it should be crossed. His novel serves to be a warning and an appeal for reviving moral and ethical standards capable of an assuring essential guarantee that a man would never turn into a beast, and neither would it strike him to turn the latter into a human.
Works Cited
Christensen, Timothy. “The “Bestial Mark” of Race in The Island of Dr. Moreau.” Criticism 46.4 (2004): 575-595. Print.
Pascale, Krumm. “”The Island of Dr Moreau”, or the Case of Devolution.” Foundation 28.1 (1999): 1-51. Print.
Wells, Herbert George. The Island of Dr. Moreau, New York, New York: Garden City Publishing Company, 1896. Print.